|
|
|
|
Hi cossie
It is easily forgotten that when Mrs Thatcher’s government came to power it was at a time when the socialists had almost bankrupted the nation, we were in hock to the rest of the industrialised world, the dead were left unburied and uncremated and the rubbish was left uncollected on the streets. That’s why she was elected and she had a pretty tough job to do. Later the country was involved in a modern type of civil war involving who was going to run the country - the elected government or the trade unions. One side was going to lose and while the change in the north east was to be deprecated it was partially the effect of Arthur Scargill’s intransigence alongside the fact that coal was fast becoming a thing of the past and uneconomical to mine. That fact had to be faced sooner or later.
While income tax is lower these days I cannot agree that we are a low tax economy. 17.5% VAT is not low. Contrast GST in Canada at 7%. I think we would agree on the social things you list that should be free - sorry, not free, paid for by taxpayers’ money - but they do not require a socialist government.
Privatisation is a complex subject. I deplore the selling of our assets to foreign companies, but I see that as a result of our rigid adherence to EU law. Because of that it could not be prevented. Under privatisation the utilities have become more efficient. I forget how many months the GPO made me wait for a telephone.
Public transport is an interest of mine and I also deplore the state of the railways. Again the blame can be laid at the door of EU law even if our civil servants wrongly interpreted it. However, I only have praise for the way Stagecoach and National Express have improved the bus services in our area. No one in authority knows what an integrated transport policy is in this country. To find that out you need to go to Switzerland, probably the most right wing country in Europe where the trains are fast, clean, reliable, cheap and in profit, where the buses are timed to deliver to and collect from the trains, where the same ticket from A to B can be used on trains, trams, buses or boats. What have ten years of socialist government done for public transport, or even for private transport? Nothing. Finally a cross London rail link will be built in umpteen years’ time. The one highspeed railway we have was built by private initiative and initiated under the Conservative government. Where are the rest? Road building was stopped. No wonder our roads can’t cope.
You and I, cossie, obviously share the same ideals, but why should they be hijacked by the left?
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
The UK is far more highly taxed than Australia, yet Australia still manages to provide universal primary and secondary education, in addition to public health care.
The problem in Australia, I believe, is the amount of middle-class welfare being handed out. In Australia couples get money when they have a baby. They get incentives to pay for child care. There's all kinds of subsidies being paid to middle class citizens that pay tax!
I absolutely despise this government churning. Why should money go from people back to the same people? Why not just let those people pay for the services outright? I support welfare for people truly in need, taking money from those living in excess. But people receiving money from the government shouldn't pay tax- and people paying tax shouldn't receive money from the government. All it does is add a middle-man to the picture.
In Australia, when government monopolies are broken and the private sector takes hold prices drop and people benefit. The only thing public industry does better is prop up rural communities.
I'm a moderate libertarian, I believe in the continued existence of welfare for the needy. I grew up in a single parent family and my mum relied on the government to get through. But she still worked, she still did her best. The government shouldn't take away people's personal responsibility.
The ideas of the left are nice in theory- but they rely on government as a means. In my utopian society I am in favour of "anarcho-communism" shared wealth without authority figures being needed. I feel the best way to achieve that is libertarianism- starving the beast that is the government and encouraging responsibility in individuals to help one another.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Sorry, Nigel, but most of your first paragraph is emotive rubbish, and I never respond to emotive rubbish.
The real confrontation between government and unions was the 'Winter of Discontent' of Ted Heath's premiership; it was history before Thatcher appeared on the scene.
That said, I've already made it clear that I'm not a card-carrying Labour supporter. I agree that union power was out of hand, though the Mineworkers were less so than, for example, the Chapels of the press unions. I accept that Arthur Scargill was a fool, whose intransigence worked to the serious detriment of the members of the National Union of Mineworkers - but we Brits have a tradition of fools on both sides of the political spectrum. None of this justifies the government-inspired brutality at Orgreave Coke Works, nor the comprehensive community destruction in the aftermath of the miner's strike.
Yes, the economic facts of life change; you don't see a lot of tram drivers, engine-cleaners or domestic coal merchants these days. Nowadays, farmers and fishermen are at the sharp end. But normally it is a gradual - even if sometimes fairly rapid - process. This was not gradual. The government was directly responsible for the economic destruction of a huge number of communities on the coalfields, and its subsequent support of those communities was woefully inadequate.
