|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 10, 2012 10:54:41 GMT 1
I was reading an article by Janet Daley in the S. Telegraph
She talks of the Decline and Fall of Western Capitalism. She talks about that which we al know, but to which we turn a blind eye.
The financial crisis is in fact far deeper and far more wide reaching than we are prepared to face up to. The Liberal-Left governments of the West are simply meddling with this crisis. In Britain, Government spending is actually growing and the national Debt is actually increasing. We are heading for a catastrophe in Daley’s opinion.
The socialist policies that are meekly accepted by all western governments can no longer be afforded. The amount of revenue in tax needed to fund such exorbitant expenditure is simply not available, so welfare is funded by borrowing. Meanwhile our competitiveness with emerging economies is declining rapidly and one major factor in that decline is that those nations are not burdened by huge welfare debts.
So in Daley’s opinion we are in a downward spiral which is on the edge of becoming unrecoverable unless Western governments are prepared to d take decisions that are hugely unpopular.
They are not.
They value being in Office far more than having a viable nation
Only in Greece Portugal and Spain is the extent of the crisis being felt
I tend to agree with Daley’s analysis, and the absurdity of our welfare system is surely exemplified by the bleatings of the Guardianista at families earning over £60k having Child Benefit withdrawn, and the silly babblings of some in UKIP, for example, that argue vehemently for retention of Bus Passes and Winter Warming Allowance for comparatively rich people
However the Destruction Of The Nation by the Liberal Left elite is not limited to the huge welfare debt that they are afraid to tackle, it extends well beyond that
Take Britain’s ‘Green’ policies. Never in our history has such a collective madness consumed the Liberal-Left ruling elite. They all agree that the country should be ruined for the sake of CO2 emissions. Britain has the strictest CO2 emission controls in the world. The government is committed to spend £14billion per annum for the next 40 years on ‘Green’ measures – the largest single government expenditure on one item in the history of Britain. So we witness the flight of energy-intensive industries to countries where energy bills are not inflated by ‘Green’ measure, and we see the poorest in our society being forced to subside German and Swedish companies and make rich landowners even richer, solely because our Liberal-Left elite want to be the ‘good guys’ at International ‘Green’ conferences.
The insanity of this pursuit is evidenced by the fact that Britain produces only 2% of the world’s CO2 output, and if we emitted no CO2 at all it would not make any impact as the emerging economies are not constrained by ‘Green’ policies
But the Destruction Of The Nation by the Liberal Left elite goes even further than that. So determined are they on ‘globalisation that they welcome to these shores literally millions of new arrivals, even though we have a housing, welfare, health and Education crisis. They realise full well that the importing of millions of foreigners causes social dislocation and the ‘Balkanisation’ of our Nation, yet they persist and persist. They are also fully aware that the Labour Governments re-designation of allocation of Social Housing from a point s-based system to a simple ‘greatest need ‘ system inevitably results in priority being given to families arriving from deprived countries. So now we have in some parts of the country almost entire social housing estates being given over to immigrant arrivals
The Liberal Left elite are fully aware that their massive influx is changing the character of Britain toward some unknown mushiness – the very qualities that made Britain once a great nation are now universally despised and derided by our ruling elite
However this phenomenon can be seen throughout Europe. Is it that the European elite, of which Labour-Cons-LibDem leaders are undoubtedly a part, are definitely attempting to destroy the concept of the Nation State, so that opposition to their rule will simply melt away as Europe devolves into self-seeking cultural and racial factionalism?
Perhaps the biggest hindrance to the people of this nation is our despicable ‘democracy’.
If ever a system was designed to ensure the rule of a self-perpetuating elite whilst maintaining the facade of democracy, then the British political system has achieved it.
Augustus was a past-master at maintaining the stage-set trappings of Republicanism whilst in fact operating the most dictatorial of all systems that Rome had ever experienced
But Augustus was an amateur in comparison to Britain.
