UKC

As no doubt he will be given the chance to go there when he should be thrown in the stocks instead.
He was supposed to be the saviour of the country because of improving the economy. Now he's screwed the economy far more than was otherwise going to be the case, by his stupid idea that he could call his right wing back bencher's bluff by holding the referendum.

In reply to veteye:



"Saving the economy" was always a fudge at best.

In reply to veteye:

Hang on. Surely it was the population who voted for leave who are also to blame if there is some kind of economic impact? Cameron is not solely responsible. I'm not a big fan but he made the promise to hold the referendum because he believed that would win votes from people who would otherwise have voted UKIP. Would more UKIP MPs have been a better outcome?

In reply to veteye:

The Conservative party put it in their manifesto, the electorate voted in the Tories with the largest number of MP's taken across the whole of the UK. The whole of the UK was allowed to vote in what the world would consider to be one of the least corrupt election processes and the UK electorate voted out. Why is it his fault?

In reply to veteye:

Surely having someone with his political nous in the Lords would be better than say, the Archbishop of Canterbury, or any of the 26 "Lords Spiritual"?

In reply to veteye:


His economic policy has been an absolute disaster.

In reply to Donald82:


Still doing better than the EU average, so he is far from the worst, everything is perhaps relative. Most of southern Europe and much of Northern Europe would love to have the UK's current economic situation.

You can't declare it a disaster unless you have a parallel economy running, following different policies to prove it could have been better. The economy is what it is.

In reply to stubbed:


Yes. His party's winning of a majority is of vanishingly small historic significance compared to leaving the European Union and the consequences of that. Leaving the EU to get rid of UKIP is massively too high a price to pay. Now, the rich will be well-insulated from the consequences of Brexit, those who felt like they had nothing will still feel they have nothing (although in reality the swingeing austerity that's sure to follow always chews up those at the bottom most), and all those "hard working families" that politicians love to praise to the high heavens are about to take a massive one in the shitter.

He shouldn't be made a Lord, he should be made a Dunce, and have to sit in the corner of the lords wearing a silly hat.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

But enough seats for UKIP and we would have left the EU anyway, as that was one of their policies...

Those who felt they had nothing, as you said, had the same votes to cast as those who are insulated from the impact. It almost sounds as if you think this referendum result was forced onto everyone - but we all had a hand in it.

In reply to summo:

We've been through this before, can't be botghered to go through it again. I note though, that your two points contradict each other. The first one suggests that certain other countries can be used as a kind of counter factual with which to judge our economic performance, while the second suggests that as you can never prove the counter factual, you can never make any judgement about economic performance. To top it all off, as well as being contradictory, both points are silly. It's perfectly possible and sensible to make reasonable judgements about the success or otherwise of economic policies, but in this case comparisson with the EU's economic performace is not a sensible way to make such a judgement...

In reply to veteye:

If Cameron had been a lawyer , he would have known not to ask a question that you don't already know the answer to.
(and now he knows why they say that)

Anyway, he has managed to get some good news this week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36763212

In reply to veteye:

I guess that we can all ignore the democratic process that lead us to where we are as long as we find a convenient scapegoat?

In reply to Big Ger:


+1

In reply to veteye:

I'd vote to abolish the Lords, but if we are going to have it, a former Prime Minister, even one I personally don't have much time for, would seem towards the more sensible end of the spectrum of appointments.

In reply to Donald82:

I disagree, whilst every country is different and unique in some respects, the EU has 27 other nations all following roughly the same guidelines etc... the Non-euro nations with more freedom. All the non-Euro nations are doing better than the EU average, but the UK is doing well comparatively to some of them too. It also doesn't mean the UK could not be doing better had it followed an anti austerity route, but it's hardly suffered like some countries by taking it's present course. There were and still are many deep seated problems in the UK and all of them aren't fixed, nor might they ever be.

To turn it on it's head, is there another country, comparable to the UK, that has followed anti austerity since 2007/8 and faired better than the UK?

In reply to summo:


There's been a clear negative relationship between fiscal consolidation and growth.

As above, not to bothered about going through this again with you. I just wanted to point out that your last comment was contradictory and silly. Continue with your belief that doing better than the EU average is good if youi must (although the reasons why it's a silly idea are actually in your last comment).

In reply to veteye:


What a silly idea. On the basis of "lots of people think he/she was crap, which appears to be your rationale, then no PM would ever enter the Lords. If that is your point then make it, don't personalise it.

In reply to Donald82:

so what you are actually saying that you can't name any country that post 2007/8 followed anti austerity policy and is fairing better than the UK?

In reply to timjones:


I think you have a point. Rather to my own surprise I'm quite sympathetic to mess Cameron has found himself in.

He was constantly harrassed by the right of his party who prevented him from adopting his natural, rather pro-European position. It was also quite hard to counter their arguments that the EU was fundamentally undemocratic (which, of course, it isn't) by refusing their demands for a referendum. He truly believed that such a referendum would easily be won, and he needed a manifesto that would ensure a clear majority so that he could escape coalition politics (never understanding that this was far from the worst that could happen).

Of course, this all proved to be a miscalculation but it wasn't intrinsically badly motivated. And those who have a visceral dislike of him just because of his intention of balancing our budget may be about to discover how comparatively liberal he was.

I am uncomfortable with the rise of the posh boys and I refuse to believe that having such a high proportion of old Etonians involved in policy making can possibly be justified, it seems to me a really retrograde step, but I don't think that Cameron is close to being the worst senior politician around, nor even the most objectionable Tory. He took a massive gamble but I have a clear impression that it wasn't taken for his personal benefit (he had already made clear he wouldn't serve a third term) nor even just the good of the Conservative party - he just felt that it was well past time that we dealt with 'Europe' issue and the dinosaurs on the back benches, so we could move on.

