Off Topic Political Debate

I have missed the face to face contact with Hornet fans since I moved out here as well as the chance to get as many games as I would like, so to have an official Frelon supporters club out here would be good. I know that there are three of us permanently out here and Yorkie joins us from time to time, all within a reasonable drive.
Good luck with the driving licence and the paper work. I have to renew my passport shortly and that looks like a paper trail and could take weeks.

 

Am I the only Hornet in Krautland ?

 

Probably cologne as most English do not like Germans practicing penalty kicks. Out of our lot here I think I am the nearest to you.

 

I am 45 minutes virtually due east of Limoges ..... well not at the mo.

Yes lets try for a meet up

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/dec/23/conservative-arms-dealer-donor-makhzoumi

Old news but an interesting read...

 

Great news coming in from Venezuela. Looks like a 2:1 victory in the parliamentary elections in favor of the opposition. At last some light at the end of the socialist (narco socialist) tunnel which has been collapsing on the people as the government continue to show their inability to grasp that you have to earn to spend....

 

Terrible news coming in from Venezuela. Looks like a 2:1 victory in the parliamentary elections in favor of the USA supported Right . An end of the brave socialist experiment which has been undermined by other countries in the region as the government continued to stand up for a government for the people.

 

Absolutely amazing that you choose to discredit the whole of socialism in all its many forms and in all times and ages because of one example - relying obviously on the fact that nobody on here knows enough about Venezuala to make much of a comment. Do I blame the whole of capitalism, past and present, because so many thousands live in cardboard boxes in New York ?

 

Not mentioning also that the USA. has been funding both the opposition and oligarchy for years - and that the US. embassy had actually issued many Visas to people who were subsequently involved in a coup attempt. Together with sanctions imposed etc. etc. when will the Americans learn to live within their own constitution which forbids them from interfering with the internal politics of other states ?

 

Glad that laughing face is at the bottom as you must be joking. Even the MUD are left of the labour party!!! As I have family in country, friends exiled from country one who personally lost $200 million as a result of Chavez government, as I had my personal security compromised to the point of needing to be permanently armed and not allowed to Caracas without security, as I myself have been subjected to a self imposed ban on traveling into country for the past 15 years I can from personal experience state that this failed socialist experiment needs to end to stop the 27000 killings every year...

 

Glad to see yoyu read the communist lies that come from Miraflores which are as credible as Kim Jong Uns golf scores...

 

Actually I haven't read any 'communist' lies. To be honest all I know about Venezuala is that the capital is called Caracas and they have seldom (if ever) qualified for the World Cup. This was deductive logical thinking ie. the USA. always supports opposition to left wing regimes in South America, always supports attempted right wing coups there by whatever means possible = Venezuala is in South America. I cannot match your experiences of this country - what I can do is to dispute that this is representative of all socialism - Bolivia is also described as 'eco socialist', is also hated by the USA, yet Morales has been elected 3 times there, the economy has grown more in the last 8 years than in the previous 3 and a half decades (World Bank and IMF figures not mine). Poverty has declined by 25%, the real minimum wage has increased by 87.7%, social spending has also increased by 45% - according to your way of thinking this should not work but apparently it does and the bonus is that Bolivia, and its resources, are no longer in foreign hands.

 

By your own admission you do not know the regional politics. The Bolivian, Ecuadorian, Argentinian and indeed the whole of South America and the Caribbean have received an increase in spending and particularly at the lower end of society funded by the misuse of oil revenues and oil from Venezuela to feed social programs in a completely unsustainable manner. It is the fact that when "socialism" (it never follows te true model at country scale as it is a theory that works at commune level no greater) is implemented it utilizes the wealth created in a capitalist pre cursor system and the system is allowed to endure until the money/resource runs out as it strangles the means of production. Now that Venezuela is unable to feed the monster due to very low oil prices and its inability to maintain even its own programs the house of cards is falling, first was Argentina now the mother nation itself is turning and you can be sure that Bolivia will follow. Morales elected 3 times yes he came after Chavez in Ven so Venezuela has been in socialist hands for the past 16 years and you can see the results and they are as predicted very similar to Cuba. The country has the resources to be the richest on earth but as is normal with the petro dollar it is a curse that leads to laziness and reliance..... As for poverty being reduced of course it has as a direct result of the way it is measured it is a measure of difference in standards in society not true poverty. What Chavez, Morales, Kirchner have done is remove the middle and lower upper classes sending corrupt wealth oversees into their and their crony accounts that do not show on the national statistics. Roll on April and the revocatory to get rid of Maduro but then it's going to still be at least a decade to sort the mess....

