Fuck Off Tories
-
Please no.
The swingometer looks really bad. Are people's memories really that short? -
Exactly. The whole fucking country's going to shit.
-
The weird bit is going to be about devolution. Scotland could end up being governed by a Conservative government with not one single Conservative MP in Scotland. In which case, why not just bugger off altogether, if it can possibly be done.
-
I really hope it can't. I don't see the upside for either the UK (or England more specifically) or Scotland in independence.
The UK would lose some of its wilder and more beautiful parts, history, culture etc
The Scots would lose the benefit of stability of a bigger nation, financial links with London, history, culture, etc
Bah. -
Arnold Schwarzenegger is a fucking idiot. Austria is very like those Scandinavian places people keep citing as models of good governance and social stability and comfortable standards of living for all. I have seen a sort of democratic socialism mixed with perfectly healthy doses of free enterprise work perfectly well my whole life, which is why when Americans moan about big government I can only really conclude that they are simply ignorant - the idea of Socialism being a dirty word is frankly offensive. Most of these countries have a large state, doing what the state is supposed to do: healthcare, education, infrastructure and so on, but not interfering particularly in free enterprise. In almost every sense Austria - like Holland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and so on - is more free, more affluent, more civillised, safer, fairer and more equal than the United States. There are plenty of flaws in every system, but the kind of derisive contempt I hear from a great many American political commentators for countries whose achivements they can only aspire to grates on my nerves something chronic. One day America might catch up with Austria. But that day is a very long way away.
-
Fuck, ignore me. It was Arnie being a dick about 'escaping' socialism which pissed me off. He was 'fleeing' one of the most civillised countries in the world, the fucking stupid jizzmonkey.
-
Directed at BlueWalrus' earlier comment:
But surely the flipside of the economic stability that comes with being linked to the UK in prosperous economic times is economic uncertainty/disaster in recession. It's exactly the same argument as the British constantly put forward against joining the Euro - sure, there may be some economic benefits, but what about when the whole system comes crashing down?
Ultimately, looking at the situation in the same light as the Irish Question, the Scottish are, like the Irish demanded to be recognised, different socially and religiously to the British. Perhaps the physical situation of being removed from mainland Britain had a psycological effect on the Irish, but I would not be at all surprised if Scotland followed the same route. They're already half way there with their own Parliament, have some great politicians like Alex Salmond that tend to get things done better than our own Parliament, and it seems likely that in half-arsed "Home Rule" situations like these, the only way that we're going is further towards Scottish independence.
Oh yes, and David Cameron's a vile twat. -
@notmanyexperts
It is the same argument about not joining the Euro, except that valuing a currency to economically reflect just the UK (which for the the regional variation has a lot of similarities too) and maintaining it, is a lot more straight forward than the Euro which is supposed to be managed in the rather sporadic interests of so many countries and the Scots have a say in how the economy and currency is controlled and maintained - more so than can be possible in Europe. Quantative easing allowed us breathing space to start rebuilding the economy as we (as in England + Scotand + Wales + NI) had full control - such measures are not possible with a currency like the Euro as each country has very different needs (Greece v Germany for example).
On the "crashing down" front by the way - if Scotland was independent the failure of RBS and HBOS could have made the whole country insolvent from what I understand - they certainly would not have had the funds to bail them out as Westminster did.
Also, whilst I do see some similarities with the Irish question, I think they can often be overstated. Britain imposed its rule on Ireland by force, whereas the English accepted the Scottish king to unify the two - quite a major difference. Yes the machinery of state then moved almost completely to London until the recent devolution to a Scottish Parliament, but the basis for the union is different and peaceful. My Scottish friends don't, in general, want independence from what I hear, but they do want more devolved power and vote SNP - who do a very good job of promoting Scottish interests as they should (and I like their voluntary abstaining from votes on English issues removing the West Lothian Question as an issue there). Survival as a small state is very difficult as your bargaining power on a world stage is obviously notably harder than that of a larger state.Economically, Ireland relied on EU subsidies for a very long time, and has had a tough time recently, even before the recession, as those subsidies now go to the new eastern European states - I'm not saying independence can't happen by any means, just that pragmatically unification remains in both countries interests at the moment in my mind.
Oh and yes both Cameron and Arnie are exactly that. -
Hawk - what I meant was that I tend to get retaliatory when I get in that sort of mood and defensiveness turns into anti-Americanness, which is not something I find very edifying, so apologies if I offended.