As regards the question of whether or not we are a low-tax economy, there we encroach upon my professional field. It's easy to pick out a particular tax or duty (especially if you are a copywriter for the Daily Mail) but the fact remains that we DO have a low tax economy which has attracted many overseas concerns to relocate (at least nominally) to the UK. I can't easily reduce complex economics to bite-sized pieces, but the evidence is readily available with a little research.
And let us not forget that when Thatcher came to power, the very, very rich were paying tax at 98% on the top slice of their unearned income. I freely accept that this was unrealistically high. But did the Conservatives attempt gradual moderation? They did not. The top rate (again, I stress, for unearned income) was immediately cut to 75%, and shortly afterwards to 60%, leaving multi-millionaires with something like twenty times the residual income they had previously enjoyed. Of course, there was no commensurate benefit for the lower paid.
As regards the suggestion that utilities have become more efficient, it would seem to depend upon which company you deal with. Do you subscribe to the Consumers' Association journal 'Which?'? If so. you must be aware that there are plenty of nightmares still out there.
I don't subscribe to the vogue for blaming our ills on the European Union. Personally, I see nothing but benefit in being an integral part of a larger political entity. And anyway, it simply isn't true. UK governments have always mismanaged nationalised concerns by reducing the issue to party politics and constantly interfering to prevent any realistic long-term planning. France has been much more successful in sitting back and allowing nationalised concerns to contribute to the national coffers. In the UK, Labour governments (apart from the current one) have taken a doctrinaire approach to nationalisation, and Coservative governments have taken a doctrinaire approach to undoing whatever Labour has done. That's not productive on either side. A good example is the Post Office. The French are rightly proud of 'La Poste', but our Post Office is dying in the communities which need it most. Why? because the best bits (National Girobank, for example) have been sold off to the highest bidder. Even the Post Office itself has been severed from the Royal Mail delivery service, with which it has a natural affinity and mutual dependence. So we are losing an extremely valuable social institution to doctrinaire beliefs, for which I acknowledge that the Labour Party bears a significant share of blame.
Turning to transport policy, as I thought I'd made clear. my area of the country had an excellent, fully-integrated transport system in the 1970s. That was achieved under the Public Transport Executives. wholly dominated by Labout-controlled local authorities. In those days, there was no need to go to Switzerland to see such a system. But now Stagecoach - far the least ethical of the major transport groups - rules the roost North of the Tyne, and the service is abysmal. By the way, did you know that Brian Souter, top man in Stagecoach, is a rabid homophobe?
But that's enough of that! I hope - no, I'm pretty well sure - that you, Nigel, will accept this in the spirit in which it is intended, as straightforward political infighting which in no way diminishes the mutual respect we have for each other.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I don't know that everyone will agree but here's my political vocab:
Socialist- someone that believes in equality of wealth
Communist- someone that believes that all assets should be owned through shared means by the community
Capitalist- someone that believes in free markets
Liberal- someone that believes in individual (social) freedoms
Neo-liberal- someone that believes in economic freedoms (capitalism)
Conservative- someone that believes in preserving traditions in society
Neo-conservative someone that believes in preserving capitalism as a tradition of the west
Progressive- someone that believes in radical social change away from the status quo
Protectionist- someone that believes in protecting domestically produced goods and services from competition of international corporations
Nationalist- someone that believes ones own nation and national identity should be valued above others (often protectionist)
Libertarian- someone that believes in small government (socially and economically)
Left-wing someone in favour of universally provided services (education, health, often more), usually socially liberal
Right-wing someone in favour of free market economics, often social conservatives
Centrist someone in favour of mixed economies and often mixed social positions
Authoritarian someone supportive of powerful leadership (usually socially)
Statist someone supportive of strong government
There's been a lot of movement of the "left/ right" terms which are traditionally more focused on economics. Each country has their own definitions but hopefully most people can agree with the ones I've provided above. The media in America seems to like confusing the terms- Hillary Clinton is called a "liberal" when she is really in support of Centrist social policy and a more socialised (ie authoritarian) economic system. Liberal does not mean left-wing, though left-wing often means liberal socialist.
