In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.
Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.
All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.
On July 01 2013 10:03 Souma wrote: I wish we had something like PMQ in the U.S. lol. It's always so interesting to me.
it really isn't. it's partisan childishness of the highest degree and i cannot recall the prime minister (any of them) ever answering a question directly, or going more than a minute without blaming the previous government for everything
Its not really there for answering questions though, its about the performance.
On July 01 2013 10:03 Souma wrote: I wish we had something like PMQ in the U.S. lol. It's always so interesting to me.
it really isn't. it's partisan childishness of the highest degree and i cannot recall the prime minister (any of them) ever answering a question directly, or going more than a minute without blaming the previous government for everything
Its not really there for answering questions though, its about the performance.
Yes, and that shows what's wrong with our politics.
Not that we're unusual in electing lying politicians with no principles or honesty where "charisma" matters rather than character, but it's still sad to me.
On July 01 2013 10:03 Souma wrote: I wish we had something like PMQ in the U.S. lol. It's always so interesting to me.
it really isn't. it's partisan childishness of the highest degree and i cannot recall the prime minister (any of them) ever answering a question directly, or going more than a minute without blaming the previous government for everything
Its not really there for answering questions though, its about the performance.
Yes, and that shows what's wrong with our politics.
Not that we're unusual in electing lying politicians with no principles or honesty where "charisma" matters rather than character, but it's still sad to me.
PMQs is hardly representative of that problem though, thats about closed shop party politics, perfectly possible to have the PMQs performance with honest people.
On July 01 2013 10:03 Souma wrote: I wish we had something like PMQ in the U.S. lol. It's always so interesting to me.
it really isn't. it's partisan childishness of the highest degree and i cannot recall the prime minister (any of them) ever answering a question directly, or going more than a minute without blaming the previous government for everything
Its not really there for answering questions though, its about the performance.
Yes, and that shows what's wrong with our politics.
Not that we're unusual in electing lying politicians with no principles or honesty where "charisma" matters rather than character, but it's still sad to me.
Isn't that world politics in a nutshell? I mean for aslong as i remember most elections are based on who has more charisma and likeability factor. Not what they really want to do. Take Tony Blair, guy can convince anyone of anything anyplace. Probably (towards the end for sure) one of the worst we have had in descion making. Cameron, another who comes across so nicely when he speaks, but again NOTHING has chance for 2 years since he has been in power (maybe more i forget) but for some reason i trust Cameron and i don't even know why xD
Quicker UKIP get in and fuck everything up the better imo, we need a big shit storm to re sort out our parties and politics. UKIP getting in power and kicking us out of Europe and making us a bit more hated German style would be what we need (imo)
On July 01 2013 10:03 Souma wrote: I wish we had something like PMQ in the U.S. lol. It's always so interesting to me.
it really isn't. it's partisan childishness of the highest degree and i cannot recall the prime minister (any of them) ever answering a question directly, or going more than a minute without blaming the previous government for everything
Its not really there for answering questions though, its about the performance.
Yes, and that shows what's wrong with our politics.
Not that we're unusual in electing lying politicians with no principles or honesty where "charisma" matters rather than character, but it's still sad to me.
PMQs is hardly representative of that problem though, thats about closed shop party politics, perfectly possible to have the PMQs performance with honest people.
Oh, I don't know.
You'd hope an opportunity to bring up whatever issue you wish with the PM would actually result in some good discussion rather than snide childishness and point scoring.
On July 01 2013 10:03 Souma wrote: I wish we had something like PMQ in the U.S. lol. It's always so interesting to me.
it really isn't. it's partisan childishness of the highest degree and i cannot recall the prime minister (any of them) ever answering a question directly, or going more than a minute without blaming the previous government for everything
Its not really there for answering questions though, its about the performance.
Yes, and that shows what's wrong with our politics.
Not that we're unusual in electing lying politicians with no principles or honesty where "charisma" matters rather than character, but it's still sad to me.
PMQs is hardly representative of that problem though, thats about closed shop party politics, perfectly possible to have the PMQs performance with honest people.
Oh, I don't know.
You'd hope an opportunity to bring up whatever issue you wish with the PM would actually result in some good discussion rather than snide childishness and point scoring.
Then send the PM a letter or meet him privately, PMQs apart from the occasional serious question is about the performance.
On July 02 2013 00:14 Pandemona wrote: Take Tony Blair, guy can convince anyone of anything anyplace. Probably (towards the end for sure) one of the worst we have had in descion making.
Why was he a bad decision-maker? Because of the Iraq war? In domestic policy, he was arguably the best Prime Minister we've had since Atlee. His achievements include lifting two million children out of poverty. David Cameron,the man you trust so much, is estimated to have pulled 400,000 children into poverty.