-
I have seen a sort of democratic socialism mixed with perfectly healthy doses of free enterprise work perfectly well my whole life, which is why when Americans moan about big government I can only really conclude that they are simply ignorant - the idea of Socialism being a dirty word is frankly offensive. Most of these countries have a large state, doing what the state is supposed to do: healthcare, education, infrastructure and so on, but not interfering particularly in free enterprise. In almost every sense Austria - like Holland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and so on - is more free, more affluent, more civillised, safer, fairer and more equal than the United States.
it isn't so much about ignorance and disdain for socialism outright for a lot of folks in america. it's about the fact that they interpret the constitution to say that the american government should limit its size and power. that's why they hate socialism. because they think the constitution hates socialism. whether or not they're right is a different story altogether, but it's not just the usual "americans are stupid" spiel without any nuance. -
We've had a Labour (ie nominally at least a little bit Socialist) government here for the last fifteen years or so and they have overseen the greatest widening of the gap between rich and poor in pretty much all of British history which is why I have given up on them. That is their number one job - to maintain the equality of society - equality of income, equality of opportunity, equality of rights and protection. The last Labour government was basically a Conservative one in a red tie. Fucking disgraceful.
-
High Violet has already leaked, incidentally. And it is pretty much okay, but no better than that, sorry.
-
On top of that, Labour have eroded our civil liberties to such an extent that even calling them liberties is a stretch.
We needed a change, and I am hoping the Lib Dems can steer the government's moral compass whilst at the same time understanding some of the massive cuts that are coming our way to reduce the deficit. If this coalition works it could be good for the country in its current state, but that "if" is pretty damn huge. -
to say capitalism wasn't a concern during the initial stages of the united states' planning is pretty much totally untrue. many founding fathers adhered to a laissez-faire view, which is obviously capitalistic philosophy in action. and many philosophers who influenced them were capitalists in one sense or another.
in fact, that's what a lot of the the inner struggle between the big players in the consitution's writing — the debate between the federalists (notably alexander hamilton) and democratic-republicans (jefferson) — was all about. they weren't necessarily regarding economic systems, but they definitely dealt with the size and amount of control the government has, a chief concern of laissez-faire. and then there were actual economic issues dealing with this tension, like hamilton championing the national bank.
as it happens, both sides were relatively conservative in their aims; the main issue being not so much how big the national government should be (everyone thought not very), but whether the federal government or the state governments got the final say on a given issue. most of the dudes were pretty staunchly capitalistic (considering that the federalist hamilton is seen as the father of american capitalistm, after all).
the thing most people don't get (on both sides) when discussing american politics historically is that the structure of the government as laid out in the consitution and the issues that brought about much of the political headbutting of the day (and thus compromises in the constitution) don't really apply to modern america at all. america was founded on capitalistic, traditionally conservative (which is fiscal conservatism and social liberalism) ideals and the constitution reflects that. it seems pretty clear that the founding fathers also intended for things to stay on that trajectory.
but of course the issue becomes that the political, economic, social and philosophical landscapes have changed drastically, and the founding fathers would've probably understood that. especially since they blazed trails as their political, economic, social and philosophical landscapes were changing.
hell, jefferson pretty much said things should change as time went on (although not necessarily in an evolutionary sense...but still, he recognized that change was needed and inevitable).
all this to say that, yes, capitalism was indeed on the minds of dudes like jefferson, madison, adams, hamilton, franklin and the like. -
Admittedly, John Locke and Adam Smith were the two biggest philosophers who influenced American founders. Their ideas also laid the groundworks for capitalism. Sure, it wasn't called 'capitalism' yet, but there's really not much to debate on the issue tbh.
exactly. a laissez-faire approach to governmental action was very much synonymous with many ideals of capitalism (which were very much in place at that time; and while it was not the modern conception of capitalism per-se, it was still very recognizable as such even then). i mean, hell, there have been economic systems worldwide for a couple thousand years that laid the foundation for modern capitalistic understanding. not technically what you would call capitalism, but they sure look eerily similar.
if you want to insist that the only way you can refer to "capitalism" is by your rigid historico-economical definition, that's fine (though you should've made that more clear early on). but to say that these concepts and ideals weren't addressed in the constitution and weren't on the minds of the founding fathers is still total bunk.
as i said before, one of the big deals in the earliest days of the united states government (so early, it was discussed at the first session of the first meeting of the congress!) was the formation of a national bank and what that would imply economically. now if that doesn't wreak of the economic concerns dealing with free enterprise and trade, i don't know what does.