The Political Compass mostly gets this right, but in some areas I feel it's still lacking. It should use "liberal" to refer to social freedom rather than "libertarian". Libertarian is a different tradition more in line with Friedman's pro-capitalist approach. I also don't like "left" and "right" being used solely as economic terms. "Free market" and "Socialist" are more accurate, "left" and "right" have come to encompass social opinions, too.
The republicans (and for that matter the democrats) could be said to be free-market authoritarians. Much like Reagan and Thatcher. And the current Australian government, too. Overall I support the Political Compass as linked earlier. I just feel that left, right and libertarian are the wrong terms to use.
Personally I'm a moderate libertarian. I am supportive of smaller government in both social and economic spheres. I do support the continued existence of a minimal welfare state and the existence of the rule of law. But overall unless one starves the government of its revenue how can we expect it to back out of our lives?
Despite my belief in a free market however, I despise being lumped with the free-market authoritarians like Bush and John Howard. I have a lot of goals in common with the green and socialist parties of the world. I, like Nigel, just don't believe the betterment of the common man is solely the domain of the left.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
The best resource for this is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
It lists total tax revenue, rather than any particular tax (ie income tax).
The UK is "low" compared to Sweden or France, but "high" compared to Australia, USA or Japan.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie, it will take me days to respond (if I respond as the thread will go cold) because I am going away this week, but you are naughty. You have dismissed what I say as emotive rubbish, soundbites and buzzwords. Perhaps people will now understand what Jack is saying in his thread.
You don't say which part of the paragraph is emotive rubbish, but the first part was fact, not my opinion.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the glossary. Really! I was becoming confused at what left/right vs liberal/conservative meant in the UK. There are slightly different meanings in "the colonies" (tongue in cheek). Here, the news "services" equate left with liberal and right with conservative. I find the separation of definitions you have supplied to be very helpful. Here, the news "services" usually only service themselves and their corporate sponors. (IMHO)
Scott
Cycling is the one sport where a guy can shave his legs, wear spandex and bright colors, and be accepted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... in an attempt to damp things down.
First, that first paragraph. It wasn't the factual content but the emotive language which I was reluctant to address. I'll try to do so now.
Yes, there was an economic crisis in the late 1970s (not wholly restricted to the UK, by the way) and I agree that the Labour government of the day did not handle it particularly well - but it needs to be seen in context, and it fell a long way short of national bankruptcy. And yes, there was a contemporary strike by local authority workers, which caused widespread problems such as a backlog of cremations and burials involving council-owned crematoria and cemeteries and suspension of refuse collections. Expressed that way, I have no quarrel with the facts. I just don't believe that it's possible to conduct a balanced argument using emotive phrases such as " the dead were left unburied and uncremated and the rubbish was left uncollected on the streets." Yes, there were problems, and in some areas these were severe, but by no means all crematoria and cemetereies are council owned, and not all local authority union branches took a hard line on the issue. Similarly, several councils employed independent contractors to collect hazardous refuse.
The second part of the paragraph seems to imply that the confrontation with the National Union of Mineworkers inevitably led to the destruction of communities in the coalfield. That simply isn't true. Before addressing that, however, there is a point I should make about wage negotiations in state and local government. For many years, pay had been negotiated through a variety of 'comparative' schemes. Reduced to essentials, these involved a joint committee of government (or local government) and trade union representatives which identified jobs in the private sector which were comparable with public sector grades. The average level of remuneration for those private sector jobs was established, and after adjusting for such matters as non-contributory pension schemes an security of job tenure, a pay scale for the public sector grade was agreed. Of course, this always meant that the public sector workers were a year behind their private sector counterparts, but with inflation both low and comparatively static, the system worked well and kept industial relations amicable across large swathes of the public sector. Then, in the early 1970s, the government of the day renegued on the deal. Two new phrases entered the political vocabulary - 'Pay Freeze' and 'Public Sector Wage Restraint'. A 'Pay Freeze' made it illegal to increase employee's remuneration during the freeze, but the legislation had more holes than a colander; company directors (who are technically employees in UK law) simply awarded themselves increased dividends or share purchase rights, and the private sector kept employees sweet with non-cash benefits. 'Public Sector Pay Restraint' involved a move away from fair comparison to government dictate; the average increase was capped by 'what the country can afford'. But of course it is the government which controls the workload in government departments, so many public sector employees found themselves working harder for lower rewards. On top of this, inflation was rising at an umprecedented rate. Thus a gulf rapidly opened between public sector and private sector pay. In the Department for which I worked at that time, professional staff in London could by the mid-1970s command pay increases of between 50% and over 100% by defecting to the private sector, and they did so in droves. Other staff were transferred to London to fill the gaps, but of course many of them quickly followed the same route to the private sector. Newly qualified staff were increasingly difficult to recruit into the public sector so, inevitably, the workload of existing staff increased still further while their income stagnated. This, then, was the background to public sector militancy; most public servants felt that their treatment was grossly unfair, and the trust which had previously existed between employers and employees was wholly dissipated. The militancy of contemporary public sector strikers must be viewed in the context of the shabby treatment they had received over the preceding six or seven years.