Very sadly, the dinosaurs got their way. That probably makes Cameron a poor politician ultimately, but there are worse things to be accused of.

In reply to summo:

I wasn't saying that.

The US, for example, has done less austerity and has had better growth but that doesn't really tell us much (just as comparisson with the European average doesn't tell us much). What I am saying is that there's been a clear neagtive correlatioon between fiscal consolidation and growth, which is relevant to assessing how sensible Tory economic policy was.

As above, we've been through all this before. (You're about to say correlation is not causation, maybe it's because countries with more fiscal consolidation were in a worse state etc. and so on....)

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:



But wasn't it the poor, those "least well educated" who have limited prospect, the ones who voted overwhelmingly for Brexit? Turkeys and Christmas spring to mind. That's not Cameron's fault.

And is austerity really that bad? That's like someone constantly borrowing on a credit card because then they can "have growth" (of stuff) and it being bad for someone to tell them that they should really cut back on all that borrowing!

In reply to summo:

So you can't declare it a success either, by that logic

EDIT- Although in fairness you didn't make such a claim.

Rampant inequality, increasing poverty and the necessity to cut welfare budgets and sell off national institutions to meet economic targets strongly suggest it wasn't being managed brilliantly.

In reply to Donald82:


Why do you suppose anyone gives a stuff what your view of Cameron is? Its become perfectly obvious that your political rationale is that all Tories are c*nts (that's taken directly from one of your recent posts), indeed anyone you disagree with is probably a c*nt.
Faced with bigotry of that magnitude your opinion is frankly worthless.

In reply to pec:

I do indeed think the Tories (PP) are mostly c*nts but this follows from my opinions on their economic policy, which are fairly well informed, rather than the other way round. I certainly don't think everyone who disagrees with me is a c*nt though, and I don't think everyone who voted leave is a c*nt, a racist, a bigot or stupid. Neither everyone that votes Tory. I even have Tory voting friends and family (although not many admittedly).

On the other hand, you do seem to think that anyone who mentions the racism of the leave campaign is calling all leavers racist, which is just a bit silly really.

In reply to Donald82:

I'd say the biggest boost to the usa was lower energy costs through widespread fracking and shale oil extraction at a time when oil was $100+, they still had qe etc.

In reply to veteye:

Yes. I would vote against.
He is no Lord over me and doesn't have the right to be so solely because he had a fortunate upbringing and a lot of wealth.
He has no social conscience and is estranged from the reality that most live in. I wouldn't want him voting on matters that affect the wellbeing of the majority of the country. He has shown bad judgement in the recent past.

In reply to Donald82:


Describing people as c*nts is about as offensive as it gets, to hold such a blanket opinion on 350 people based soley on their economic policy, which incidentally 56 Liberals also subscribed to during the coalition and which quite clearly has been more successful than many other European countries, indicates a stunning level of bigotry and suggests that you're not really someone with whom its possible to have a rational debate.


You seemed to be going out of your way to create that impression in the wake of the referendum result.

In reply to summo:

Okay..

In reply to pec:

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Tories pretended cuts were a necessary, when in fact they new they were economically damaging but they did it anyway for ideological reasons as they new the British public wouldn't vote for cuts otherwise. If that were the case, would you agree it would be okay to call them c*nts?

In reply to pec:

ps you and many others seemed to be going out of your way to turn a blind eye to the racism of the leave campaign. But lets not get into that again, least you get angry and start showing off that you know the dictionary definition of bigot again.

In reply to Donald82:


No, its never acceptable to describe people as c*nts simply because you disagree with their politics, its utterly infantile, thoroughly despicable and it says far more about you than it does about them.

In reply to pec:

What about the politics of apartheid? Of divide and rule along tribal grounds used by the British in Africa (which has been copied by dictators to devastating effect ever since), and of teaching people of certain races a second rate education so that they can be more easily subjugated?

In reply to pec:

Well if you think lying to pretend that cuts are economically necessary when they know they're actually economically damaging is the stuff of civilised political disagreement, then I guess we've found a point on which we can agree to disagree. I think that's thoroughly c*ntish behaviour and should be called as such. You think it's a reasonable political difference. Seems a strange stance to me, paticualrly when you get so exercised about swearing.... typically British perhaps!

In reply to Donald82:

I think what David Cameron said about 'no top down reorganisation of the NHS' when he was wanting to get into power, before doing the opposite of what he promised, means he deserves the name whatever political party he happens to be a member off, personally.

I think to lie like that is a terrible thing, and doesn't help democracy.

In reply to Timmd:


Just polticial differences, mate

In reply to veteye:

Sadly no one's going to ask our opinion. Cameron will his peeridge.

In reply to Timmd:


Nah, just good clean political fun and games that. You say potato, I say just kiddin' about the tax credits, we'll need to cut those too.

In reply to veteye:

Thank you all who replied.
I have only just had time to read the thread and it has moved on a little.
I certainly think that we should move on again from using the C word as it only incites ill-feeling across the divide.

In reply to veteye:
Conservative?

( note; my step mum is a Conservative )

In reply to summo:


Many voters like me were stuck with the business that the continuation of somewhat constrained handling of the economy(which I preferred to the idea of Labour handling the economy without much obvious planning, and with a very likely severe downturn) was conjoined with this idea of having a referendum(which I never wanted as it seemed to be aimed at shutting the hoorah Henrys up in an ill-thought out way). I chose to vote for a continuation of the Tory plan for the economy.
It is Cameron's fault as he rushed into the referendum, as he was scared that he was likely to be made a lame duck by his back benchers on the right if he did not run the referendum soon. He did not take enough time planning how he would deal with the process of going to the people. He put no constraints on how the vote would or would not trigger any changes(he put no parameters for triggering a leaving of the EU). He did not properly consider making it a compulsory vote for all those of voting age. He did not plan a joint strategy with other politicians, normally of different parties and persuasions, and he did not plan for the event of the out vote winning. That is why it is his fault.