additionally, hamilton was consistently in favor of government action that favored free industry, which sounds pretty familiar. and again, he's seen as the father of american capitalism by many. and while that obviously doesn't prove "capitalism" was alive in america at that time, it certainly shows that many of the broad ranging concerns and principles certainly were. -
To me comparing modern america to the intent/ideals that were laid out in the times of the constitution is like fucking comparing a grapefruit to a cherry, it just doesn't jive.
good analogy. so very true. -
not trying to be harsh in particular. most debates like this get derailed because people use differing defintions for terms without clarifying them (so we're all at fault in that sense), whether it has to do with specificity of a term or a conceptual difference. and it usually doesn't happen on purpose, obviously. when i said the definition was rigid, i wasn't trying to be antagonistic. but it became obvious you were using the kind of definition you would be taught in an economics class, which — like many definitions you learn in a specific discipline — is rigid lexically. that way one person can speak to another without misunderstanding (which was one of the problems we were having).
and this debate isn't about opinion or what someone feels. it's about facts and the procession of events. if we're talking about a more formal definition of capitalism (which definitely wasn't around in the 18th century), you're spot on. if we're talking about broad concepts of free market economies (which were very much around and can be documented), then what i'm saying has merit.
plus it's not a matter of "well, i interpret this as ____, and i feel like it was _____." granted, we're both making value judgments, but we're primarily talking about documented facts.
the crystallization of formal capitalism didn't happen for at least another 50 years after america changed its first national diaper. that's pretty much a fact. it doesn't take much reading to figure that one out.
and it's also documented that america's initial revolt had to do with unwanted taxation ("no taxation without representation" and all that, stemming heavily from the stamp act and townshend acts) and tariffs (molasses act and sugar act being notable), and they justified the revolt against those economic injustices by pairing it with other perceived disparities in human rights (in other words, they were saying king george can't tax us and have a stranglehold on our imports if he doesn't even consider us equal as human beings). don't forget, the boston tea party that helped spark the revolution wasn't just about civil liberties — there was a tax on tea that colonists didn't like.
pair that with the fact that debating the need for a national bank to control and stabilize america's economy was one of the VERY FIRST things discussed by the first congress of the united states of america, and it's clear why i said your contention that there were no economic concerns at the forefront of the founding fathers minds is total bunk. it's because it is. they were very concerned with economics. it's documented. fact. it's not about how you feel or want to perceive it. you can argue that it wasn't THE MOST IMPORTANT part of america's founding, but you can't say it wasn't still a primary concern (which is also what you seem to be saying).
all that said, here's the rub for who appeal to the founding fathers about lack of government involvement in free markets (and this is where we definitely agree, hawk). dudes like hamilton didn't limit government interference because big government is bad or tyrannical per-se. it was because the english government at the time was entangled with trade because they wanted to keep as much of the money for themselves as possible. they wanted the profits. americans didn't want this to happen in their new country. americans didn't want governments to control businesses and essentially steal money from their subjects to buy crowns and castles. the current political landscape means that the views of hamilton and others have little bearing on nationalized health care or other industry.
you could still say "the constitution says this or that," but whatever proof texts used are definitely open to interpretation. however, you can't say it's what jefferson or franklin would've wanted. there's no way to know how they would've felt about nationalizing any industry in modern america (maybe they'd say revolution, haha). and, of course, that brings it all back home to what toad and others were initially talking about. -
"you could still say "the constitution says this or that," but whatever proof texts used are definitely open to interpretation. however, you can't say it's what jefferson or franklin would've wanted. there's no way to know how they would've felt about nationalizing any industry in modern america "
So it seems you are contradicting yourself? Is that my interpretation, opinion or Fact? And I can't find anywhere in what I wrote above that used the words "would've wanted".
honestly, it seems like you weren't reading too closely. that part wasn't about our debate as much as it was about where we agreed. i wasn't talking about you saying what the founding fathers wanted. i had finished that part and come back to the original point that we agreed on (which i plainly said).
it was about conservatives who try to say that the founding fathers situation economically and politically was the exact same as it is today, and therefore we can take their words and actions and apply them perfectly to our modern-day situations. i said that you couldn't say what jefferson or franklin would have wanted to do in today's political situation. i thought that was pretty clear. it seems like you skipped that part so that you could have something to blast me with.