Here we have the facade of a democracy so well established, that any decision can be (and is) made by the government who then claim ‘democratic’ legitimacy, no matter how that decision actually works against the will of the people
One of the things I despair about with some UKIP leaders is their total acceptance of this system. It seems that they simply want their turn in running this autocratic system. They go on television and spout platitudes, and ‘want to restore sovereignty’ to Britain knowing full well (or possibly not realising) that what they are advocating is the perpetuation of the utterly corrupt ‘democracy’ that is modern Britain
Is there any wonder that the electorate look at UKIP and see nothing at all radical, nothing that will restore true democracy, they see politicians that ‘ape’ their betters and have nothing whatsoever of importance to say, even though our Nation is disappearing under a patronising stultifying autocracy
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 10, 2012 11:07:16 GMT 1
I agree with all that, nay, except the use of "left". The Western nation states have gone collectively soft in the head.
It will end in tears.
Let's get fracking and start a new industrial revolution instead of importing everything from China and the rest! Then we may be able to afford, although a little diminished, the comforts of our Welfare State a little longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 10, 2012 12:34:04 GMT 1
I'm curious, Marchesa. Why do you disagree with the use of "left" here?
There are encouraging signs that the era of importing everything from China is coming to an end. Manchester is going all out to become Cottonopolis again. Meccano has withdrawn their manufacturing from China and taken their factories back to France. It's no longer as cost-effective as it was, with a burgeoning Chinese middle class, increasing State tax impositions, and mounting transportation costs.
The "comforts" of our Welfare State are illusory. Being comfortable is only satisfactory if you've successfully striven to be so, impacting the world through your creative effort and helping your social group grow in doing so. Otherwise being comfortable is indistinguishable from being a stupid, lethargic, spoon-fed consumer, told what to think, told what to do, told how to be, told what to value, told who you are - an alienated artefact, passing onto your children the same tasteless fodder you were taught.
(Not you, obviously.)
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 10, 2012 15:14:30 GMT 1
Because I don't think left and right mean much, Mr Sonde.
Certainly, when applied to governments in the UK there seems little to choose between them, effectively. The Welfare state has grown bigger and bigger under both parties. If I want to refer to folk who "believe in" a big and ever bigger role for the state I prefer to call them "statists".
As for other forms of government they can be called "free enterprise", "mixed economy" "dictatorship of the proletariat", "totalitarian", "plutocracy", "one-party-state", "federation" "empire", "city state", "oligarchy", "failed state", "theocracy" or some such. I am sure you can think up some more good names for yourself! They don't really have much to do with right and left.
But for our own variety of constitutional democracy I really don't think there is enough difference between the parties when in government to make much of a difference. That is the trouble!
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 11, 2012 14:20:17 GMT 1
Because I don't think left and right mean much, Mr Sonde. They're by no means exhaustive of course, but they do signify a fundamental distinction in political philosophy. With two other major trait distinctions, and perhaps two or three other minor fine-tuning spectra, it is possible to accurately pinpoint a person's socio-political attitudes. Translated to the prevailing philosophical approach of a governing party, or as in Nay's j'accuse, an entire class of cultural elite, the contrasting results mean a great deal indeed. The difference between West and East Germany or North and South Korea within a generation, for example. I think that's the gravamen of Nay's complaint. One particular set of values and beliefs have become commonly assumed by the entire political class, whatever their ostensible party differences. And with it, commonly promulgated by almost the entire range of popular media. And through both, it's being inculcated in at least the State school system through generation after generation of our children. Exactly. There has been no rightwing alternative put to the electorate in this country since the 30s. Even Thatcher wasn't particularly of the right - it's a clear indication of how deeply and effectively the liberal-left bien-pensant ideology came to dominate our intellectual atmosphere that a government rather half-heartedly espousing a programme of fiscal conservatism and a libertarian political philosophy almost entirely derived from Hayek could be labelled "rightwing". Okay. But I think "leftwing" adequately describes such a belief, as conventionally understood. Some do - but you're right, it's not an exhaustive distinction. It's just the fundamental starting point - or one of them. Yes. A liberal-left Hobson's Choice. Isn't that what Nay's saying? It is a betrayal of democratic principles if you're effectively voting for merely different faces in the same politburo. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 11, 2012 15:45:26 GMT 1
A random selection from the electoral register for a People's Parliament could not be worse than the current party political whipped hacks, could it, Mr Sonde?