"They're only scumbag families on benefits", I hear someone interject. "Don't have children you can't afford." But that's exactly why Tony Blair was a force for good in domestic politics and David Cameron is a force for evil. We never had any of this socially divisive "us-versus-them" rhetoric while Tony Blair was Prime Minister, or at least it was sufficiently tame that it didn't matter very much. And it's not like Blair was weak on the subject of welfare, because he wasn't. Since 1997 the Labour government experimented with mandatory work schemes (not designed as punishment like those versions of the Tories, but honestly intended to help long-term unemployed people find their way into work). Brown's New Deal of 2009 wasn't the big innovation that's it's made out to be, but was a revival of policies from much earlier in the Blair premiership. Unemployment was lower under Blair than any time since the 70s.
"But the debt! The welfare spending got out of control and they bankrupted us!" No. That's the stuff of tabloid-reading proto-hominids. Actually, national debt as a percentage of GDP was lower under Blair than under any previous government for maybe 200 years. That's despite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you can fight two wars and still have the debt at a record low, then the only logical interpretation can be that Blair's welfare spending was anything but reckless.
On July 02 2013 00:14 Pandemona wrote: Take Tony Blair, guy can convince anyone of anything anyplace. Probably (towards the end for sure) one of the worst we have had in descion making.
Why was he a bad decision-maker? Because of the Iraq war? In domestic policy, he was arguably the best Prime Minister we've had since Atlee. His achievements include lifting two million children out of poverty. David Cameron,the man you trust so much, is estimated to have pulled 400,000 children into poverty.
"They're only scumbag families on benefits", I hear someone interject. "Don't have children you can't afford." But that's exactly why Tony Blair was a force for good in domestic politics and David Cameron is a force for evil. We never had any of this socially divisive "us-versus-them" rhetoric while Tony Blair was Prime Minister, or at least it was sufficiently tame that it didn't matter very much. And it's not like Blair was weak on the subject of welfare, because he wasn't. Since 1997 the Labour government experimented with mandatory work schemes (not designed as punishment like those versions of the Tories, but honestly intended to help long-term unemployed people find their way into work). Brown's New Deal of 2009 wasn't the big innovation that's it's made out to be, but was a revival of policies from much earlier in the Blair premiership. Unemployment was lower under Blair than any time since the 70s.
"But the debt! The welfare spending got out of control and they bankrupted us!" No. That's the stuff of tabloid-reading proto-hominids. Actually, national debt as a percentage of GDP was lower under Blair than under any previous government for maybe 200 years. That's despite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you can fight two wars and still have the debt at a record low, then the only logical interpretation can be that Blair's welfare spending was anything but reckless.
I'd say lying to induce a war that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths for which we still have no real explanation is grounds to despise someone indefinitely even if you do agree with his home policies. Even if I agreed with everything else he did, I'd still call him a disgusting human being who has hugely harmed the UK and world because war is literally the worst thing a person can create and if the justification isn't there (and it wasn't) then you can never atone for creating it.
Not that I do think he was any good domestically. I have no idea where you're getting your poverty figures from, for example - there is no absolute poverty in the UK, and comparative poverty depends entirely on what you're comparing it to. Happening to lead during a great period of growth in the economy doesn't somehow make you a good leader - if it did, we should surely equally blame him for the economic downturn. Really, I'd love to see what figures you're getting his financial brilliance from - something tells me it ignores the PFI hole. Anyone can have a good budget if they put off spending for later governments.
Blair's economic success in the early years was helped a lot by the fact that in 97 he promised as part of his manifesto that he would stick to Tory spending plans for the first few years. So spending was low and they ran a surplus. Then when they decided to actually get some things done (which is what they were elected to do, no problem with that) they introduced private sector money, loans are shitty rates, borrowing during a time of economic growth and large scale privatisation. If you think 1999-2007 were good years for social justice then you've not been paying attention, Blair firesaled off more government industries than Thatcher while bringing in private money through PPPs and PFIs to spread the cost of Labour's social policies over the next few governments and reward supporters in the city. Rather than raise taxes to enact their policies and have people cry about the left wing government raising taxes (what they were elected to do) they brought in the private sector rewarding short term finance with long term payments from the government purse. Meanwhile higher education promises were broken several times with tuition fees, then top up fees, then higher top up fees for courses which, a decade later, have seen large scale graduate unemployment. And that's before we even get started on the failure to achieve House of Lords reform, the rampant corruption in cash for peerage and, in the case of Ecclestone, just cash for laws, and the conflict within his party caused by his infighting and straight up lying to Brown. Then we have Brown himself who promised an end to the boom bust cycle while borrowing during a boom because he genuinely believed he was such a good chancellor that there would never, ever be another bust.