In reply to veteye:
I couldn't agree more about how badly Cameron handled things.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Your assessment is clearly wrong. I object to politicians of the higher echelons when they have ceased doing their ministerial jobs, automatically being given a place in the lords. I think that such people should be judged on merit, and Cameron did not score very highly with me, so I would not have him in the Lords. It is also apparent that the Conservatives are quite keen to populate the Lords with their own as much as possible. This is anti-democratic(and yes I know that the Lords is not properly democratic either) and will result in undue sway in that house towards the Tories as well as overpopulating the upper house and increasing running costs etc.

In reply to veteye:


Two threads now, with the Sartrean Bad Faith, self deception with added constraint, that your choice was limited and you choice then let you down, seemingly to absolve yourself of responsibility.

If people want to invoke Not In My Name it is usually reserved for situations when governments enact policies that they hadn't declared, now you're berating Cameron because he did exactly what he said he would do.

How long will it be when Tory voting Remainers like yourself will be able to take responsibility for their choice? Cameron, of course, had absolutely no power at all, save the power that you gave him.

In reply to veteye:


Ah, so the rationale is not even "lots of people think he's crap" it's just that "I think he's crap". I think you'd should have articulated this new criterion for appointing peers in your OP.

Every party is keen to populate the Lords and has been since, well, forever. Either that or profit from selling titles.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I did! "Would you vote against Cameron ..."
In fact a lot of people do seem to think that he has a lot to answer for by his particularly bad planning.(He would be a poor chess player) I do not see this as a novel idea.If Cameron worked in industry or in the acquisitions market and severed a bunch of really useful connections and agreements between one of the group's businesses and other reasonable businesses he would be brought down a peg or two or even sacked.

In reply to veteye:

>
All Prime Ministers have a lot to answer for. The point is that they are assumed to have relevant experience across all sorts of areas that means they can contribute to the HofL. I don't see that Cameron is an exception to that. I happen to think that Gordon Brown was a bit of a dick but no doubt he would make a contribution in the Lords.

In reply to Timmd:


I think there are more constructive ways of dealing with that than simply peurile and offensive name calling and I'm surprised that you would find it acceptable. But anyway, much as many people may loathe the Tories (which in itself says as much about them as it does the Tories) no rational person would put them in the same league as what you describe here.

In reply to pec:


Don't rise to it. Not worth it.

In reply to winhill:

I do not absolve myself as I now feel that it would have been better to have had a poorly organised labour government running the economy down instead of the Conservative one, which may well result in the economy being in a worse state than if Labour had won the last election, due to coming out of the EU. Nevertheless I and others were in a cleft stick by the fact that the Conservative manifesto had both matters in it(Referendum and economy)one of which I did not want. I and others were forced to gamble, and what we did not know at the time was that the Tory leader would not roll out the referendum with enough reasonable constraints to avoid splitting the country further on a close run vote.

I do not berate Cameron for doing what he said he would do. I complain because he was weak in the way that he approached the whole thing, and as someone else said earlier, he put us in a far worse organised mess than having a larger number of UKIP MPs in the House of Commons.

As for being a Tory Remainer, I do not consider myself a Tory at all. That is the first time that I have voted for the Conservatives in a long time. Unfortunately where I live means that in the past I have never had the MP in office who was a candidate that I had voted for.
As for responsibility you sound like you are the proverbial white hen, innocent of all.
My responsibility lies with the fact that I do wonder if I should have voted for the Labour party at the last election.(Then I could have had your alter ego complain at me that I could not complain about their handling of the economy, even though I would have argued that i voted Labour to avoid the Referendum)
So where is this perfect world that you come from, where all the participants, such as yourself organise themselves to always do the right thing?

In reply to pec:


And no one is putting them in the same category. The example's merely pointing out that politicians can do terrible things, as a means of questioning your view that it's never okay to call politicians c*nts.

In reply to veteye:

But labours economic policy wold have been much better.... (realise I'll not persuade you of this, just sayin')

In reply to Donald82:

I pressed the like button as I did not like your post being disliked, and I can actually see rationale to some of Labour's ideas, but they never seem to think things through, and they always spend more than they originally set out to do.

In reply to veteye:


I know. If only they went in for badly planned referendums which were clearly going to be based on bollocks.
Even looking at their approach to the economy. Considering the number of backtracks Osborne needed to go in for I am not sure thinking things through could be seen as a tory strong point. Nor not spending extra cash for that matter.

In reply to veteye:

Have a like back.

I suspect an objective analysis of spending will show Labour aren't any worse than the Tories. I'll try to dig one out.

Re the financial crisis - the problem was lax financial regulation, which the Tories asked for even less of, not overspending. (Although they did overspend a wee bit, this made little difference and was supported by the Tories (quite possibly disingenuously))

Interestingly, what Osborne'so just done - scrap his fiscal rule in the face of bad economic times is what labour's proposed rule suggests, but which the Tories and the press generally slated them for.

In the interests of balance. Just saw May suggesting some good stuff re executive pay and worker board representation.

In reply to pec:


No. To economically discriminate against communities of vulnerable people because they won't vote for you anyway is about as offensive as it gets.

In reply to Trevers:


The bigoted arrogance and ingrained hatred of those who can only see malicious motivation behind opinions that differ to their own is quite offensive.