I acknowledge that the Labour Party effectively continued the policy of the Conservatives; this isn't a party political argument, just an explanation of the background.
Right. Back to the National Union of Mineworkers. I've already said on many occasions that I accept unreservedly that the power of the larger unions had increased to a wholly unacceptable level, and that the problem ultimately had to be addressed. Scargill was foolish enough to push the matter to its limits. No government with any sort of political acumen could possibly have allowed the NUM to win. So no quarrel so far. But the brutality of Orgreave was appalling; money was no object in recruiting huge numbers of police to the picket lines, and the way in which they behaved left little doubt that they were acting in accordance with some sort of express or implied instructions.
Nonetheless, the miners' union had upped the stakes to a point where, inevitably, the strike had to be broken, and ultimately it was. The film 'Billy Elliott' gave a pretty accurate impression of the anguish felt in mining communities at that time.
So, ultimately, the strike was over. Legislation governing union rights and activities soon followed, and though in places it was unnecessarily draconian, it was certainly needed.
The strike had caused extreme hardship in mining communities; families who had enjoyed a comfortable standard of living were reduced to poverty, their savings exhausted. That is not what destroyed those communities; they were resilient and there was a strong tradition of mutual support. But Thatcher's government twisted the knife, and embarked upon a policy of rapid closure of deep mines. It was the loss of the local pit - the economic heart of the community - which caused the real and lasting damage. Miners were not strangers to pit closures; the life of a colliery was always limited. It was, however, a gradual process; in the coalfields of Northumberland and Durham there was a long tradition of progressive migration from West to East. This time, there was nothing gradual about it. If your local pit closed, you could not migrate to another pit, because it was closing, too. The political mantra was that deep mining was no longer economic, but large numbers of mining engineers were happy to testify otherwise. Obviously the deep mining industry was contracting; the market for the high-quality house-coal mined in Northumberland declined with the introduction of smokeless zones and the increasing rate of conversion to gas or electric space heating, just as the disappearance of steam haulage from British Railways in the decade ending in 1967 had impacted upon the steam-coal pits of Soluth Wales. But there was - and still is - a market for coal. Deep mining no longer relied upon hewers with picks, and putters manhandling tubs of coal to the base of the pit-shaft. It was highly mechanised and many pits had a viable economic life of between twenty and fifty years. Yes, the end of deep mining could be foreseen, but it was well into the future and its demise would arise from falling demand for the product.
There is still a demand for coal. Despite the huge reserves accessible by deep mining, we now import millions of tons of the stuff, and the remaining domestic production is by the much more environmentally damaging opencast method. However detached I try to feel, I am left with the conviction that Thatcher's policy was simply vindictive.
It wasn't the only occasion upon which she acted in a similar fashion. Consider the abolition of London County Council, and of the Metropolitan County Councils. The significant common factor was that these bodies were Labour controlled. With the Metropolitan counties went the effective powers of the Public Transport Executives, several of which, as I've already mentioned, had introduced excellent integrated public transport systems within their respective areas.
Moving on to the idea of a low-tax economy, you are absolutely right about VAT, and I accept that this is EU-led, though neither of our major political paries has shown any disinclination to follow. Our indirect taxes are too high, and our direct taxes - which reflect the wealth of the payer - are too low. The UK is attractive to US companies because of our benevolent corporation tax regime, but the factor which pushes the US down the table is its irresponsibly low taxes on oil-derived fuels. Obviously and understandably, the US driver resents rising fuel prices, but it's easy to forget that most of the Western world is paying not just a bit more, but several times more for its petrol/gasoline. On top of that, per capita duty rates are, in a sense, misleading, since they ignore benefits (as, for example, our National Health Service) which come 'in the package' in one country but are paid for separately (and in the private sector) in another. There are innumerable factors affecting a comparison, but one point which is particularly relevant to the UK - with a high population density - is that the cost of many public services varies with that density.