That you would compare him to a titan like Attlee is pretty monstrous. Blair is Thatcher's heir.
On July 02 2013 22:16 KwarK wrote: Blair's economic success in the early years was helped a lot by the fact that in 97 he promised as part of his manifesto that he would stick to Tory spending plans for the first few years. So spending was low and they ran a surplus. Then when they decided to actually get some things done (which is what they were elected to do, no problem with that) they introduced private sector money, loans are shitty rates, borrowing during a time of economic growth and large scale privatisation. If you think 1999-2007 were good years for social justice then you've not been paying attention, Blair firesaled off more government industries than Thatcher while bringing in private money through PPPs and PFIs to spread the cost of Labour's social policies over the next few governments and reward supporters in the city. Rather than raise taxes to enact their policies and have people cry about the left wing government raising taxes (what they were elected to do) they brought in the private sector rewarding short term finance with long term payments from the government purse. Meanwhile higher education promises were broken several times with tuition fees, then top up fees, then higher top up fees for courses which, a decade later, have seen large scale graduate unemployment. And that's before we even get started on the failure to achieve House of Lords reform, the rampant corruption in cash for peerage and, in the case of Ecclestone, just cash for laws, and the conflict within his party caused by his infighting and straight up lying to Brown. Then we have Brown himself who promised an end to the boom bust cycle while borrowing during a boom because he genuinely believed he was such a good chancellor that there would never, ever be another bust.
That you would compare him to a titan like Attlee is pretty monstrous. Blair is Thatcher's heir.
I was only 5 at the 1997 election but just because he was leader of a left wing government doesn't mean he was elected to raise taxes. He didn't do anything to tackle oversized government from what I can see government is bigger than ever if only he did firesale government industries I might actually have liked him but that was really Brown's area of control he wouldn't even tell Blair what was in his budgets.
On July 02 2013 22:16 KwarK wrote: Blair's economic success in the early years was helped a lot by the fact that in 97 he promised as part of his manifesto that he would stick to Tory spending plans for the first few years. So spending was low and they ran a surplus.
You're not an expert economist, you're just some guy posting on a Starcraft forum. I suggest you keep your crank monetarist theories about "why" Blair ran a successful economy to yourself or to another thread. I don't even think Krugman would hold forth with such certainty...or at least, if he did he wouldn't be half so reductionist as you. There were many factors contributing to Blair's success and at best you've named a few of them. Your post is littered with misconceptions about Labour accelerating privatization of the British economy. In fact, they greatly increased public sector spending as a percentage of GDP and therefore the ratio of public sector spending to private sector spending.
My post was not about "why" Blair succeeded (that's complex and more suited to an academic paper than a post on this forum), but rather about the results of his policies and his sense of social justice which lead to two million children being lifted out of poverty through his additions to child benefit and tax credits.
On July 02 2013 22:16 KwarK wrote:That you would compare him to a titan like Attlee is pretty monstrous. Blair is Thatcher's heir.
Ignorance so profound that it would seem absurd if it weren't for the success of the union of the anti-war lobby and the tabloids in making people disposed to believe anything about Blair as long as it's negative.
The reality is that Blair introduced National Minimum Wage, massively increased spending on the public sector (taking it from bottom of Europe in public sector spending as a percentage of GDP to average by European standards), and lifted millions of people out of poverty. Thatcher did the exact opposite, knocking down the public sector, pushing millions of people into poverty and creating a brand-new social precariat. In their intent and their results, these individuals were the polar opposite from another. That is not changed by the fact that Blair borrowed a few things from Thatcher and embraced a mixed-market model (like Sweden, France, Germany, China, and every single other country).
Here's a blog giving many of the notable achievements of the New Labour government. Winter Fuel Allowance, free eye-tests for over 60s, free TV licenses for pensioners, increased spending on the NHS...it goes on. Follow up the sources and fact-check the claims yourself if you doubt their accuracy. A good half of these achievements are directly connected with social justice. It quickly becomes apparent that New Labour's sense of social justice was very different from Thatcher's or Cameron's sense of social justice.
I'm not sure how to argue against the accusation that I am a guy posting on a Starcraft forum. I might have to concede this argument... Wait! Sir, you too are posting on a starcraft forum. I allege that on July 3rd at 02:15 Korean time you posted in this very topic. Moron.
Also I have a speech made by Gordon Brown in January 1997 when he pledged to stick to Ken Clarke's spending plans, a pledge he kept, for you. Unfortunately the facts of that one are with me.
