Off Topic Political Debate

It is exactly the point I am making that you have not been discussing only a relatively narrow band of politics, but have been using a whole range of material in your attempts to defame the word socialist.

 

going down the path of religion and or politisc is very dangerous .We all have our veiws about most things but these two subjects people can get very personal and then they feel they must leave the site (like andy) .I cant remeber anyone leave this forum on sporting grounds . please think if you are going to upset anther horn

 

Obviously there is a range of socialist governments from relatively mild forms to hideous one party regimes. It is prudent to discuss the similarities they may or may not share.

Cologne you seem to promote an idea as long as they don't take it too far. The extreme examples don't seem to like any scrutiny whatsoever.

 

It would be interesting to know what others have taken away from this "debate". It was bound by its nature to be inconclusive and was perhaps hindered from the start by imprecision about terminology. I found it interesting in part because a good friend of mine generally holds a political standpoint diametrically opposite to my own, though our discussions have always been good-natured because we're both willing to listen. Yesterday, as we walked across the South Downs and later in the pub, we inevitably discussed the coming election. What has become clearer is neither of us feels very committed to the parties we've long felt an affinity for. We still have some sense of an ideal world, but the roads to reach it are much less defined than they once seemed. We're both of course older than we used to be, which does affect perspectives I think, but would we draw all, some or none of the following conclusions:

1. Governing a country of 60 million people to everyone's satisfaction is impossible.
2. Each individual's ideal world is at odds with someone else's.
3. I want truth and honesty from those who wish to govern but I know party politics and media treatment make it a risky policy.
4. Whatever the size of government, there is always a level, a district, or a community which is excluded from power.
5. As a widely-read graduate I still know a lot less than I think I do

 

Good post. I agree with all 5 above.

The problem is the electorate is not ready to accept the truth. If a politician stood up and said we will severely address the UK's debt by using a level of austerity, as seen in Ireland, and put up taxes they would not be elected.

Look what happened in France. Hollande promised no austerity, more public spending, early retirement etc. Obviously the electorate liked the sound of this and duly voted him in. It took about 3 days for him to reveal to the French nation that he could not in fact deliver any of his promises. Unfortunately it will take them 5 years to address the issues.

 

Austerity measures may be a solution to some people's household problems - but they are not always the solution when related to nations. Imagine the same austerity measures after World War 2. Imagine the Americans had not paid Germany's War debts - would Europe have ever recovered (the USA also paid the German war debt to Britain). Austerity is all very well but when it bites into the infrastructure of a country to the point where no recovery is possible then it works in a negative way. The Germans have an expression 'von nichts kut nichts' which means 'from nothing' comes nothing - it is a shame they do not remember this more often in relation to other countries. The problem is that governments which invest in infrastructure normally do not reep the benefits of that investment within a 5 year electoral term - and so 'socialist' governments often give the impression of profligacy. It was not socialists who destroyed Britain's industry, who sold off every national asset (and what happened to the money for all these privatizations ?), who made Britain economically dependent on finance markets which could go pop at any minute. Yet it is always socialists who are accused of mismanagement of the economy - why ?

 

Because we have several examples in the UK of socialist governments since Harold Wilson's of financial incompetence, prolific spending, weak management. The kremlin sponsored union barons also did enormous damage to our industries until Mrs Thatcher defeated them. Who can forget Gordon Brown selling our gold at the lowest price and sending out search parties for immigrants who were likely to vote labour.

Most germans would agree with Mrs Thatcher that governments can be run like households. Unless the UK's debt is repaid the horrendous level of interest being currently paid will continue to prevent us from spending this money on more worthwhile causes.
Criticising Germany's positive balance of payment is bizarre.

 

You are taking a great deal on yourself if you choose to make statements about what most Germans think. Historically Germans were used to a much higher role of the state in economics. Also Germany's recovery after World War 2 was solidly Keynesian in character - so most Germans have no understanding for Thatcher whatsoever. Germany still has an industrial base, still manufactures real tangible products - and the reason it does so is because they did not follow Thatcher's monetarist madness. Things like coal mines and steel production were also closed in Germany, but they were done in a planned, ordered way over many years. Also you would need to elaborate on your comments about immigration - all of those who did not come from Commonwealth countries (meaning the majority) would not have had full voting rights.

 

Mandelson admitted they sent out 'search parties' for immigrants in order to change the make up of Britain. They betrayed their own working class supporters by increasing competition for housing, social services and especially jobs.

While the rest of Europe gorged on cheap credit throughout 1990s and 2000s German companies and individuals refused to spend beyond their means. Germans are uncomfortable with the concept of borrowing money and prefer to live within their own means. This is classic Margaret Thatcher whether you like it or not.

