Off Topic Political Debate

Well i could quote Wilber or many other psychologists in the field of human motivation etc

I quote Maslow as in the world of psychology he was one of the main instigators in moving humanity away from a Freudian world view... which is that we are all conflicted by a life and death instinct paradox.. .and Maslow's famous research was done initially in the business world.

Funny how I post a positive but challenging post about human ideals etc at this time of Christmas ...and:

"I really do not know why you read this thread Yorkie - you are the ONLY person who constantly criticizes the thread itself for not being as you want it to be. The massive contributions made by others I think demonstrates that most who do read and participate are able to deal with both a little wumming and also genuine friction"


I wonder why you have so much trouble with me.... as you have said previously???

I do question the basis for debate on this thread which seems to focus on a dialectic of paradox and difference whereas I believe in seeking consensus and a way forward for all...

 

Everyone else seems to post what they want to say but you are always asking why we post what we do, how we do and suggesting we post to your style. You seem to think we are not high brow enough - perhaps you are right - we are not up there with intellectual theory. It's fine to put up what you want to say but you need not suggest how we should post - I honestly believe it is a hangover (as I have often said) from when you were a schoolmaster and could lead the direction of the discussion. You did not post about high ideals but implied criticism of how this thread had gone.

By the way - many disrespect Maslow as his theories had very little scientific method and seemed more to be his idea of a hierarchy. He failed to prove any of his theories - he just gave opinions - fine but many others have differing views. A lot of what he said was mundane - our first priority is food .... duh !!

 

[Q

I haven't been a school teacher for 25 years.... and as an academic I have 20 plus years of encouraging critical debate. Just not me ......

My main critique in this thread has always been the personalisations against people who have differing views. I would welcome a debate on the philosophy of politics... but clearly not likely to happen here...


Sure Maslow was a man of his time but his ideas were much more researched than those of Freud whose influence is everywhere and who based his theories of human nature on single case studies of upper class Viennese women in the main (True). I was more interested in presenting his pioneering ideas of the inherent search of human beings towards fulfillment. I have female colleagues who see his hierarchy as more as a series of concentric theories. I myself have published that I don't consider his levels as proponent ( i.e. a set of steps that are gone through in order).

I wanted to make the point that when safety and security needs are satisfied ( an area of focus in current mainstream politics) then there is the potential for human fulfillment in a whole range of areas .

I am sorry that you dont seem to see this line of discussion as relevant here. As the thread is called 'pure politics' and as there was some real stereotyping of oppositional views some few months back around the election it brought out in me an urge to wish to redress the balance.

It may be that modern politics which seems to have so little interest in the arts (museums and art galleries) literature ( libraries) human development ( youth clubs, community work, mental health) etc etc is considered to have no interest in these areas as we don want to 'afford' them. I would willingly pay an extra £50 a month so my family can use the library and the town art gallery and museum can stay open. The Greek philosophers ( admittedly 100s of years ago) believed in a society in which these aspects of life were encouraged as did the Egyptians the Chinese etc.... .so i am not just spouting sugary sentiments or hippy dross.

Anyway have a good Christmas.....

 

She has a natural position of eminence above the servant bees... Bit like our Queen...

 

But they also fight...

 

Sorry Aberdeen but bees are obviously not your speciality. All workers bees are female (hence the 'she' was not used here for the Queen). Amongst Bumble Bees the Queen is stung to death by her daughters in Autumn - not a nice life !

 

Mais Oui.....

a time to fight,,,, normally for the protection of the group
a time to collaborate..... like sharing the Xmas pudding

Enjoy

 

Protected to a point used anyway my wine and meds have kicked in so no ciherent stuff drom me

 

David Cameron has been accused of undermining the honours system after it emerged that Lynton Crosby, the political strategist who ran the Conservatives’ election campaign, is set to get a knighthood in the New Year honours list.

Tory MPs welcomed the decision, which marks a significant escalation of the policy Cameron has adopted of allowing honours to be awarded for political service.

The Labour MP Mary Creagh criticised the appointment on Twitter, while Paul Flynn, another Labour MP, said he was pleased about the news because it would discredit the honours system, which he has long opposed.
Flynn, a member of the public administration and constitutional affairs committee, said: “I welcome this appointment because it will drive the honours system into deeper disrepute. The more it is abused, the more people will come to regard it as at best arbitrary, and at worst corrupt.”

The Labour MP John Mann said giving a knighthood to Crosby was “degrading” to the honours system and “an insult to the country’s heroes”.

Ukip’s Jonathan Arnott also condemned the decision.
But the Conservative MP Glyn Davies said Crosby had made a “massive contribution to UK politics” that deserved recognition. Fellow Tory Bernard Jenkin, the chair of the public administration and constitutional affairs committee, said knighthoods such as this were “not simply in the gift of the prime minister” because they have to be approved by the committee overseeing parliamentary and political honours.

“Should people in politics not get an honour just because they give public service through politics?” he asked. “I think that question answers itself.”

Jenkin also claimed that some of the worst abuses of the honours system took place under Labour, citing the so-called lavender list drawn up by Harold Wilson when he resigned as prime minister in 1976. Jenkin said the system is now much cleaner because there is proper oversight of honours.

Crosby’s knighthood has not yet been officially announced, but sources familiar with the honours list effectively confirmed that Crosby would be recognised when the full names are revealed on Thursday, following reports in the Sunday Times.