In reply to Postmanpat:

What is the motivation then? I used to give the Tories the benefit of the doubt over austerity policy but that ceased before the last general election. I can't in any way see how it's economic necessity unless those in charge are so incompetent that it's the only way they're able to make savings.

In reply to veteye:


just like a George Osborne Budget then ?

In reply to Postmanpat:


It seems very clear to me from their actions and words and the evidence available to them that the Tories know that their economic policy is damaging, and that they lie to pretend it's a necessity. I also know that their economic advisers know....

This is not a case of different political or policy opinions.

In reply to Donald82:


OK, so if all that's true, what's their motivation? They know it's economically damaging, they know it's not necessary; what's in it for them?

Such policies might be misconceived, they might be shortsighted, they might be poorly thought through, they might be pushed through by people who are ignorant of their real effects on parts of society they simply have never troubled to encounter, but do you really believe that intelligent, politically active individuals of any party sit around thinking up ingenious ways to be deliberately evil?

In reply to Trevers:


what about deliberately placing low wage public sector offices in core voting areas, because you know they'll vote for you regardless of what muppet you pin a red rosett to?

In reply to pec:


Not even people like Mussolini? or Franco?

In reply to Postmanpat:


considering the money saved v misery caused The bedroom tax was either malicious or incompetent. Which one?

In reply to Dave Garnett:
They've a lot to gain politically from the narrative that this was gov debt crisis, caused by Labour profligacy, which must be fixed with tough choices.

To shrink the size of the state, when the British public don't want to if it's not necessary. To not admit the positive role of government intervention (in this instance, obvs not always benign). To make the issue about government debt rather than lax financial regulation. So long as the public don't blame them for it, they don't care - and the best way to make it not their fault is to make it about Labour borrowing.

Contrast with the reaction to Brexit, which any negative impacts of which clearly are there fault: suddenly Osborne's a Keysian

In reply to summo:


You like this one. Seems a bit silly to me. For one, surely they'd place them in marginal seats if they were using them to win votes? For two, core Labour voting areas are often genuinely places in need of jobs, and with cheap office space.

In reply to Donald82:



The real issue is an unwillingness to pay the taxes for the things we want. Lax financial regulation is just an excuse. No party of any hue can afford to be honest on this and get elected.

In reply to Donald82:


So it's ok for labour to favour their core voters, but not other parties?

In reply to veteye:

I couldn't care less really. If I had my way, the House of Lords would be emptied and closed for good!

In reply to summo:


That isnt what they said.

In reply to summo:


No.

In reply to GrahamD:

The real issue relating to the cause of the financial crisis/why it was so bad for UK?

In reply to Donald82:

Bad compared with whom ?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I don't entirely believe the claim, but surely the reasons are obvious. Protecting the interests of people like them.

In reply to summo:


I thought the accusation was that Labour had been ignoring their core voters!

In reply to doz generale:


Why choose, I'm pretty sure it was both.

In reply to The New NickB:


People like them? What interests? What does that mean?

Sounds a lot like the all Tories are intrinsically evil argument to me. I'm sure they have their share of idiots, bigots, and incompetents and certainly they've had some poor and objectionable policies but I'm trying to get past this idea that anyone in any party deliberately sets out, with malice aforethought, to devise policies that cause unnecessary misery to no good purpose. That strikes me as childish demonisation.

In reply to Donald82:


We have seen today a perfect illustration of why it is unacceptable to allow your toxic rhetoric to become a normal part of our political discourse. It is only a short step from your verbal abuse to the threats, intimidation and criminal behaviour that is going on within the Labour party right now.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/angela-eagle-office-atta...

This, in complete contrast to the civilised and orderly manner in which we have just seen how a leadership campaign can be conducted.
Little wonder that when the electorate looks at how the parties conduct themselves that the Tories tend to win more elections, its pretty clear who the real nasty party is in British politics.

In reply to pec:


Heh. Heheh. Hehehahaha. HAAAAHAHHAHAHAA! The local cutler's ran out of knives there were so many lodged in candidates' backs. I'm sure they believe it to be civilised, probably because they kept the decision between the 283 people who they think were born to run the country.

In reply to GrahamD:

Bad compared to how it otherwise might have been...

In reply to pec:

I support Angela Eagle and think this is terrible. I'd think it's terrible even if I was a cornbyn fan boy. I really don't think calling Tories c*nts for fairly specific reasons has anything to do with this though.

It is interesting, though, how you think someone arguing on an internet forum with extremely limited readership, and reasoned arguments as to why some politicians might be c*nts is really bad. But you get upset when people complain about the racism of the leave campaign, who spoke to millions and made stuff up, which has quite possibly lead to an increase in racist attacks and the murder of an MP.

You are the good guy

In reply to Trevers:

The ultimate motivation is to create a wealthier society in which the State plays a smaller part because people have been weaned off State dependency and jobs have been created for them in the private sector.
It's perfectly legitimate to argue that either the ends or means are misconceived, but arrogant, ignorant, and self righteous to assume that the motivations are base.

In reply to Donald82:

I like c*nts

In reply to Postmanpat:
It may indeed be perfectly reasonable to argue for a smaller state.... it's not reasonable to try to achieve one by lieing about the necessity of cuts. The evidence clearly suggests that they have... and as above I know their economists know. An honest small stater, would have promised to cut the state after growth was well restored. Or possibly even have cut taxes and the state at the same time. But they wouldn't have been voted in.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Does that really need explaining?