On the Privatisation/Nationalisation issue, we may not be too far apart. My main objection to both parties is that. too often, it is treated as a doctrinaire, rather than an economic issue. It seems to me that state ownership of railways makes a lot of sense, and it is common in the rest of Europe. In the UK, the problem with British Railways/British Rail, once Trade Union issues had been resolved, was consistent short-term political interference. The fact that we lag so far behind France is not the fault of railway professionals be a consequence of government reluctance to commit to long-term investment. And that's true whichever government is in power.
Looking at the penultimate paragraph of your opening post in this thread, I do think it's a bit politically biased! It was the Conservative government which de-regulated public transport; perhaps the Labour government should be congratulated for - unusually - refraining from reversing the policy before it had a chance to develop. As things stand, there are (in my view rather overdue) moves to restore the powers of the PTEs. As regards the ethics of Stagecoach, the entire justification for privatisation was the mantra that competition would benefit the public. As you have an interest in public transport, you'll presumably be aware of the way in which Stagecoach has used its size and power to extinguish competition. Darlington and Lancaster were past examples; it seems to be happening again in Preston. Oh, and I included the homophobe comment about Brian Souter out of devilment, but it IS true; he made a VERY substantial donation to those who opposed the amendment of Section Fiftysomething - the legislation that prevented discussion of homosexuality in schools.
And finally! I really do think that on the moral and ethical plane we are pretty close together, but it seems to me that all of the great advances in community support - from old age pensions to the National Health Service - have come from governments of the left. But what happens is always vastly more important than who makes it happen. Truce?
I'm not sure that pure politics is a proper subject for debate here, because political allegiance is so often subjective rather than objective. But, as Magnus Magnusson used to say on Mastermind, 'I've started, so I'll finish'. I don't want to fall out with someone for whom I have a great deal of admiration, so I hope, Nigel, that we can, together, find an amiable conclusion.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie, I think a point is that we come from different geographical backgrounds and therefore start with different points of view. I won't say social backgrounds because I think we both worked our way out of the ghetto (cliché - I'll say it before you do). The experiences of Stagecoach in the North are obviously different from those where I live and sibce I have had my bus pass I use the buses a lot when I don't cycle because they are now there.
To clarify my comments about Arthur Scargill and the NUM - it takes two to have an argument. The devastation of the mining communties would not have happened, had he not taken on the government and therefore he must share some of the responsibility.
I'm back on Thursday.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't find a niche for myself in Saben's list. But then, as all who know me will readily aver, I am a queer bird (in all senses of the word). Throught my adult life I have considered myself a Liberal in the classic mould of the defunct English Liberal party. (I have no idea whether the present-day Lib-Dems would be my cup of tea or not.) I think that what Saben calls Progressive is what I would call myself: a Radical Liberal. Jo Grimond was and is one of my political heroes.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Hi, Nigel!
I'm assuming that it will be Thursday or Friday before you read this.
I think you've hit on a very relevant point, which I hadn't really considered. As far as I'm aware, mining doesn't figure in my ancestry, but my wife's paternal grandfather was a Deputy in the local group of pits; he was over eighty when I first met him, but he was one of the nicest, most intelligent and interesting people I have ever had the privilege of knowing. (For the uninitiated, a Deputy - short for 'Deputy Overman' - was a sort of section manager, though in this case he had for much of his working life been safety officer, with responsibility for ensuring proper maintenance of drainage, airflow and emergency systems. Deputies were not part of the National Union of Mineworkers, and did not take part in the strike referred to in previous posts. They had their own union, NACODS - the impressive-sounding National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers.) Through him, I developed an interest in mining history and its spinoff topics such as ancient colliery waggonways, and even traditional miners songs. By the time of the strike I was familiar with much of the North-East coalfield, so I saw and understood the pain inflicted on so many good people, many of whom had been seriously deceived by the strategy of their union leadership.