Cameron is no different to blair tbh he is after all the "heir to Blair", w/e brown pledged government as a percentage of GDP went to socialist levels and hasn't changed since. As for the poverty they went over an arbitrary income level because they just threw money at benefits, did nothing to help the very poorest or tackle any of the long term issues. As for painting Blair Good and Thatcher/Cameron evil seems ridiculous to me, they all did/do what they thought/think is right, they just turned out to be wrong although Thatcher the least wrong imo .
On July 03 2013 02:30 KwarK wrote: I'm not sure how to argue against the accusation that I am a guy posting on a Starcraft forum. I might have to concede this argument... Wait! Sir, you too are posting on a starcraft forum. I allege that on July 3rd at 02:15 Korean time you posted in this very topic. Moron.
Evidently your reading comprehension sucks, yet you call me a moron. (You also might want to look into why a moderator calling someone a moron at the drop of a hat comes across as a bully and a douchebag and insecure nerdballer to anybody who isn't trying to curry favour.)
Here is my accusation, spelled out once again in terms so simple that even you can understand:
(1) I wasn't commenting on why Blair's policies succeeded; that is complex and more suited to an academic paper than a post on this forum.
(2) You, on the other hand, held forth with your personal monetarist theory on "why" Blair was an economic success. Even a professional economist wouldn't act so cocksure. And yet (like me) you're just some guy anonymously posting on a Starcraft forum.
Get it now?
On July 03 2013 02:30 KwarK wrote:Also I have a speech made by Gordon Brown in January 1997 when he pledged to stick to Ken Clarke's spending plans, a pledge he kept, for you. Unfortunately the facts of that one are with me.
Well, this fact would appear to be irrelevant for three reasons that even a moron can divine. I'll leave them as an exercise for the reader, but judging by your last failure, that might be expecting too much of you. But I've wasted enough time on the likes of you already.
Since it was mentioned on the last couple of pages, I'd like to do my bit about the AV referendum.
I dislike most Tories and despise a good chunk of the party too, but I have to concede that the way the AV referendum was handled by the Tory party was some of the best political play the country has seen in the last 20 years.
Changing away from FPTP is an unmitigated disaster for both the Tory and Labour parties. They currently enjoy a huge share of parliament which eclipses the actual percentage of votes they get, thanks to FPTP. Even AV, which is very much just a slightly more fair version of FPTP, would have them losing a good share of the seats in the House of Commons at best estimate.
Truly fair proportional representation would have parties who can command over 50% of the seats in parliament left with ~30% due to the split of the national vote. Not to mention that under a fair system, people will actually vote more often for smaller parties because their vote will actually mean something rather than being almost entirely pointless since in the vast majority of constituencies you can predict with near certainty who will win.
On the face of it then, offering AV to the Lib Dems to get them into coalition seems like a bad move. But the Tories knew what they were doing; not long before the AV vote, we had the Tory plans to hike tuition fees publicised. Riots ensued, and they often targeted not the party whose policy it was to almost triple the fees, the Tories, but the party who had to vote for it because they promised to, the Lib Dems. Nick Clegg became a huge political scapegoat for the ill reactions to the Tory policies.
This fed into the AV referendum nicely; conservatives and the part of the Labour party which didn't support AV only had to mention that AV would benefit Nick Clegg and people would immediately decide to vote against it just to spite Clegg. I personally spoke to a lot of people who voted no for that very reason.
Obviously though, the Tories didn't get off scot-free from the austerity and tuition fee debates; public confidence in the coalition as a whole was low precisely because they were making (arguably necessary) cuts to public services. This lead to another reason to vote "no"; FPTP leads to less coalitions, whereas under a fair system people almost always vote for a coalition (as in Germany and many other places).
So immediately the average person who knows nothing about what would actually be better for the country has two easy to digest reasons not to vote "yes": first it would benefit the guy it's fashionable to hate; second, it would lead to more of these nasty governments that cut public services away and charge you more money for things.
The Tories knew all this before they signed the coalition agreement; they could use AV to sweeten the deal but basically force the Lib Dems to act as an extension to the Tory party for their main policies. Not just that, but with the promise of a referendum on a more fair system, Clegg couldn't ever have afforded to turn down the chance - without a fairer system, his party will almost certainly never have the power that it deserves from the popular vote.
As a bonus piece that helped the Tories ensure a no vote, they published what in my mind is one of the most shockingly disgusting pieces of political propaganda I've seen to encourage a "no" vote. Entirely emotional with no reference to relevant facts, I present one of the worst things I've ever seen; I felt physically sick when I saw it:
I despise them for it, but I have to admit: the Tories played the AV decision and referendum very well. Just a shame they felt the need to leave the country's political system an utterly useless farce to maintain the unfair share of the power which FPTP affords them.
EPT
.![[image loading]](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51400000/jpg/_51400389_avbabypic304.jpg)