I'm not presenting that argument, so I guess we can move on.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I've just given you reasons why they would do it in bad faith, and reasons why it apoeats they have do e so. Happy to listen to reasons why they might have chosen these policies in good faith. On the other hand you're not interested in entertaining the possibility that it might be bad faith.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Those are indeed noble intentions, I would agree.

But we're talking about a government that appropriated the name "living wage" knowing perfectly well it was not that, and refused to apply it to under 25 year olds, people already forced into more debt by their changes to tuition fees, and who already need more help getting on in life than their parent's generation. And while they're at it, they retrospectively changed the terms to repayments of student loans, allowing students who had managed to find jobs to save even less, which I presume is a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that the original changes will only end up costing the taxpayer more.

This is also a government whose changes within the benefits system have led to suicides, who have refused to release the figures for those. A government that has made massive cuts to council budgets, leading to vulnerable people with physical or psychological health problems being unable to access the support they need. A government who've managed to alienate teachers and NHS workers among other in vast quantities.

It's not just a political disagreement about the best economic model to create a functioning and healthy society. Before Corbyn came along, we had barely anyone in politics questioning the validity of austerity. But if they believe this is the model that will work, they've pulled the safety net out way before they've laid the foundations for that successful society. "We're all in it together" is callous in it's dishonesty. When will austerity have served it's purpose exactly, and all the suffering that it's caused have been worthwhile for a better society?

All bets are off now of course, but even without the referendum, I could only arrive at the conclusion that those in power with all the tools and information at their disposal who stick rigidly to that ideology are either blind, stupid, incompetent or just nasty.

Recent events have exposed just that. Some (Johnson, Gove, Leadsom) appear to be undeniably very nasty people, with either rather intolerant ideologies or simply a ruthless hunger for power. Cameron has been both stupid and incompetent. Let's not forget the Goldsmith mayoral campaign that he backed, which seems a life age ago. And a lot of them have lied quite brazenly about very important and loaded subjects. And in Chilcot we saw the ultimate affirmation of what a lot of people have thought those at the top are capable of for a long time now.

I don't at any stretch believe that all politicians are bad people. Jo Cox was undeniably a good woman, and I believe that like her, most MPs get into politics to make a positive difference within their communities. And yes, that applies to Conservative MPs too, and indeed I have had some positive personal interactions with my Conservative MP.

Unfortunately I simply cannot apply that same benefit of the doubt to those at the top. The politics I have witnessed since I reached voting age and started paying attention have made it depressingly easy to believe the worst of those at the top. I did not start from a "Tories = nasty party" perspective, and as an undergraduate student I used to scoff at those more ardent left-wingers who believed that.

If you and I were to have a respectful and reasoned disagreement over the best economic plan for the country, that I could respect. Unfortunately that would be far more productive than anything from the Westminster consensus recently.

And now, in the wake of the referendum, what are we coming to? I worry for my grandma who made her life here after arriving from Poland after the war, who with her husband contributed to Britain during some of her darkest days. I worry for my girlfriend, an educational immigrant from Mexico. I've always known that I've been highly fortunate to have won the postcode lottery, been to a good school, received a good education and to have very supportive parents. Because of that I was able to quit a well paid job in London to go into an unpaid research placement to begin a scientific career. I now finally worry for myself too, and wonder whether I didn't make an awful mistake leaving that security, or whether my future now looks less bright because of the recklessness of ambitious politicians.

So you'll have to forgive me for taking offense at being told I'm "arrogant, ignorant, and self righteous" for believing the worst of those in charge.

In reply to Donald82:



How is it you can't see any connection between a climate in which people like yourself feel free to express contempt for politicians in such an offensive way and one in which other people will then take it a bit further and use threats or intimidation and then another step to actual violence and ultimately some complete idiot commits murder?
Its all on the same continuum and its people like you that create the initial climate which makes it easier for others to take it that bit further each time.
Its not like your insults serve any useful purpose, it probably gives you some smug sense of satisfaction but you don't win over anyone who doesn't already subscribe to your warped perspective, it just makes you look like dick with a big chip on your shoulder. Any neutral observer just looks at that kind of childish insult and walks away. How far did Miliband get spending 5 years at the dispatch box chanting Bullingdon Club at PMQs every week?

You claim to have "reasoned arguments" on the economy but who wants to listen to the arguments of a ranting bigot?

In reply to pec:

I really don't think there's a link. I don't see any Tory MP's offices getting trashed, the Labour party stuff is clearly down to the unlikely event of MPs accidentally getting Corbyn in charge... Fairly sure there's no angry young corbynistas on here. People have long called MPs of various persuasions c*nts in everyday speech.

But for the sake or argument, let's say you're right. I'd still like to know why you think a guy on the internet calling Tories c*nts is bad, but are happy to ignore the racism of whole political campaigns? (I suspect you can't answer this)

Perhaps you're blind to the possibility that the Tory's might do something in bad faith?

In reply to The New NickB:


Well, I guess I have an idea about what 'people like us' might mean as applied to the average Tory, which will necessarily be a simplistic stereotype. I'm interested in what your simplistic stereotype is.

In reply to birdie num num:


Me to it's doesn't follow that they have to be in charge (all the time at least) though does it?

In reply to Donald82:


Your attitude is symptomatic of a wider malaise in society, I pick on it here because I use these forums. To be clear, it isn't your insistence that Tories are c*unts that's the problem, or even the use of the c word, we all use it at times. Its the arrogance of the self appointed occupiers of the moral high who think they can hurl whatever vile abuse they wish without challenge I object to. I'd object equally if people did the same about any party, but in reality we know its 99% in one direction which again tells us where the real nastiness in politics lies.