I accept, in the light of your observations, that although my political instincts tend to align with those whose livelihood is disappearing without any practical support from government, no other group affects me as deeply as the miners, of whose situation I had close personal knowledge. I should perhaps say that by 'practical support' I do not mean artificial preservation of obsolescent jobs, but rather intelligent intervention to provide options for those losing their employment. The tragedy of state and local authority aid after the closure of the mines was that new employers given incentives to move to former colliery areas were primarily employers of female labour. In communities where males traditionally saw themselves as responsible for providing for their families, staying at home while the wife went out to work was simply too much to cope with, and this led to innumerable family break-ups.
I therefore have to say that while Scargill's irresponsibility was a 'causa sine qua non' for the ultimate devastation of the mining communities, it was not a 'causa causans'. The causa causans was Margaret Thatcher, and for the grief and despair she caused I am simply unable to forgive her.
On a lighter note, I've been reflecting on my use of language in this thread and the predecessor posts. I think I unconsciously slid into political mode. You'll appreciate the difference between civilised debate and political debate - civilised debate searches for truth, political debate seeks to avoid truth at all costs. And with that distinction come conventions; when talking politics - since participants are well aware that they are distorting the truth - one seeks to insult the opposition as much as possible, if only to obscure one's own circumspection. So if we're having a political argument, I'm allowed to call you a deceitful capitalist lackey, because that's the way the game is played. I, of course, am an irredeemably ignorant left-wing lunatic.
But I've already expressed doubts about the propriety of arguing party politics in a forum of this kind, and on reviewing all that has been said I accept that, in context, I said things in a way which appeared less than polite, and for that you have my unreserved apology.
[Footnote: I see that I've quoted a couple of legal phrases in Latin, which won't be a problem to Nigel, but I don't want to appear elitist - I only know the phrases because of my profession. 'Causa causans' literally means 'The cause causing'; that is, an action which directly leads to a given consequence. So if I hit you over the head with a baseball bat, and you suffer permanent injury, my action in hitting you was 'causa causans' in relation to that injury. But I'm a North Briton; I don't play baseball. I wouldn't have been able to hit anyone with a baseball bat, if I hadn't received one as a misguided present from Great Uncle Elmer in Rednecksville, Tennessee. 'Causa sine qua non' literally means 'A cause without which, not' - that is, an event which was a necessary preliminary to what happened, but which did not directly lead to the event. So Great Uncle Elmer's gift was a 'causa sine qua non'; if he hadn't sent me a baseball bat, I couldn't have used it to hit you over the head - but in no sense did his generous gift CAUSE me to hit you over the head. See, it's perfectly easy if you read this 347 times in a darkened room with a large bottle of malt whisky. In any event, that's how I learned the difference!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Sorry, you deserved this response earlier, but I was a bit upset and distracted because I'd obviously offended Nigel. I hope I've now put that right.
As regards relative levels of taxation, to a large extent it's inevitable that taxation will be higher in the UK, simply because we have a much higher population density but to some extent retain Victorian concepts (of which I entirely approve!) of civic responsibility. Our road network is much denser and thus relative maintenance costs are higher. The vast majority of our rural communities are large enough to require sewers and collective processing. We live on a small island, and in all but the remotest areas there is an expectation that the facilities of urban living will be made reasonably accessible. I could of course go on, but the point is clear: all of these expectations must be met from tax revenue of one sort or another.
I agree that it appears illogical that taxpayers should qualify for state benefits, but surely this is some sort of logistic failure because tax threshholds and benefit threshholds have been allowed to fall ot of line? I'd agree that benefits are claimed by those who should not receive them, but expressed in comparative terms the costs involved are generally trivial in comparison with the revenue lost to tax evasion by the very rich.
I think your list of descriptors of different political complexions is useful - in fact, very useful - as long as it is seen for what it is. If it's used to label individuals or governments (as opposed to policies) it is much less useful. For example - and not in any partisan sense - the French would claim to support a free market - but only to the extent that it does not impinge upon the profitability of French agriculture. Even the United States - surely the perceived bastion of the free market - has more restrictive and protectionist legislation than most other Western states.