 

Mixed system needed in my view which cares for all and creates the wealth

 

That's the majority of human nature, it's why very successful capitalists end up building and putting massive effort into charitable trusts, true fulfilment comes not from exploitation but giving.

 

Do you have any evidence of Morales having diverted corrupt wealth overseas for his own benefit ? The resources in a country are there to serve the people of that country, beginning with the poorest - your idea that wealth creation will eventually trickle down to the masses did not work in Bolivia which is why they turned to Morales in the first place. The difference between us is that I measure the success of a country according to its poorest members - you measure it according to wealth created (whoever ends up with the lions share of it). You have firstly identified what you think is socialism, secondly identified any country which you do not like as being 'socialist' and therefore 'proof' that the whole system does not work and never can work. By the same token I could look at the homeless or the addicted or the thousands of victims of gunshot wounds in America, or the massive pollution in India in the last 10 years as evidence that capitalism does not work, and never can do - however, I would not be stupid enough to do this. Do you never stop to realize that 'socialism' is all around us - otherwise we would not have an NHS or free schooling, or any workers rights/holidays whatsoever - there is no country anywhere on this Earth where all resources/industries/services etc. are in private hands, not even the USA., and the rate of state ownership in Sweden or even in Israel is much higher than in the UK. but do you point your accusing finger in their direction ?

 

Of course I don't have evidence that I could bring to court but I focus more on Venezuelas "Socialists" and there there is evidence in the form of Chavez, Cabello, Madurros amassed personal fortunes over short periods with no logical way of building those fortunes, same goes for Kirchner and thats just the visible numbers. We need to go back through this thread for the define socialism opinions and once again would ask that a "socialist" country is put forward that does work without capitalism. I'm bored of this trickle down trickle up argument, it cannot be denied that wealth must exist to trickle anywhere and by wealth I mean the elements to allow healthy happy existence, these are created in capitalism destroyed in communism. I would measure a successful system as one that attracts migrants and a failed system as one that pushes people to leave. My criteria would therefore be desirability to live in that society. As such the USA is successful and Mexico a failure for example. The only slifghtly socialist economy that attracts and could be said to be partially successful would be Norway in my mind but have you ever been ill in Norway? I have and the access to medical care is not all encompassing or cheap. Have I ever said everything should be in private hands? No! Please do not try and think for me. As I have said before our family is very closely linked to the founding of the NHS in the form of Nai Bevan who I think you might agree was a socialist albeit a champagne one....we continue to have strong internal family discussions regarding the merits of bits of all systems with the usual conclusion that certain infrastructure and minimum standards should be protected/driven by the state but the means of production and wealth creation should be in the private sector with unlimited chance for personal growth and fulfilment. Neither is it possible to compare the likes of India, USA, Venezuela, Russia, Germany, France etc. without taking other social, political and religious considerations into account, the starting points and terms of reference for each society are different and require different politics in order to function. There is no "right" way or "wrong" way in black and white. What is right for Europe will never be right for the Middle East and vice versa.

 

A good post Aberdeen and I agree that the same systems do not work in the same ways in all cultural/historical circumstances. Your definition of desirability I would raise questions over - this implies that those countries which have only an inflow of population are the most successfull. I do not know if there is much emigration from the USA. but other countries with a large inflow (but no or little counter balancing outflow) are Singapore, Switzerland, France and the UAE (some slightly different systems there). The UK. Germany Italy (and also Pakistan) have equally large outflows. Countries with only an outflow include Afghanistan, Albania, Poland. According to your logic France has more inflow (because fewer people leave France) than the UK. (which has 6 million emigrants) and is therefore more successfull.