I'm not going to criticise anything at your behest, just as I'm not holding my breath for you to criticise the lies and gross exaggerations of economic doom from the remain side. What you can be sure of is that whatever I do criticise, whilst I may use sarcasm, cynisism or even at times the odd insult, I won't descend into the gutter with wide sweeping generalisations about a whole party.


If you ever got past hurling insults you might find that I'm not the uncritical admirer of all things Tory you seem to imagine. I don't believe any party has a monopoly on the truth, I do believe all parties do good and bad things and that whilst politicians will sometimes cynically play the political game to their advantage that's largely a consequence of having an adversarial system which no politician or party can easily change. To think otherwise is frankly delusional

I still maintain that most politicians act in what they genuinely belive is the best interest of the country most of the time, the fact that I may disagree with them doesn't make me believe they are inherantly evil, just wrong.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

My view isn't relevant, it's obviously self defined by the individual and doesn't relate specifically to Tories.

In reply to pec:
Lets leave aside your views on the leave campaign's (in my view) racist nature. Much like the eagle incident it seems a no brainer to criticise it when mentioned to me, but I don't want you to criticise anything at my bequest.

Moving on to the C word and my, in your view, bigoted views. There's a bit a of a circular thing here. You say you don't see the C word as the problem, rather you see saying the Tories have acted with ill intent and my assuming this based on prejudice as the problem. But at the same time, your view that I am prejudice seems to be based mostly on my using the C word rather than my not having objective, informed arguments for thinking they have acted with ill intent. So at least in one sense you're right - my language does prevent me from getting my views across to people (eg you).

This raises a question: if I didn't swear but said that I think most Tory MPs are bad people because (among other things) they acted with ill intent by implementing and supporting economic policy that they know to be damaging for narrow political reasons, would you have been willing to listen to those arguments?

I'd also note that while you're right that uncivilised debate can lead to bad things (although I'd still dispute that my swearing is either here or there), so can overly civilised debate. If one always assumes that politicians are acting honestly and/or one is not allowed to use language that conveys that horribleness of things done, it can be easier for politicians to do bad things. For example, if George Osbourne looked at his policy as simply a political game rather than in terms of the real impact on people life, it would be easier for him to do what he did.

To finish: if people genuinely believe politicians to have done bad things for party political gain, they should be angry and they should express that anger. Perhaps, though, without using the C word for reasons of keeping other people in the debate.

In reply to pec:

Ps If my attitude/swearing is a symptom. What's causing the malaise? I would suggest bad economic policy. Good blog on this at th e link below. The man is a modern market loving Marxist financial economist. This is v.different from communism or traditional Marxism but I guess you still might not take him too seriously. Clever chap though.

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2016/07/came...

In reply to Donald82:


There's a further danger in overly civilised debate/political correctness. If we shy away from frank and honest discussion of issues such as immigration, discourse of that issue becomes the preserve of those with extreme or intolerant views. An inability to have a wider debate over immigration has allowed it to become conflated with racism.

In reply to Trevers:

Yes, agree with this - over PCness (or perhaps just PCness), makes people feel victimised for perfectly reasonable views. Like just wanting to have less immigration, when you've nothing against individual immigrants. The flipside of that though is that to some extent PCness was a response to dog whistle stuff, where people say stuff that's on the face of it reasonable but they're giving another message. It's difficult!

In reply to Trevers:


>
The "living wage" was nevertheless an improvement on the previous "minimum wage".
Not applying it to under 25s was a done on the perfectly reasonable basis that it is vital to get younger people into the job market and to encourage the jobs to be created for this cohort, from which base they can get the experience to rise up the job market. You may reasonably disagree with it the rationale, but nevertheless to condemn it as "evil" is either to be ignorant of the rationale behind it or to be extraordinarily intellectually and morally arrogant: that not only is your view correct but to differ is evil.

>
You will find that many policies by many governments (think Nulabour tax credits, child support agency etc) have had unintended consequences that have cause hardship. I don't hear people, Labour or Tory, condemning Gordon Brown or Blair as "evil"on the basis of ineptly executed social and economic policies. You are guilty of dual standards.
If one believes than an overlarge State has created unnecessary overdependency on the State (with which you may disagree, but it's not an inherently "evil" idea) and hurt people as a result, then obviously reducing that dependency is going to risk, almost inevitably, upheaval and problems as it happens. Essentially what you are arguing is that unless improvements can be made without upheaval then it must be 'evil".

>
They haven't "pulled the safety net out of the way". They have made changes, some of which have had bad effects. It's reasonable to argue that some of these effects were unacceptable and foreseeable but this is not at all the same as demonstrating that they were deliberate and therefore evil.
The obvious rationale is that governments have very little time to make the improvements to society that they wish to. Actually the coalition soft pedalled on most of its reforms, partly because it was a coalition and partly because the economic crisis made them unattainable.

>





It is slightly ironic that the "left" that endlessly moans about the malign influence of the press on the gullible proles falls so easily for the media narratives that suit their own prejudices, either in the supposed machinations on leading figures or by focusing only on the mistakes of the government. Where is the acknowledgement that income inequality actually fell under Cameron because tax cuts were focused on the low-paid and welfare was reformed to encourage people to escape poverty through work? Where is the acknowledgement of the extraordinary success of the private sector in creating jobs? Where is the acknowledgement that Cameron, as illustrated by the gay marriage act, forced his party to embrace the socially progressive liberal values?

All you have done is provide a one sided list a number of downsides or mistakes by the government over the past six years (some of which I agree were inept or avoidable) and infer that they were the product of a deliberate evil. This appears ignorant, in that all governments screw up. There is nothing unique about this. It also appears ignorant in completely failing to recognise the successes of the past few years and failing to acknowledge or maybe understand the rationale behind the changes that were made.
I don't actually think it is usually down to ignorance, rather that it's obviously easier to explain this as the result of "evil" because it obviates the need to think about it harder and gives one the warm glow of the moral high ground.

