O/T DUP still not playing ball..

[millmoormagic]

Lol an article from the Guardian

I assume your copy of the Beano has been delayed by the snow?

I'm just reciprocating Kerr, who seems to like linking to it, i suppose you're not gunna pull him up though eh, here's another, from the independant, no matter how much you wanna deny it, it's fact, and no amount of smart arris replies will mask the fact that you've been proved wrong, once again...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7722166.html

[ragingpup]

Whether I have medical insurance is my business. More importantly, it is irrelevant to the discussion. You appear to believe that my beliefs are based solely upon my own circumstances. They are not. I think I would be worse off under a government led by The Great Leader, but only because I think the whole country would be.

Nobody likes living with cuts. They have undoubtedly had adverse effects on many people, but that really isn’t the issue. What you should be thinking about is who has the best solution to the current situation of flat growth and a budget deficit that is coming down only very slowly, because that is the only way that the improvements confirmed within MMM's JRF report can be put back on track.

Some years ago I had some involvement in a ‘boiler room’ fraud case. It was a typical such case – the fraudsters would cold call people and offer them the ‘opportunity’ to buy shares in a company upon the promise of a significant return. The victims would be persuaded into making online transfers of, at times, significant sums of cash, which would disappear into a cat’s cradle of banking transactions and eventually into the fraudster’s pockets. The shares didn’t exist of course.

In the cold light of day, it beggars belief that the victims in that case were caught out. Everybody knows that you can’t have something for nothing – that there’s no such thing as a free lunch etc. But, as far as I can see, that is exactly what Labour is currently trying to sell. They are trying to sell the notion that people can have significantly increased spending on the NHS, social care and other local authority services, free tuition fees for their kid’s university education, big pay rises for civil servants etc. with the tab being picked up by a very small number of high earners and by companies who are going to shrug off increased corporate taxes with a smile - big returns for no cost.

Dishonesty and politics go hand in hand, but I accept without hesitation that the vast majority of Labour supporters simply want what they believe would be a better path for the country to take (although there are, of course, a smattering of embittered class warriors amongst them – you know who you are), but I believe they are falling into the trap that the fraud victims did – believing something because they want to rather than because it stands up to any kind of rational thinking or scrutiny.

And I’m still waiting for someone to advance a compelling argument as to why it’s a good idea to borrow vast amounts of money to privatise the utilities and the Royal Mail.

You're right that whether you have medical insurance is your own business but I disagree that this is irrelevant to the discussion, any more so that a local person in a relatively poor (demographically) Northern town will feel resentful and threatened by a Government policy (as over the last 20 years) to direct a disproportionate number of migrant workers into those areas will cause many people there to switch from traditionally labour supporters into UKIP territory. From our position of working in jobs that are not threatened by this policy, we then look at these local people as bigots, blaming migrants instead of Government policy. But the point is that their experience leads them to their beliefs and this has been a focal point in recent politics. By the same token, our personal distance from the essential services that are being cut will have a direct impact on whether they concern us. Its human and it’s a fact.

So what of it? I'm asking as you are a curious case Mr Kerr - generally capable of putting forward cohesive arguments but, as with this post, prone to lapses in logic that for me suggest a deeper self- interest. Look at what you are saying: you are genuinely comparing Corbyn with deliberate criminal fraudsters. This is a man who has spent all his life opposing neo-liberal economics from both the Conservatives and his own party and even the majority of his opponents, if Corbs dropped dead tomorrow would I think pay tribute to a man of great integrity. But in your mind, he is a gangster trying to defraud the population. Hence why I'm looking at the colouring of your spectacles and how you justify your pro-Conservative/neo-liberal thinking to yourself, let alone the rest of us.
You seem to be implying that Labour policy is simply to borrow billions of pounds and plough it straight into services. Simple as that. If that is really what you believe, that would bring you down to the received wisdom of the average Sun reader. Labour's economic policy is about borrowing to invest, in skills and industry so that long term productivity is improved creating a better financial picture long term. Many economists see the value of such a plan:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...conomic-policy