In my experience most people are a mixture of "right" and "Left" in their views. It is only the professional ideological cadres and their foot soldiers, like dear Aubrey, that strive for "consistency" and think they can predict all of a person's opinions on the basis of knowing one.
|
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Dec 12, 2012 2:01:58 GMT 1
Just to pick up one tiny point....if it wasn't for bus passes, our town centre would be jammed with old fogeys fighting for parking spaces, and the shops wouldn't do any business midweek. Free park and ride isn't Socialism Gone Mad but sensible capitalism in action.
On a bigger issue: the problem with party politics is that we are invited from time to time to elect people to represent our interests to parliament. What we get instead is a bunch of scum who think their duty is to represent their party to the people.
And don't get me going on the misrepresentation of "representation". Oh all right if you insist. We are told that there should be more lesbians/jedi/lefthanders or whatever in parliament because white middle class males from public schools are not representative of the population. Poppycock. There's a huge difference between representing a constituency and being representative of that group. Barristers are hired to represent their clients, i.e. to put their client's case in a skilled and knowledgeable manner, not to be representative of them, which would mean that half of all barristers should be inarticulate thieves and murderers.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 12, 2012 3:05:32 GMT 1
A random selection from the electoral register would solve all the problems of "faux" representation and party politics, Mr Calverd - the people would be representing themselves directly.
I would only make one proviso re age. The selection would only be from the over 40s.
It would be for three years with one year's Citizenship and Parliamentary training prior to taking ones seat and one third of MPs retiring and being replaced every year.
I know there are loads of criticisms that could be made of such a system, but it could not be worse than the present one and just think of the nous to be gained by a wide spectrum of the population from participation in this process!
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 12, 2012 5:03:56 GMT 1
A random selection from the electoral register for a People's Parliament could not be worse than the current party political whipped hacks, could it, Mr Sonde? Errr...yes, I'm sure it could. It's quite astonishing how ignorant and clueless most people are - about everything. let alone economics, political history, sociology, philosophy. I happened to be idly flicking through the channels the other night and came across Alistair Campbell's session in the Who wants to be a millionaire chair. With his girlfriend. For charidy, I presume. Both of them trained national journalists since their teens. One of them the press spokesman and closest advisor of the prime minister for over a decade. Which country was responsible in the 70s for the Skylab space station, Chris Tarrant asked - France, Britain, the Soviet Union, or the USA? Now - I ask you. These two buffoons spent ten minutes debating whether it was France or Britain. Both of them sincerely believed that Britain could possibly have afforded to put Skylab into space in the 70s, when we couldn't even afford to go to work for more than three days a week, work out how to collect the rubbish or bury the dead, and sold cars with square steering wheels for less than it cost to make them. They opted for France in the end. Confused by all those famous French astronauts like Charles de Gaulle when they were Daily Mirror trainees, I suppose. Hmmm...here and there, if they're like the average sort of person, agreed. But overall a set of views cohere into an overall attitude, and that can be fairly precisely located on the left-right spectrum. I'm always smack in the middle, for example, whatever sociio-political inventory I do. Aubrey would always be way on the extreme left. It's much more than an opinion. It's a set of values, and a way of interpreting the world. Ulimately, it probably derives most effectively from parental upbringing; and the depth of thought and mature experience honestly and courageously applied to examining one's thoughts - if one has the determination and self-critical capacity for that sort of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 12, 2012 5:14:32 GMT 1
Just to pick up one tiny point....if it wasn't for bus passes, our town centre would be jammed with old fogeys fighting for parking spaces, and the shops wouldn't do any business midweek. Free park and ride isn't Socialism Gone Mad but sensible capitalism in action. On a bigger issue: the problem with party politics is that we are invited from time to time to elect people to represent our interests to parliament. What we get instead is a bunch of scum who think their duty is to represent their party to the people. And don't get me going on the misrepresentation of "representation". Oh all right if you insist. We are told that there should be more lesbians/jedi/lefthanders or whatever in parliament because white middle class males from public schools are not representative of the population. Poppycock. There's a huge difference between representing a constituency and being representative of that group. Barristers are hired to represent their clients, i.e. to put their client's case in a skilled and knowledgeable manner, not to be representative of them, which would mean that half of all barristers should be inarticulate thieves and murderers. ;D ;D ;D In my experience of them, through a close friend who was a clerk in the Inns of Court, half of them at least are cocaine addicts. (Allegedly.) |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 12, 2012 5:36:20 GMT 1