In some ways I'm loathe to make"the case for the defence" because I agree that some of the rhetoric that accompanied austerity was unacceptable and that much of the execution was poor. However, acknowledging that is completely different to inferring that is can therefore only have been deliberately harmful. Apart from anything else I think that latter view massively underestimates the difficulties of executing any policy for any government. Governing is bloody difficult.

In reply to Donald82:
>
The "necessity for cuts" was widely accepted by the consensus in 2008-9 and only really undermined by the IMF's volte face on the multiplier effect in 2013. Despite your assertions to the contrary there remain many economists who adhere to the view. Quite possibly they are wrong and quite possibly the cuts unnecessarily reduced GDP growth by a percentage point or so in 2012. Excuse me if I think that this is hardly a sturdy basis on which to dismiss the policy's architects as "evil scum" or "c**ts".

It is not unreasonably to argue that the government should have waited until the economy was stronger before shrinking the State, but neither is it unreasonable to argue that it was possible to achieve some reduction without stopping the recovery. And as things turns out that is pretty much what happened.

What you are doing is turning an academic argument about the precise timing, extent and impact of different economic tactics into a moral crusade, and a moral crusade that from your pedestal of righteousness you apparently feel gives you license you to indulge in tirades of abuse. A little humility might be in order.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I counted the word "evil" 8 times in your post. How many times did I include it in my post that you were responding to?

In reply to Trevers:


So you want to stick with "deliberately nasty"?

In reply to Postmanpat:

The recovery has been much worse than it should have been. It's been clear they've been doing the wrong thing for a long time now. Certainly since well before the IMF changed it's tune (at least part of it did). They have a responsibility not just to pick which ever economists views match their politics.

There's plenty of other c*nty stuff they've done too.

"evil scum"?

In reply to Postmanpat:




Yes please. Let's stick with what I said.

In reply to Trevers:


Apparently calling Tory MPs mostly c*nts qualifies as a vile tirade of abuse these days.

In reply to Donald82:

>
They have been doing the "wrong thing" in your terms because you are wedded to one economic argument. Maybe you are right. Maybe not.

Do you acknowledge that this doesn't make them "bad" people?

In reply to Trevers:


Fine. So replace it accordingly, although it does of course raise the question of whether somebody who is "deliberately nasty" is not by implication "bad" or maybe "evil". Whatever.

Actually, I was replying to you but my post was also a general rebuttal of the commonly expressed left wing memes about the "evil Tory scum".

In reply to Postmanpat:

But I'm sure that they know what they argue is wrong, and that they've pursued the course they did for narrow political gain. Much as they did with EU ref come to think of it.

In reply to Donald82:

Why are you so sure they know it is "wrong"? "Wrong in what way"?

By "narrow political gain" do you mean "get elected" , in which case if their aspirations are positive (and i believe they. Think they are) why wouldnt tjey want to ensure that they are elected?

Do you think they are bad people ?

In reply to Postmanpat:


We've been round this loads of times before.


No. The furthering of narrow political aims including but not limited to getting elected - cutting size of state, making the crisis look like it was about debt rather than regulation etc. But even if it was simply to get elected it would be a terrible thing to do for that.


Mostly yes. Cameron and Osborne, certainly. Nasty people.

In reply to Donald82:

We have established why you (or rather Simon the hobbit) think they are wrong.We have not established why you think they know their policy to be wrong, as opposed to disagree with the hobbit, Krugman etc.
And do you mean they knew it was "wrong" because it would slow economic growth, or because they also knew that it had no benefits whatever?


I don't understand your sentence. The punctuation is odd. Can you rephrase it so that you clarify what you are saying about "cutting size of state, making the crisis look like it was about debt rather than regulation"


It seems to me that you are simply intellectually and or psychologically unable or unwilling to accept that there could be a sincerely held alternative to what you see as the obvious and correct view on economic policy. On which basis you have confirmed my original description of your position. Maybe you are just still young enough to know everything.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Pat buddy, I entirely understand that people can reasonably hold different and sincere views on many things including economics - for example, I'm quite happy to accept that you sincerely believe a lot of nonsense about economics - and that people can do the wrong thing for the right reasons and that I may be wrong about the economics and about their intentions. In this case, I don't think I am, and I've been through the reasons for that including on why I think they acted with ill intent before. A couple of times I think. Also, it's not simply economic policy where Tories have behaved badly of late. London Mayor campaign for example.

Now maybe my biases are making me give too much weight to the argument that they've behaved badly, and not enough to arguments that perhaps they're right or perhaps they're wrong but for the right reasons. But I doubt my biases are any bigger than yours, which might lean you towards discounting the possibility that they have behaved badly. So, you never know, perhaps you're, "intellectually or psychologically unable to accept that" messrs George and Dave are nasty pieces of work or that I might have quite reasonable and sincerely held reasons for believing that to be so.

In reply to Donald82:
>
Reassuring to know that your misplaced arrogance continues unconstrained. You haven't given any adequate explanation of or evidence for the argument that they were either deliberately tanking or the economy or designing policies deliberately to cause harm to people. All I have heard is that since you believe these were the outcomes the policies must have been undertaken with that intention. Or did I forget something?

>
Both of them, but more particularly Osborne, have done things of which I personally disapprove, particularly in their electioneering rhetoric. That does not make them deliberately nasty or evil. It makes them fallible.

I openly say that I prefer to think that most people in life try to do the right thing most of the time but sometimes fail. I think, for example, that Corbyn is deeply misguided in both his political leanings and the "friends" that he keeps, but I am prepared to think that it is because he is misguided rather than because he is a bad person. I make no apology for my sunny disposition.