You seem an academically capable chap, so why are you simplifying the Labour argument so much? I wouldn't expect it to win you over from your belief that our current neo-liberal path is the only option, but I would expect you to put up a more considered case of Labour economic policies than to compare them to criminal fraudsters. Even the Sun would balk at that! (Well, maybe…)
Likewise, with the return of the utilities to public ownership; there is a very sound argument that is being made that we taxpayers are already propping up the utilities with huge subsidies in order for them to then cut services and maximise returns to shareholders. The argument for re-nationalisation is that you take the profits that the services bring you and re-invest in those services for an improved service.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7731961.html

We all know the relatively poor services experienced under the previous nationalisation in the 70s and I appreciate that - but that was then and we have moved on enormously since those days where accountability for waste for non-existent and impacted on service quality. Why would we make the same mistake today? Again, you seem to be repeating Murdoch doom threats. You can do better than that but curiously seem reluctant to do so. Why?

Further, reducing us Labour supporters to people who are "believing something because they want to rather than because it stands up to any kind of rational thinking or scrutiny" is pretty unfair, and not a little condescending. All labour policies have carefully thought out financial arguments (as have the Conservatives) and strategies and are backed by many economists. Reducing us down to such naïve idiots is exactly the same as those on the left arguing that right wing policy is led only by evil big business with no thought at all for social considerations. We both know that the real world ain’t so black and white so why are you being so reductive here? Some of us are driven by trying to find an alternative to the situation we see around us. Your answer to that problem is, by your own admission, to continue doing what we have been doing for the last 40 years. We though come from the POV that this doesn’t work for the majority in the UK so it’s time for change. Yes, there is an element of risk in any alternative strategy, we would be foolish not to deconstruct Labour’s plans in the same way as I do for the Tories. The BIG difference is that your favoured policy has been demonstrated not to work for the majority of people in the UK, as you confirmed in your own acceptance of the ‘Tory lie’ that the money spent on social services is not adequate to fund what is needed. Your favoured neo-liberal policy has, in only the last 10 year brought us the bankers scandal, a huge subsequent recession and Brexit! I think we can do better than that…

I would agree that the Labour proposal is a calculated risk, but a risk made with the best of intentions to serve the majority, with careful consideration of the economic situation and with, let’s be honest, very little ACTUAL change to the existing status quo so as to be an earth quaking disaster if it doesn’t work as we’d hoped. I think we’ve established in previous posts that there is no point the super-rich upping business and going elsewhere when elsewhere charges even more in corporation tax! Competitiveness in the world economy has to be paramount and is so in Labour’s proposals (whatever the folk with vested interests might say!).

So enough of the quoting of different links to back up our cases – we can all do that all day. Can we not agree that both Right and Left can make plausible cases for their economic choices based on countless very valid academic writing and articles? And likewise can we not respect that someone with whom we might disagree can come at the argument from an informed, rather than naïve or evil perspective and raise the level of debate somewhat? You hate it when others play up to Tory caricatures, why do you think it’s ok for you to do the same?

[animallittle3]

" Solving today's problems with yesterday's failed solutions "

Yeh of course they are , more neoliberal horse shyte .


https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...t-tories#img-1

[KerrAvon]

@ ragingpup

I think you are too kind in suggesting that people who switched to UKIP did so out of concerns for their jobs. Some would have done so, but for a good many others it was good old fashioned xenophobia.

You misunderstood the purpose of my boiler room fraud comments. I wasn’t suggesting that The Great Leader is a con-man (or at least no more so than the average politician) . I had intended to convey that with my comment about Labour supporters wanting a better Britain. My point was about the danger of people suspending any sort of reason or critical thought simply because they want to believe what they are being told and, in particular, because they want to believe that they can have something for nothing, which is, as far as I can see, what the Labour Party is currently trying to sell.