Honours for political service were supposed to be banned after Tony Blair took office in 1997, although in practice some MPs continued to receive knighthoods on the grounds that they are being rewarded for their contribution to parliament.

Cameron has been a lavish dispenser of patronage – he even included his barber, Raffaele Claudio Carbosiero, in an honours list two years ago “for services to hairdressing” – and he has revived the idea of granting honours to people explicitly for political service.

One Conservative source said it might be hard for Labour to complain about the Crosby honour because Spencer Livermore, who ran Ed Miliband’s election campaign, received a peerage in the dissolution honours list, even though he lost the election in May and Crosby won.

Peerages are a means of creating working peers. The link between peerages and honours is supposed to have been broken, although that distinction is lost on the many people who continue to donate to political parties in the hope of elevation to the upper house.

Crosby’s knighthood is likely to prove controversial not only because he is a foreign political consultant receiving a high-profile honour, but because his uncompromising tactics have previously appalled some of his opponents.

Having made his name in Australia, where he worked for the right-of-centre Liberal party and masterminded election victories for John Howard, Crosby first played a major role in the UK when he ran the Conservative party’s election campaign in 2005, under Michael Howard’s leadership.

Crosby approved hard-hitting campaign slogans, including one saying “it’s not racist to impose limits on immigration”, which at the time led to the accusation that he was engaged in “dog whistle” politics by making a covert appeal to racist views.

The Tories lost in 2005, but Crosby, who was brought in relatively late, was not blamed and, after running Boris Johnson’s two successful London mayoral campaigns, he was hired by Cameron and George Osborne to take overall command of the 2015 general election campaign.

Most of those involved in the campaign speak very highly of his contribution, in particular his ability to impose message discipline on the party, and his decision to focus heavily on winning Liberal Democrat seats in the south-west of England, some of which were considered impregnable, but eventually fell to the Tories.

 

Does anyone care about the honours system - is it possible to undermine something so totally anachronistic?

 

Could say this about the Lords and the Monarchy as well !

 

Not really - although anachronistic they play a part in the constitution. I would reform the Lords getting rid of the Honours and Clerics and having a form of election and representation of the counties
Monarchy is fine as a preference to a President which I would not like. Not really bothered either way.

 

Yes Leo, but is it not anachronistic to have such things in a constitution whereas the most basic relationship between government and governed is left to age old custom. You can only really have democracy if you have a sovereign people represented by a sovereign government - yet every MP. every high court judge, every officer in the armed forces swears allegiance not only to the present so called Queen but to her successors as well. As long as this oath is taken in parliament then the question of the abolition of the monarchy cannot, legally, be discussed there. So much then for the sovereignty of parliament. If she wants to call herself Queen, and half the British apparently want to call her this, then she can carry on doing so but not with the taxes from the whole country.

 

Just to add to my last comments. There was a time (like over a thousand years ago) when people had to at least do something to become King - like pull a sword out of a pond or something. They were called things like 'Witless' or 'the unready' or something - but the later Norman idiots had to be given numbers in order to remember them (otherwise we could not tell one inbred moron from the other).

 

Keep your German republic I'm happy with our Monarchy and House of Commons though not so the HOL. The royal family are nett contributors wrt taxes thanks to the Duchy of Cornwall which I realise some would see confiscated but I'm all for tweaking what works and our sysem definitely does....

 

It's not my German republic Aberdeen.....and the discussion here is not about Germany. You may be happy with the Monarchy but many people in the UK. aren't and their taxes go towards paying for it as much as yours do. Aren't Lizzie and her family Germans (EU. Immigrants) by the way ?

 

Come on - we all know the oath is historical. In that capacity the Queen is simply a symbol for the state. I have no problem. Nobody has ever used the swearing of an oath to the monarch against the people - well not since Cromwell anyway.
We are no less democratic whether we have a monarch with no powers or some trumped up president.
She is the Queen - not "so called" but actual whether you like it or not - we are not talking about IS here. I also bet far more than half the British people are OK to have her as Queen. The Civil LIst represents her income in exchange for the property the monarchy gave up centuries ago - it has been an excellent deal for the British taxpayer. Abandon the Civil List and give the Royal Family their lands back and they would be laughing

 

Green is a good name for the Party of Envy

 

The discussion is about politics I thought and in this instance monarchy versus republic, I thought you lived in a federal republic whilst I live under a monarchy, something I'm quite happy to do having lived in republics where presidents basically steal from the state. Our established monarchy has we;; established means and good accountability I'm very ok with. My taxes that go to liz and her family are far lower than what i contribute to charity and very happy with that... Don't give a damn if they have german greek french origin. I support controlled migration, its anarchy i'm against.

 

'Give the Royal family their lands back', do you mean those which they stole in the first place ? She is the 'so called Queen' ie. called so by others...but not by myself (and I am also British). What I object to about the so called Monarchy is that they have become part and parcel with the idea of patriotism even though they are (and always have been) a foreign institution. Why should a person be thought of as unpatriotic because they refuse to sing the drivel which we call a national anthem (it is not a song about a nation but about a family). I also suspect that their existence in this role has had the effect of strengthening the whole rotten English class system - because they stand at the apex of all landed wealth (at least symbolically). I cannot prove this but I also think that the British are less political as a result of their existence ie. they do not hold their politicians to account as much as they should.