When it comes to the distinction between right and left - initially a British definition - I don't think I can agree with you. Historically, 'Right' represented the interests of the traditional landowners; 'Left' was the province of new money and philanthropy - although much of that philanthropy would be regarded as paternalism today. The 'Left' has always been the refuge of the common man, and without left-wing politicians he would still be repressed and exploited. That does't mean that everything on the left it wonderful. It isn't. Some left-wing policies are downright stupid.
My basic belief is in equality of opportunity. That means that every child has the chance to make the most of his innate abilities. It doesn't, and cannot, mean that every child is equal; to argue thus would be to fly in the face of manifest biological fact. If an able child spends, say, five non-earning tears at University to obtain a qualification, it is right that he or she should be rewarded for their financial loss. The trouble is, we have lost all sense of proportion. Unsuccessful Chief Executives leave underperforming companies with payoffs approaching £10,000,000, while able and committed teachers are lucky to earn £40,000. That is not merely wrong, it is obscene - and, so far as I can see, only left-wing government offers any hope of change.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi cossie!
I'm back and knackered after a lot of travelling and if I try to re-read what you have written now my eyes will just water and I'll get nowhere. While you have the right to reply, naturally, I hope we can put this thread to bed.
You wrote - and I can't find it - that you thought you might have offended me. Let me make it clear that you have not. I trust that we two are made of sterner stuff than to be even so lightly offended and there is no need for an apology. You frustrated and surprised me, and you have now explained your idea of a political debate which seeks to denigrate rather than outargue the opponent. I am not a political animal and I am going through a phase of despising 90% of politicians at present. Had there been a general election this autumn, I was ready to go to the polling station and spoil my ballot paper. (I would not sit on my butt at home.) I was surprised because your reaction was out of character. You normally reply rather than dismiss.
Truce, cossie? Fine by me, but I wouldn't call it that. We are simply allowing life to continue. Have the next bottle of malt on me.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Nigel, I have never been known to refuse a bottle of malt (nor even half a glass), so I am overjoyed by your kind offer. Pray where shall I send the bill?
PS1 - I'm afraid that insults are pretty much de rigeur in political exchanges; it's the only way one can deflect attention from the garbage one is spouting. We'd better abandon the thread forthwith! ...
PS2 - ... Except that I'm mortally offended by your failure to begin my forum name with a capital 'C'. I regard this insult as being an entirely typical example of capitalist arrogance, and may never speak to you again!
Hugz!
Cossie.
(NB - Note use of capital letter!)
;-D ;-D ;-D 
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll start cossie with a capital C when you alter your profile so that it starts with a capital C on the blue bit to the left of the posts.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where is the diatribe itself? I'd like to see if my guess from reading Nigel is right - namely that I'd agree with him.
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gosh! Who is this guy?
Seriously I think you may have left out one really important thing, Cossie; that is the proportion of children that are brought up in poverty. Maybe the primary reason for a tax system is to pay for the government and the things it does but a strong secondary reason ought to be social justice.
Anyone remember the 'Iron law of wages'? In the days when private enterprise was scarcely regulated wages were and remained at starvation level. Since the poor could not pay for such essential public services as education and medical care they were provided by charities and then by municipalities and finally by central government. Before we allow private enterprise more freedom we have to curb its excesses so we have building regulations to ensure that houses are not unsafe and hygiene regulations to keep food poisoning rare and a health service and so on.
But we ought not to tolerate a third of our children being brought up in poverty. And the only way I can see of curing this evil is by using the tax and benefit system. Can anyone see another way?
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but I'm quite prepared to go into greater depth if you ask me!
The 'Children in Poverty' banner is a lot more complex than it looks. It isn't enough tp simply pour money at hardship - that, inevitably, creates a dependent culture. Though I'm absolutely committed to left-wing ideals, I think that logic must play a part. As things stand, support for single mothers is (in my view) excessive to a ridiculous degree; we've reached - and passed - the point where pregnancy is seen as a path to free housing and generous state support. That, to my mind, is ridiculous. I don't for a moment condone state encouragement of an idle underclass. What I do, absolutely, believe in is the principle that wealth should never result in precedence over ability; my left-wing mantra is that social justice demands equality of opportunity, whether you are a child in school or a pensioner in need of care.
Does that make sense?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
It all began in the thread headed 'God hates Westboro' Church', and the relevant posts are dated between 2 and 10 November.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