 

The inflow outflow is a bit simplistic but if you take away border controls and extrapolate to what nett migration would be without control you would have a fair measure, impractical but here we are dealing in ideology not practicality... One should also have some measure as to the type of immigrant emigrant, it could be argued that a country creating world changing graduates that provide an overall advancement in human life quality and sustainability are successful. Too complex an issue and really we need to focus on a case by case basis to identify the best political system. As you know I believe in sustainability which means having a system to encourage innovation and production, I also believe in the safety nets and infrastructure requirements of government and therefore support fair taxation and strict policing of the same. For South America culturally one needs capitalism mediated by enforced social conscience as it is not natural there and a real clamp down on corruption and elimination of the opportunities for same (family members have access to preferential dollar rates due to their socialist politics and are able to purchase official dollars at less than 10VeBF per dollar sell them at 800 and by back thus making 700% profit and repeating the loop, this is how government officials amas millions of dollars in very quick time at the expense of the treasury who underwrite the controlled exchange rates in the name of fair pricing. Here's my revolutionary suggestion, instead of price controls why not ensure everybody has a fair wage in their pocket and a job to earn that fair wage which gives them the required purchasing power to live a dignified life instead of saying we the government are controlling prices so you can afford on a miserly wage? The reason is that there is not a corruption mechanism with the same potential earnings in the free market model.....
Morales on his way out, only been in 9 years and reasons include corruption....
http://www.informador.com.mx/intern...nticipa-derrota-de-evo-morales-en-bolivia.htm

 

Transferred from the environment thread Yorkie raised a few points: "I cannot see how Brown 'ruined everything' and 'mealy mouthed' MiIliband succeeded him. { (I note use of pejorative terms... are we not trying to get away from that?)}"
Brown was constrained as Chancellor by Blair. Blair, in order to get the country's vote in 1997, promised not to change the economic policy set out by the Conservatives during his first term. That held and was successful so Labour only marginally shifted their position in the 2002 election - they had for the first time got through a Parliament without an economic crisis. Brown was to the left (sorry you do not like the term but most understand it) and suffered what were seen as Conservative economics unwillingly. During the second term he was very active in trying to replace Blair as PM and finally succeeded. He then implemented his own economic ideas and we know the result. Economic disaster - not only then but for years to follow whoever governed. I hold by my description of Miliband as he never came clean on what he wanted to do - just let it appear as "austerity-light" - the voters appear also not to have felt he was clear cut on what he would do in power. (Please remember your views on pejorative terms next time you post one of your anti Cameron or Osborne cartoons).
"I understand it was an international banking crisis, caused in the main by people who sought to maximize profits. I also have been led to understand that if the Conservative Govt had been in power they would have done very much the same. I also understand, not my area at all, that the difference in fiscal control of the budget between the main parties is only a very small %. Not sure is it 4/5%".
The Labour line has maintained the crisis was an international banking crisis. I don't think many voters believed that at the time nor since. Our economy was less prepared to deal with the worldwide crisis than most industrialised countries - because Labour like to spend other people's money on their favoured causes and do not learn about fiscal responsibility - previously, then nor since. The knew they left the cupboard bare and said so. Look at the crazy scheme that became a £30 billion giveaway in child tax credits. Fiscally responsible - I don't think so. My training was in Philosophy, Politics and Economics and I can recognise an irresponsible government when I see one. How on earth can you make a claim as to what the Conservatives would have done in 2008 when they had not been in power for over 10 years - did they say they too would have spend billions they did not have - I don't think so. Where did you get the 4/5% fiscal control of the budget figure from - and do you know how many billions that represents?

All the rest of the economy is tied up... which I guess is how we can find billions for an air war at the very time the NHS is under continued attack for efficiency savings, Libraries and youth services closing etc etc. The the realpoltik of the media, pundits and spin doctors maximize differences with sensationalist speak etc etc. So rather than find a middle way forward that benefits all.... Govts continue with a basically divisive ideology.
Not sure what you mean by the rest is tied up? In what sense? There are tons of choices that get made. I will not defend (pardon the pun) any spend on defence or Trident. However I unfortunately see how the majority in this country do support money on defence and many regard it as the first priority of a government. Why would anyone not support increasing efficiency - is that suddenly a bad thing. For most outside the public sector we have seen and experienced the efficiencies of the public sector. As you well know I have more to do with the NHS than I would like and I could give you a huge list of inefficiencies I experience each and every week and month. I saw it in schools when I had young children, I see it now in further education and certainly in local authorities where the right hand never seems to know what the left hand is doing. When the country was left bankrupt it was inevitable that public services, benefits etc would suffer. Try telling the next Labour government to only spend what the country can afford. Oh dear - the media, spin doctors and so on - it is always the fault of others - is it really? Whichever party had governed from 2010 to 2020 there would have been pain in clearing up the previous mess - sweeping reality under the carpet as Labour have tried to do helps nobody.