 

Can we please get our facts straight here. In the 80s Building Societies were lending more than at any other stage in Britain's history - consumer borrowing tripled in the 80s, laying the foundations for future crisis. With respect to immigration - it is only in the 90s that inflow actually started to exceed outflow in the UK. and this was desparately needed - and still is. In order to keep up the ratio of working to non working people in Britain (and therefore ensure that future pensions are payable) Britain actually needs to increase immigration by about 200,000 per year over the next 20 years - otherwise too few people will be working and paying taxes. This was done to aid British industry and also to avert future demographic crisis. Your assumption that this was done to bring in voters (when the majority couldn't vote anyway) is extremely one sided and serves only one end - that being your desire to twist facts to suit your own ends.

 

I'm afraid you have your timings wrong. Mandelson was talking about their dodgy actions in the 2000s.

There is a real problem with your misguided desire to have ever increasing immigration to the UK in that the immigrants themselves grow old and therefore would depend, under your analysis, on even further batches to fund them in their retirement. The cycle must be broken.
England, where most of the immigrants settle is the most populated country in Europe, there is not the capacity that you have in Germany or France.

 

I only quoted the fact that inflow started to exceed outflow only in the 90s - which is true, and did not actually mention Mandelson. Also I did not say that I personally want/or do not want, more immigration - only that Britain has a demographic/ageing problem as things stand at the moment. The point was your claim that this has something to do with trying to get more Labour voters into the country when most of them can't vote anyway. You might actually take the trouble to read other people's texts before replying - it's what we generally do on these debates. I also note no repudiation of the massive increase in consumer debt during the Thatcher years.

 

You asked why socialist governments were blamed for mismanagement and I gave you several examples including the mass immigration for political reasons. I cannot understand why you think the immigrants were unable to vote?

Britain does not want by overwhelming public opinion or need further mass immigration. To do so is storing up further problems in the future. As the Euro has caused financial devastation to many European countries, especially in the South I can understand why they want to move to the UK but it should be within our powers to control it.

Much of the population benefitted extremely well during the Thatcher years and build up huge values in property. Many also enjoyed the share revolution. Personally I was able to find the funds to start my first business and move directly from an ex council house ( bought at a discount) to a house probably worth over a £1m at todays value. I create many jobs including apprentices, some now running their own businesses. It was a good era for entrepreneurship. Of course it is easy to attack the excesses of the city but her free market ideas made things possible. I expect many people retiring now built up value in their properties during that time.

 

You know as well as I do what the qualifications are to vote in the UK. If you are from a Commonwealth nation then those rights are unrestricted. From EU countries they would be restricted to European and local elections and for all other countries there would be no voting rights. Therefore the idea that they were brought into the country in order to bolster the Labour vote is complete nonsense. They were mostly East Europeans who came to do 3 D jobs ie. dirty, dangerous and difficult - jobs which most English people would not touch - so the accusation of betrayal of the working class also sounds like paranoia. You are also changing the subject here like the best politician - according to your earlier statements Thatcher's ideas were those of frugality ie. living within your means - yet consumer borrowing increased threefold in the 80s - can you deny that ?

 

Ex commonwealth immigrants are a sizeable minority who are entitled to vote. I'm afraid many working class people do claim to be competing for jobs, housing and social services with immigrants which is why the UKIP vote is so strong. Thatcher believed in paying your way but also believed in giving people the choice to decide on the level of expenditure they required. Obviously there were winners and losers. The real difference between us is that you think the state should exercise more control over peoples lives than I do.

 

I'm impressed that you guys are still bothering with him, he's an idiot spouting Daily Mail/right wing rubbish and changing the subject as soon as he's inconvenienced.

 

Now now crap man the moderators will be after you!!

 

Bliley only just started to read some of these posts. Must say I agree almost entirely with Cologne and disagree almost entirely with Superhorn. My memories of Thatcher are still very raw and I'll never forgive the Tories or ever vote for them. Thatcher destroyed many people,their livelihoods and their families. What amazes me about virtually every Tory I have ever met or spoken to is their total lack of understanding for those who are poor, or disadvantaged in some way . They seem to think everyone should be as they are. Further most lie and have no concerns about climbing over anyone to get what they want. They are expert mud swingers calling anyone who might view things differently all the names under the sun. Well here's the thing. I don't accept that Labour were responsible for the world economic crisis and I don't accept the current Tory lies about the improving job market or the recovery for all. I am a proud lefty, commie, red, pinko Tec so don't bother with the insults.

 

Hah, the mental picture those "grubby spouse-swapping Tories" conjure up. I wonder what sexual deviancies Labour and the Lib-Dems indulge in.

This could ramp up the interest for the rest of us in what is frankly becoming a bore-fest of political insult-slinging.

 

Have you seen the average age of Tory party membership Vic ? There's more fun to be had with the Greens.