On the something for nothing point, it is clear from the other thread that is running that you don’t accept that there is a price to be paid for simultaneously increasing corporate tax rates and the minimum wage. There clearly is and it will be paid in jobs.

In much the same way that I think that the majority of Labour supporters want a better Britain, I think the majority of Tory supporters do too. My profession sends a lot of people to Parliament and I know several MPs from both sides of the house and of various levels of seniority. They are like every other bunch of people and generally decent irrespective of their politics. You say that I hate it when people use comments such as likening Tories to ‘sewer rats’ or similar. That is not the case. I think such behaviour demonstrates that the person making the comment has a closed mind, which annoys me. I don’t like bigotry and it matters not to me whether such behaviour is based upon race religion or political persuasion.

I’m aware of the ‘priming the pump’ argument advanced in resect of some of Labours borrowing plans. Some investment spending of that type is desirable, particularly when interest rates are low. Where I part company with Labour is on the scale of the borrowing that they propose, firstly because I doubt their ability to spend wisely (government generally has a poor record on that) and secondly because the sums involved are so great that they will create inflation (by boosting the demand side of the economy).

Your argument for nationalisation of the utilities and Royal Mail is, my opinion, fallacious. The notion that there will be profits available to invest ignores the fact that we will be paying interest on the costs of acquisition. The article that you have linked to suggests that the key question, from a public policy perspective, is whether the business assets are likely to be run more efficiently in the interests of the public in one form of ownership than the other. It quite rightly suggests that question should be answered upon an empirical basis, but then ignores the evidence available in the UK from our previous experience with nationalised industries. As a regular (daily) train user, I can say without fear of contradiction that we are streets (or should that be tracks) ahead of the nightmare of British Rail.

Your apparent belief that things would be somehow different today is not evidence based. The imperative to make a profit inevitably drives efficiencies. The lack of such a need inevitably leads to excessive staffing levels, weak management and a lack of innovation.

Whilst I would agree that the energy market doesn’t work as efficiently as it should, that is down to a failure of regulation (and, by extension, political will) rather than a flawed system.

I’ve never said that I would to continue doing what we have been doing for the last 40 years. I would change many things, but not in a way that you would necessarily like. As an example, for me, education is the greatest tool available for seeking to level the social playing field and one of the main routes to prosperity, but I don’t think we do it at all well in the UK. In part that is because of our ridiculous commitment to the one size fits all comprehensive system. We need to start recognising the existence of difference in aptitude and ability and start providing more options to recognise that some children have an academic bent whilst others have stronger practical/technical abilities. It won’t happen because people are too scared to acknowledge that reality in part because of prejudice towards a technical education which will be seen as being inferior. It isn’t - it’s just different. Sadly (or not), nobody has asked me to write UK education policy.

I’m loving the way that you say that we should debate without quoting references to links in a post that contains two links. Alanis Morissette would have loved it too.

[millmoormagic]

So, what would you do about the in work poverty, homelessness, foodbanks useage, in modern Britain Kerr?

You put together fine words in fine sentences that actually, when it comes down to it, mean absolutely nothing, care to tell me what you'd do, i think this is the 5th time of asking...

[animallittle3]

May hasn't come back with any deal at all as she ?

It's the peace in our time gig all over again , there's nothing of substance in this agreement , when pushed on it's merits she's swerving the scrutiny , nothings agreed no less until err it's agreed , quite .

It's a fudge , it's bought a bit of time but that's about it , the tories are playing the well done PM mood music in public , the party comes first after all and sharpening the knifes behind closed doors .

Things will come to a head in the new year , there's little doubt about that , too fragile , too weakened for it not to .

Boris , Gove and IDS won't accept the EU calling the shots for too much longer , Rees Mogg either .

She's their useful idiot right now and the only thing keeping her in office .

It won't last with trade deals on the agenda , we've seen nothing yet .