A random selection from the electoral register would solve all the problems of "faux" representation and party politics, Mr Calverd - the people would be representing themselves directly. I would only make one proviso re age. The selection would only be from the over 40s. It would be for three years with one year's Citizenship and Parliamentary training prior to taking ones seat and one third of MPs retiring and being replaced every year. I know there are loads of criticisms that could be made of such a system, but it could not be worse than the present one and just think of the nous to be gained by a wide spectrum of the population from participation in this process! But what if one of the randomly selected was Exco, for example, who believes a government can borrow as much money as it could ever possibly want, because they can always print cash when it comes time for paying it back? What if that person was more articulate than Exco and had at least a smidgeon of charm and managed to persuade all the other random selectees - who will be about as bright and educated as, I don't know, the average contestant on Family Fortunes or Bullseye - that he knew the first thing about what he was pontificating about, and got himself elected PM or Chancellor? What if Aubrey managed to wangle his way into being Home Secretrary? Everyone over 12 would get a Free Porn Allowance with their weekly thousand quid giro. What if Nay became Foreign Secretary? ;D What if you were appointed the Sexual Equality minister? What if JeanHartrick managed to bluster her way into Education? A generation of kidz unable to read or write or add up except in latin. Is that what you want? Coz that's what will happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 12, 2012 10:08:21 GMT 1
But what if one of the randomly selected was Exco, for example, who believes a government can borrow as much money as it could ever possibly want, because they can always print cash when it comes time for paying it back? What if that person was more articulate than Exco and had at least a smidgeon of charm and managed to persuade all the other random selectees - who will be about as bright and educated as, I don't know, the average contestant on Family Fortunes or Bullseye - that he knew the first thing about what he was pontificating about, and got himself elected PM or Chancellor? I am always impressed by the force and cogency of your argument Mr Sonde, but this argument is unbreachable - it simply demolishes MR's model What if Aubrey managed to wangle his way into being Home Secretrary? Everyone over 12 would get a Free Porn Allowance with their weekly thousand quid giro. Take pity on poor MR please! This chap would be too lazy to do anything even if his perpetual high allowed it What if Nay became Foreign Secretary? See, Mr Sonde, you always push your arguments that tiny way too far and discredit them in the process! In fact I have that paternalistic approach that so characterised Britain at her greatest. I fully believe that they should have roads and hospitals and such things, and hence support the Coalitions foreign aid budgie ;D What if you were appointed the Sexual Equality minister? If there are two things I canot fault her on it is her excellent sex and her penchant for equality (under thelaw). I am afraid I do not follow your irony here Mr Sonde What if JeanHartrick managed to bluster her way into Education? A generation of kidz unable to read or write or add up except in latin. Is that what you want? Coz that's what will happen. The very clincher! You tease and prod, and then BAM - the pithy phrase that clinches the arguument |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 12, 2012 11:09:40 GMT 1
Why you should assume that a random selection from the electoral register would produce a parliament dominated by the types you mention I do not know. Do you think the average elector aged 40+ is queueing up to join a game show or a celebrity jaunt to the jungle any more than the party politicians are?
My point, as a NON-partisan, myself, is that the general public should be given a chance to show their worth.
Local authorities could be run on the same lines. Education Boards (I consider it most important that there is no centralisation of education and that various systems be allowed to develop) would be directly elected. Only parents should be elected to the Education boards since only parents truly have the best interests of their offspring at heart!
|
|
|
|
Post by principled on Dec 12, 2012 14:36:55 GMT 1
Mr S, if this is a true consequence of Marchesa's idea, then implementation of it would be catastrophic. After all, it is well known in political circles that anyone with any level of perspicacity is immediately sidelined to the back benches. Just imagine the havoc that would be wrought to our thriving economy if those in charge actually knew something about the Ministry they manage!  P |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 12, 2012 15:38:39 GMT 1
this argument is unbreachable - it simply demolishes MR's model Like one of those old lag cuckoo clocks made out of matchsticks. Someone's got to do it. I like to give the other children a chance. Ah, yes, you're right. Perhaps your talents would be better employed as Chief Whip. Did John Major ever re-promote Edwina Currie in the end? Never do it. Unless I'm going to one of those weddings or funerals where a clean shirt is required. Did you mean to write argument there? Because if you did, you really shouldn't have written what you wrote, should you? |
|
