|
U-Know! Forum » A cunning plan... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
anthonyqkiernan 7087 posts |
Jul 08, 2010, 14:07
|
||
VOTE SQIUD!!
|
|||
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Jul 08, 2010, 15:48
|
||
Absolutely! I certainly would.
|
|||
ratcni01 916 posts |
Jul 08, 2010, 20:58
|
||
|
There are alternatives. The thing is they are unpalatable to the vast majority of the population and would not get suppport. Doesn't mean they aren't right. Similar (and linked with to some extent) greening the economy, it doesn't win votes and thus we roll on slowly toward a point where our present concerns regarding the economy we've created will be irrelevant, because the lack of water, lack of food, lack of energy will wake us up to whats really going on, quite possibly too late. I'll be dead by then most likely, but my kids might not be, or my grandkids. The reality is, leaving the market free to form our economic and social life will not work. Unfortunately there is a more unfashionable topic not addressed by both the left and right which is social engineering. It happens, the right free the market and say that way that they avoid social engineering. The liberal left more overtly socially engineer, but with the liberal and inherent pro-individual autonomy tendency of these political movements in the "democratic" world also try to rein in the social engineering, and pretend there's less social engineering because of these activities. The truth of the matter is that the world is incredibly complex, and I suspect we could all do with being sat down and taught a good chunk of post-modern philosophy. There are NO neat answers, never will be. Think what we are dealing with is human nature in both grand and at small scale. I choose one option in my life, it means I can't do the other quite often. Managing the economy is the same. It is undeniable that the rich (people, corporations, governments) can afford to cut more and still maintain a reasonable lifestyle. Given we socially engineer whichever way we go, can we not steal some utilitarian philosophy and manage things in the way the serves the most the best. Sadly in our country we voted further right than that, and people will suffer who are less likely to be able to deal with it. In our world the rich nations such as our own are doing the same. Destroy AmeriKKKan Kapitalism!!! Don't think that would work, nor would destroying Eurocentric Kapitalism, these are aspects of our humanity. Any more than trusting the Communist manifesto, lovely from an idealistic perspective as it sounds. Anarchy?? Let Franco march in while they were arguing over which collective got which weapons and everyone was getting their say, then the talking stopped, they were dead, captured or assimilated. Truth is we need, all the aspects of our humanity. Wasn't watching A Beautiful Mind all about that, the punchline being Adam Smith wasn't right when he said (and I paraphrase badly) "statisitically more people survive if they think only of themselves" its more like "statistically more people survive if they think of themselves and others". Saying, it seems to me, paradoxially, that we need to be selfish and selfless at the same time. Simples!!! LOL
|
|||
geoffrey_prime 758 posts |
Jul 09, 2010, 03:11
|
||
|
That's just your bias coming through. Are you seriously saying that Labour, if re-elected wouldn't have either: 1) set out a similarly austere budget or 2) Try to carry on spending ..with the inevitable "car crash" outcome. Unless you are suggesting that the Lib Dems are just "power hungry"..you have to accept that we do not have a Tory Government, we have a majority coalition, where, for the "lefties", modern right wing thinking is moderated by lib dem philosophy. I just dont think you can accuse this coalition of favouring the rich and hammering the poor.. Can I ask you, how better off do you think you would be, over the next 5 years, under Labour?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Jul 09, 2010, 07:28
Jul 09, 2010, 06:19
|
||
|
Dear O dear, this would be less annoying if I thought you genuinely misunderstood what I said instead of pretending to. So, for avoidance of further pretence (on your part) YES I think Labour would have had to implement a massive austerity programme in which everyone would have suffered and YES I believe it would have been structured in a less socially unjust way than is currently being imposed under which the rich have been shielded from any real inconvenience at the expense of - who else, the fairies? - the poor. Goodness me Geoffrey do you seriously think the Tories are a party of social justice, dedicated to fairness and the eradication of poverty? Do you believe "choice" isn't a code word for "our people will be alright" and Cameron's "Big Society" doesn't mean "let's make sure the state is set up in our favour without the tiresome and taxing (literally) need for it to look after the poor"? Of course you don't, you're in on the spin, as you've demonstrated here.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 10, 2010, 12:09
|
||
And the beauty of it, from the point of view of the architects of the manifesto, is that millions of Geoffrey's will swallow it and bring it about in the belief it is somehow "inclusive" and for the greater good and "economically necessary" rather than designed specifically for the advantage of a tiny elite (of which Geoffrey probably isn't a member, poor chap!) There's a Tory supporter born every minute!
|
|||
mojojojo 1940 posts |
Edited Jul 10, 2010, 12:33
Jul 10, 2010, 12:25
|
||
|
Quite. This isn't a government with a view about getting out of recession that others see as misguided. It's a government that will happily see us slide deeper into recession with all the misery that will bring as long as the very rich (like Cameron) are protected, and in fact more than protected - also able to make a huge profit from the assett stripping and dismantling of the state. These people idea of paradise is the rich in gated communtities of obscene wealth who only have to see the rest of us when we serve them drinks. Tax-dodging, scrounging, money-for-nothing layabout thieving filth. x
|
|||
|
mojojojo 1940 posts |
Jul 10, 2010, 14:50
|
||
|
and...with the help of their friends in the press they really have got people believing that it's the bloated public services with their huge wages and pensions that are to blame. And people on benefits. No fault of the rich at all. Private profits, public losses. A no lose gamble. Genius. x
|
|||
|
geoffrey_prime 758 posts |
Jul 12, 2010, 02:18
|
||
|
But, as I thought, no substantial alternative being offered by you two... So...just "hot air". At least the ConLibs are framing policies ..some quite difficult....and you can kick them out at the next election. Do you honestly think that a new coalition gov. would be setting out to get themselves un-elected in the next round.. Get real.. this coaltion have their finger on the Nations pulse...and will be round for greater than one term.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 12, 2010, 04:02
|
||
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: But, as I thought, no substantial alternative being offered by you two... So...just "hot air". So.... "An austerity programme that doesn't leave the top 20% of people not only not really hurt but not even slightly inconvenienced. Justice Geoffrey, plain and simple" ....wasn't a substantial alternative and is just "hot air"? More selective hearing. It's not a very dignified debating technique as everyone can see you doing it.
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