[KerrAvon]

" Solving today's problems with yesterday's failed solutions "

Yeh of course they are , more neoliberal horse shyte .


https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...t-tories#img-1

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...hnology-speech

More the failed Labour policies of the 60s than the 70s.

[KerrAvon]

So, what would you do about the in work poverty, homelessness, foodbanks useage, in modern Britain Kerr?

You put together fine words in fine sentences that actually, when it comes down to it, mean absolutely nothing, care to tell me what you'd do, i think this is the 5th time of asking...

Yesterday afternoon you didn't want me to answer your questions, but by the late evening you did. Make your mind up.

I'd accept that growing the economy is the only practical solution. To that end, I'd continue with the progress that has been made to reduce the budget deficit.

On homelessness, I'd accept that there will be no change until the supply side of the housing market is addressed. Whether the promises in the budget to do so amount to much remains to be seen. I would also accept that the complex reasons behind homelessness have existed under governments of every hue and will continue to do so.

What I wouldn't do is vote for a party that prioritises nationalising businesses over tackling poverty, advocates policies that will increase unemployment and inflation and which is willing to borrow billions to buy middle class votes by scrapping tuition fees - the progressive taxation solution to the question of how to fund such a high proportion of people going to university.

[KerrAvon]

May hasn't come back with any deal at all as she ?

It's the peace in our time gig all over again , there's nothing of substance in this agreement , when pushed on it's merits she's swerving the scrutiny , nothings agreed no less until err it's agreed , quite .

It's a fudge , it's bought a bit of time but that's about it , the tories are playing the well done PM mood music in public , the party comes first after all and sharpening the knifes behind closed doors .

Things will come to a head in the new year , there's little doubt about that , too fragile , too weakened for it not to .

Boris , Gove and IDS won't accept the EU calling the shots for too much longer , Rees Mogg either .

She's their useful idiot right now and the only thing keeping her in office .

It won't last with trade deals on the agenda , we've seen nothing yet .

Lol. You said there would be another General Election in the summer, then it became the autumn and now it's the New Year. You've peppered the target a bit. Why not go for 'some time before July 2022' to at least give yourself a chance of being right.

May secured an agreement to move onto trade talks. In doing so, she secured an agreement on citizen's rights, which was probably the most difficult of the three issues under consideration and upon which no reasonable government could have agreed to the EU demands.

The Irish border issue was a red herring. That issue cannot be settled until the future trade arrangements are settled and for that reason alone, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

The trade talks will be very diffilcult. The EU are not acting in good faith. They want to make our exit painful so as to discourage other countries.

You voted for it.

[ragingpup]

@ ragingpup

I think you are too kind in suggesting that people who switched to UKIP did so out of concerns for their jobs. Some would have done so, but for a good many others it was good old fashioned xenophobia.

You misunderstood the purpose of my boiler room fraud comments. I wasn’t suggesting that The Great Leader is a con-man (or at least no more so than the average politician) . I had intended to convey that with my comment about Labour supporters wanting a better Britain. My point was about the danger of people suspending any sort of reason or critical thought simply because they want to believe what they are being told and, in particular, because they want to believe that they can have something for nothing, which is, as far as I can see, what the Labour Party is currently trying to sell.

On the something for nothing point, it is clear from the other thread that is running that you don’t accept that there is a price to be paid for simultaneously increasing corporate tax rates and the minimum wage. There clearly is and it will be paid in jobs.

In much the same way that I think that the majority of Labour supporters want a better Britain, I think the majority of Tory supporters do too. My profession sends a lot of people to Parliament and I know several MPs from both sides of the house and of various levels of seniority. They are like every other bunch of people and generally decent irrespective of their politics. You say that I hate it when people use comments such as likening Tories to ‘sewer rats’ or similar. That is not the case. I think such behaviour demonstrates that the person making the comment has a closed mind, which annoys me. I don’t like bigotry and it matters not to me whether such behaviour is based upon race religion or political persuasion.