PS. Can you clarify what the sentence I asked about meant?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Pat, yes you do seem to have forgotten. We have discussed why I think they acted with ill intent before. I think a couple of times. I've also spoken to people that work at the OBR and the treasury who agree my view, two of who fairly similar political views to me, one of who gleeful libertarian Tory. You can believe me or not, I expect not, but I'm not up for going through it again.

Sentence should have an "eg." in front of "cutting".

I also think most people in life try to do the right thing most of the time.

I'm not calling anyone evil.

In reply to Donald82:


So what do your contacts think was the intent?

Cutting the size of the State can hardly be classified as a "narrow political gain". It is central to the Conservative philosophy, on the grounds that this is beneficial for society as a whole. As for the debt v lax regulation argument. Of course it was both, but it is pretty weird to single out any particular group of politicians for spinning the facts in their direction. I mean, er, that's what politicians do.

In reply to Postmanpat:

They got elected on the basis, and maintain, that cuts now are necessary to deal with the debt. As opposed to cuts are good in and of themselves because we would like a small state.

Many people have been hurt by said cuts.

A more honest small state-er might have cut taxes and spending. Or said we'll keep spending now, but once we're back to good growth and we can cut rates to compensate the states getting cut. big time

It was very little to do with debt in the UK. Only in so far as the debt gave the Tories an excuse

They haven't just spun the facts to suit them. They've used very damaging policy as a tool to spin the facts. Or based policy on the spin that has been very damaging.

In reply to Donald82:

The Conservative led coalition government was elected quite clearly in the knowledge that it wanted to reduce the deficit by spending cuts and that it believed and believes in a smaller State. The two things are obviously not mutually exclusive. Until 2013 the former was a widely shared aspiration by the main political parties, the markets, and economic commentators. The aspiration to a smaller State is motivated by the desire to improve peoples' lives. You still seem unable to admit this.

It is true that the Conservatives have exaggerated the pre-2008 rise in spending and the deficit under Labour and its impact. That is spin, just as NuLabour spun it's own policies and continues to spin things eg inequality. That is how political parties work. If your attack on the morality of Conservatives is on the basis that they market their policies then you need to remove the splinter from your own eye.

In reply to Postmanpat:

People may aspire to a smaller state to improve peoples lives. I absolutely accept this, and I'm not against the idea myself (but I expect in a different way to you)

The Tories have always justified the cuts as necessary to get the debt down, rather than as a good thing in themselves.

As above, there are ways to shrink the state without harming growth post a massive recession. These options were open to the Tories they did not take them, as they were less politically advantageous to them. They know people would not vote for cuts unless convinced they were necessary to get the debt down.

If they have done that, and I'm sure they have, they've crossed the line from spinning to make their policy look better, to choosing bad policy for reasons of spin.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you wrong.

In reply to Donald82

>
Don't be ludicrous. I'm never wrong

In reply to veteye:

Why don't all you lefties forget all this politics stuff and go back to climbing instead. Stop wasting your own time and that of all of us stupid enough to read the post in the first place.

By the way I've never voted conservative in my life either.

Feel free to shoot me down all of you who want to. I don't care because I will be outside climbing.

Fro heaven's sake this is a climbing forum and not a political forum. There's plenty of those around if you want one.

In reply to Postmanpat:


What, like this guy? http://arresteddevelopment.wikia.com/wiki/Never_Nude

You have my sympathies. Must be tough

In reply to Big Ger:


But how else is God going to be able to put across his opinion?

In reply to Trangia:


In person one would hope. That would cause some rethinking there.

In reply to Big Ger:

Hopefully God's thunderbolt would come before they have their nice refurbishment of the house of commons, so as not to put things in too much disarray again. By the way does shabby Corbyn also need some refurbishment?

In reply to veteye:
Seeing as you think Cameron should be "thrown in the stocks" and Corbyn is "shabby, in need of refurbishment" I'll take it that, like me, you're no fan of either of the two main parties?

In reply to Big Ger:
Probably true, and I can't be allied to party number 3(I don't mean SNP) as I can't stand their smug self-righteousness.(They are the party of the white hen, and the innocenti)

We need a middle ground party that has no big egotist at the top, and yes I know that that confounds the definition of politician.So we need a contradiction in terms.

In reply to stubbed:



Where can I get a T shirt that says:
" I may look like a daft old Daily Mail reading nostalgia monkey who's starting to lose his marbles, but don't blame me, I voted in and I didn't want a sodding referendum in the first place"
Or something more terse, perhaps.

In reply to veteye:




Hello... the Lib Dems. Don't look so crap now do they?

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Did you not read the rest of my message properly?As I said they are smug and self-righteous, and I am not sure if they would ever take strong decisions for fear of not running by the exact rules.So for instance I think that they would not go to war with Adolf Hitler No 2 if the need arose.And before you ask, I have voted for the Lib Dems in the past. I just did not like their stance after we went into Iraq.(It was their attitude rather than their assessment of the circumstances in the first place. They seemed to totally ignore that Saddam Hussein was a horrific dictator killing of whole swathes of his own countrymen)

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Errrmmm.... Yes, yes they do. Even more so if anything....

In reply to veteye:

I was in favour of taking Saddam Hussein at the time, but I was never, for one minute, fooled by the assertions that we were 40 minutes away from annhilation or any of the other lies. I just thought that a guy who kept living political prisoners on trays in drawers like cadavers in a mortuary should be stopped.
Tell you what though I was wrong, because we may just have taken the lid off Armageddon; real Armageddon.