i wasn't talking about trying to interpret historical facts. it was about applying yesterday's principles to today's situations when they weren't meant to for that purpose and they don't even fit. it seems like you were just trying to rip what i said apart instead of reading it. if that's not the case, sorry for thinking that. seriously.
but in other words, i went back to what we agreed on (again, which i mentioned) and i was talking more about that. not trying to pick a fight. i wanted to emphasize that even though we were having words about the facts of the matter that philosophically speaking we were still on the same page — that the original reason this digression was borne was out of agreement and not disagreement. i really don't want to be antagonistic about it all. you squabbled with what i said first, then i came back and defended it because i saw a hole in your argument (that ended up only being halfway true once i realized that i misunderstood what you meant when you said capitalism). that was the long and short of my intention.
but again, to be clear, we can debate on where each issue ranked in the minds of the founding fathers, but there isn't much debate on what those issues actually were. that's been my contention. if you look at the succession of history, you can see what influenced them plainly based on their actual actions, writings and speech. economics may not have been AS important to them as i think it was, but that doesn't mean it wasn't important. you can't look at the history itself, their writings (not just the constitution here) and the societal landscape and say that laissez-faire economics and the english empire's fiscal tyranny played no part in the beginning of the american revolution. you can say it was the second or third reason they did it all (which we could debate and i could be wrong on), but it can't be said that it wasn't still a major motivating factor.
and yes, i have read a good bit of primary source material and scholarly secondary source material on this time period. there was a time in my life when i was interested in pursuing a degree in american history with an emphasis on the revolutionary period. and another interest was late-enlightenment philosophy. my plan was to some day tie them together in some research for an advanced degree. instead i just dropped out of school... -
actually, i'm more well-versed in politics and history than death metal. but one of the consequences of my day job being a deputy editor of AOL's metal blog is that i know way more about scandinavian metal of all stripes than i'd ever want to.
emperor is awful, just like burzum (whose main dude murdered a guy and burned down a bunch of churches), mayhem, venom, immortal or just about any other black metal band — the second wave onward in particular.
the one positive thing you can say about scandinavian black metal is that most of those dudes practice what they preach. of course, when they're preaching church burning, homophobia, nazism, extreme violence and hate...well, it's not exactly a positive thing, obviously. -
i always forget why trying to discussions like this on the internet is a bad idea...
-
k. serious question to people in the UK.
realistically, what is tory's chance being able to fix/rebalance UK budget in 2-3 yrs? From where I am sitting, it doesn't seem there is a lot Cameron can do without choking and seriously tanking UK economy.
slightly less cozy relationship with US? but what does that exactly mean in practical term from UK domestic point of view. -
Well the raising of capital gains, theoretically, is going to cover 20% of the money we need to find. Then we are also going to be facing some pretty deep cuts, to make up the rest. I imagine they are going to be very careful to make cuts not to tank the economy, but the cuts are going to be pretty deep for some services/sectors - it isn't going to be a fun time to be reliant on the state basically.
As for US and EU relations - they plan on being more pragmatic with both.
Blair was basically whipped by the US, sometimes to the exclusion of the EU, and we didn't get a lot back from that position.
Brown didn't really have a position to start with on either, but maybe was more pro-EU than US.
From what I understand their position will mean we will not be the America's whipping boy but will still try and keep close ties with most things - foreign policy for example tends to stay relatively stable across governments of different parties, so we will stay committed to Afghanistan - Iraq may be a slightly different matter. -
I don't know UK politics that detail, I can't tell if all the nice sounding speeches are believable or not. Who tories are going to shaft/the disposable, who their base are. Who they absolutely can't touch. how credible their plan is.
In term of UK-US, the way I see it, UK needs to figure out a) the massive global currency realignment. Where the pound will sit between Euro-USD-Yuan. b) US inability to regulate too big to fail banks. which of course will affect UK/european banks in the coming inflation. c) War in the middle east. specially the upcoming conflict with Iran.
Then probably Cameron budget have some credibility when it comes to reducing unemployment, 11% deficit and changing global market. -
btw, gotta listen to this talk. (little monotonous voice. but incredibly important. ie. the number says, US & UK debt is unsustainable. and political history says the leaders won't make the correct decision. )
http://www.businessinsider.com/niall-ferguson-empire-2010-5
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions3,267
- General2,523
- Band Promotion217
- Blog Promotion259
- MP3 Blog Tips148
- MP3 Blog Tools120
- Private Messages0