I’m aware of the ‘priming the pump’ argument advanced in resect of some of Labours borrowing plans. Some investment spending of that type is desirable, particularly when interest rates are low. Where I part company with Labour is on the scale of the borrowing that they propose, firstly because I doubt their ability to spend wisely (government generally has a poor record on that) and secondly because the sums involved are so great that they will create inflation (by boosting the demand side of the economy).

Your argument for nationalisation of the utilities and Royal Mail is, my opinion, fallacious. The notion that there will be profits available to invest ignores the fact that we will be paying interest on the costs of acquisition. The article that you have linked to suggests that the key question, from a public policy perspective, is whether the business assets are likely to be run more efficiently in the interests of the public in one form of ownership than the other. It quite rightly suggests that question should be answered upon an empirical basis, but then ignores the evidence available in the UK from our previous experience with nationalised industries. As a regular (daily) train user, I can say without fear of contradiction that we are streets (or should that be tracks) ahead of the nightmare of British Rail.

Your apparent belief that things would be somehow different today is not evidence based. The imperative to make a profit inevitably drives efficiencies. The lack of such a need inevitably leads to excessive staffing levels, weak management and a lack of innovation.

Whilst I would agree that the energy market doesn’t work as efficiently as it should, that is down to a failure of regulation (and, by extension, political will) rather than a flawed system.

I’ve never said that I would to continue doing what we have been doing for the last 40 years. I would change many things, but not in a way that you would necessarily like. As an example, for me, education is the greatest tool available for seeking to level the social playing field and one of the main routes to prosperity, but I don’t think we do it at all well in the UK. In part that is because of our ridiculous commitment to the one size fits all comprehensive system. We need to start recognising the existence of difference in aptitude and ability and start providing more options to recognise that some children have an academic bent whilst others have stronger practical/technical abilities. It won’t happen because people are too scared to acknowledge that reality in part because of prejudice towards a technical education which will be seen as being inferior. It isn’t - it’s just different. Sadly (or not), nobody has asked me to write UK education policy.

I’m loving the way that you say that we should debate without quoting references to links in a post that contains two links. Alanis Morissette would have loved it too.

Lol @ Alanis. I think we both know that the point about dropping links was about going forward and an acceptance that both left and right can make evidence based arguments for their convictions - and that we should refrain from making such condescending comments as "My point was about the danger of people suspending any sort of reason or critical thought simply because they want to believe what they are being told and, in particular, because they want to believe that they can have something for nothing, which is, as far as I can see, what the Labour Party is currently trying to sell". You just can't help yourself can you?

I respect your viewpoints and arguments that you put forward, much as I disagree with them. Its a shame that you can't afford the same respect for others.

I am interested in your views on education however. I tend to agree that we should raise the value of technical skills. The difficulty in proceeding in this direction is how to organise it - at what age should we start deciding that this child is academic and this child is technical? How do we decide that? I personally failed at school coming out at 16 with only an English CSE grade C and proceeded to fail my A levels having rather ill advisedly decided to do all my revision in the Maltby pubs. Was I not an academic failure at this stage? What would you have had me do?

Having tried dead end jobs whilst I dabbled with am-dram, I went back into education as a mature student to do an access course, did alright and went on to do a degree in drama where, after a very confident start, suddenly was inspired by an excellent personal tutor and I went on to get a 1st degree. Suddenly I'm an academic! But no thanks to the education system and no real thanks to myself at school.

So how would your hypothetical school system have managed me and how would you go about identifying academic v tech skills generally? I generally agree with you but, as an educationalist at heart, am very concerned that such a policy could lead to early labelling of kids as 'academic' and 'technical' in a way that doesn't suit their developing selves. It is crooked thinking like this that I think is behind recent Conservative thinking on developing grammar schools as opposed to providing adequate resourcing (facilities and pay) for general education and allowing brilliant teachers manage the multi faceted development of our kids.