Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Uncle Globnasty]

Sport, then politics.....can we go for religion next?

There is no perfect model, but to disregard socialism as a movement would be wrong I feel. Without it there would have been no health service, there would have been no unions (now whilst some may think that would be a good thing, the principles upon which they were originally formed were sound, namely to protect the rights of workers from exploitation and abuse).

As others have stated, there can be no utopian ideal of every man being equal as human nature is such that it can never happen.

As for striving for something better, not everybody wants something better badly enough to do so. Some people are happy to live in the same area all of their lives and never try and break away from that. Just as some want to travel and attempt to broaden their horizons. Who is to say which is the correct way? Surely, that is an individual choice? The fact of that matter is that even if everyone wanted to become a business tycoon (for example) it would not be physically possible.

There are some from the upper echelons of society who would look down upon the working classes, just as there are some from the working classes who would despise those from the upper echelons. Neither are right, but we can sit and debate all we like, human nature will never change whilst we have holes in our arses.

[Dougals Dad]

Correct Mr Hughes.

Wearing the clothes, eating the food blah blah blah.

I love a protestor who doesn't have a viable alternative, should we go back to the fuedal sytem? Try Communism, oh no that didn't work did it....

I'd argue that communism has never been implemented, not in a major country for any sustained period of time at least.  Even the USSR leaders admitted this. 

I have my sympathies with the protestors- the bonuses being given in the crisis are infuriating.  Years of campaigning have had little effect, so they take a more direct approach; not to say i agree with them, but i understand the frustration. 

The majority will have alternatives (though most are radical changes), the thing is that the group is such a mish-mash.  Anarchists, socialists, environmentalists, anti-war, anti-globalisation.  It's not a choice of the free market or communism. 

I think the Chinese might have something to say about this.

But capitalism is now very prominent in China now!

[Toff Apple]

However true capitalists would not be bailing out the banks or the motor industry.  The interferance will make matters worse according to strict moneterism.

[bighairedmike]

However true capitalists would not be bailing out the banks or the motor industry.  The interferance will make matters worse according to strict moneterism.

The labour party isn't truly capitalist. The social democrats of the labour party accept that we are living in a capitalist society and dont expect to change the fundamental values of it. Rather they hope to introduce reform which redistributes sources in a way to attempt to help the majority over the few. This is more in the equality of opportunity thought than the equality of outcome. Key Social Democrats? Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and Peter Benjamin Mandelson.

As you say, they wouldnt be bailing out the banks, a fundamental value in Free Enterprise.

[Dougals Dad]

As per a quote in the Mail today:

Why do people take an instant dislike to Peter Mandelson?





It saves time that way!

[MadFrankie]

in the city today i felt like smashing the system but i was late for a meeting so couldn't quite manage it. Hopefully the swampy monsters will head home and leave us capitalists to it next week.

[Uncle Globnasty]

in the city today i felt like smashing the system but i was late for a meeting so couldn't quite manage it. Hopefully the swampy monsters will head home and leave us capitalists to it next week.

We know where you live.

[fuertes]

This thread was a really interesting read. Almost unbelievably, I'm actually going to agree with AltyTunnelSteward. People appear to have very strong views one way or t'other...

Politics is a very complex business, not only are there economic ideals of left/right, but also liberal ideals of liberty/authoriatarianism. Wherever 'communism' has been implemented it has been in an authoritarian way. Whilst Marxists would argue that means communism was corrupted, I wouuld make the point that the only way you could bring about communism is by authoritarianism, and therein lies its weakness.

Personally I favour a mixed economy along the lines of Scandinavia. Big investment in health and education (proper investment, not just raising teachers' salaries and hoping that'll help kids do well in their SATS), but with incentives still there for businesses and workers (i.e. more staggering in the income tax brackets, but with a top rate no higher than 50%).

As far as I'm concerned, and this is obviously completely biased, we're now in a situation where we're living 'Thatcher's Dream' and it's rubbish. Mass privatisation = Greater Competition = Higher Standards. What a load of bollocks that turned out to be. Public transport is worse, hospitals aren't clean because private companies can't be arsed to clean them properly, people don't get their medication delivered on time because that NHS duty has been contracted out etc etc.

Sold off the family silver...

[Jimmy Hill]

Public transport is worse...

Sold off the family silver...

Is this actually true?

This is a genuine question as I have no first hand knowledge of transport pre-privatization.

Take the railways for example, was British Rail genuinely better in terms of price/service/punctuality/clenliness etc than the service that's provided now?

[fuertes]

My main gripe with public transport is the prices. The same ticket on different days can see a 200% price change...why?? Punctuality, hit and miss. I've been through phases where trains are always on time, then three out of my next four journeys I'm left hanging around due to delays.

[AltyTunnelSteward]

Now that public transport is run by private companies with profit their prime driver you find that huge areas of the Country no longer have any public transport as the routes are 'uneconimical' i.e. The Company cannot make any profit whilst other routes are so overfilled that gridlock ensues.
You may recall the chaos in central Manchester not long back when Mosley Street, Piccadilly and the surrounding Streets were impassible due to stop blocking and in fact two Companies had their Operating Licenses withdrawn.
I walk up Oxford Road in a morning from the BBC to the University, making the reverse journey in the evening and it is not unusual to see the entire inside lane of Oxford Road, both ways completely filled with Buses, nose to tail, all competing for what is obviously a profitable route.
If Transport were re-regulated like it is in London (there aren't many things about London I like but the public transport is one) it would be possible to have efficient, economical and punctual transport from an integrated system rather than the farce which we currently endure.

[thegazelle]

scandanavia tax about 50%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

read the facts oslo most expensive place in the world . beer 82 quid a pint

lots of blond women
clean
good fishing nearly everyone spoeaks english better than i do
hang on a minute

[baldrick]

The country with the most expensive beer prices is United Arab Emirates. It is not known if they have any blonde women because they completely cover them with a sheet and cut out little slits so you can only see their eyes. Public shagging is not encouraged and there is no scrumpy.

[NauticaPete]

I totally agree with Alty tunnel steward on the transport issue. Proper public investment and regulation/integration is in my book the only way to get a decent service. For such a large connurbation Manchester's transport, with all the different private operators, is a farce, and totally frustrating. Compare Manc to any similar sized city on the continent (Lyon, Munich, Hamburg etc.) - there's no comparison. These cities made the investments in the 50s, 60s, 70s in public infrastructure  - and continue to do so- (all have an underground for example). The transport systems there run on a subsidy, but what is the net result? a) greater ridership b) resonable prices c) frequent & decent service, not just on the most profitable routes, often 24h d) generally less stress and better quality of life for everyone. Germany and France show you don't need to have Scandinavia-style taxes (on alcohol, among other things; much cheaper in Germany than in the UK) to get the best of both worlds. 
The German model ('Social market economy') provides long-term stability, and not just for the transport sector.

[Dougals Dad]

I can remember the public transport system in Vienna. From memory I paid for one ticket that allowed a given amount of journeys on any of the public transport systems: bus, underground, train or tram. The Manchester tram system is recognised as being quite decent, but what many people seem to have forgotten is that most of the track simply replacede a rail system. With the exception of the city centre, no extra miles of public transport!

It was a replacement rather than an improvement.