Forget bigotgate

[Johnny Mac]

Is the Doc up yet?  :?: Still in bed farting Doc?  :?:

[tomjackson]

Is the Doc up yet?  :?: Still in bed farting Doc?  :?:

You would need to write a dissertation to confirm that  :D

[Dr. Stein]

 :?

[nfe]

The second, social mobility is zero in a utopian state, lowering social mobility in order to approach such would be a good move.

That would be social mobility getting better, that's the opposite of Afghan stated above, the gap is getting wider, not smaller.

[dave_mc]

Do you mean you can genuinely not imagine a situation where either would be desirable? The first could be desirable simply if you need money quickly. Cash flow. The second, social mobility is zero in a utopian state, lowering social mobility in order to approach such would be a good move.

Not that's what is actually happening. I don't have a clear conception of the real situation, so you guys tell me if you know...

i don't think we were in need of quick money. gordon himself claimed it was the end of boom and bust. and we were in the longest sustained period of economic growth for ages (if not ever).

I take your point about social mobility being zero being alright if we've already reached some mythical utopian state, but (a) we clearly haven't and (b) more to the point, I did not say social mobility was zero, I said it was getting worse. Even if we HAD reached some perfectly emancipated state where getting ahead was based entirely on merit, social mobility getting worse would be a bad thing. In fact, I'm not sure social mobility WOULD necessarily be zero in a utopian state (you might need a dissertation to explain that), because for it to be a utopian state, there would need to be a large amount of social mobility, as to whom you were born shouldn't affect your chances in life at all. Unless your utopian state were some kind of socialist paradise where there were no social hierarchies at all. And even then you'd need a dissertation to explain why social (and not economic) factors weren't influencing children's chances (i.e. who your parents were, etc.).

perhaps instead of refusing to read or accept what I posted because i didn't post proof, you should actually read what i wrote. Maybe there's not the need for gigantic dissertations which you at first assumed.

[MrBump]

Also, I've just seen on Have I Got News For You that the Sun ran the headline Dave New World  :lol:

One imagines the irony of them running a pun inadvertently referencing a book about the government practicing eugenics, strict class barriers and keeping the population brainwashed and emotionally suppressed with drugs may have been lost on most of their readership.

... it's actually appropriate for The Sun, if I remember the book correctly and all it's references to "pneumatic women"

[MrBump]

... and while I'm here...

I've been kinda avoiding this thread, 'cos my views are likely to clash with too many other peoples.

But a couple of people have mentioned that Gordon shouldn't have been PM because he wasn't elected.

In fact, he was.  He was elected MP for Kirkcaldy.  And Labour were elected several times to form the British Government.  We don't have a President in this country, we elect a government which instates a leader.  We just vote for MPs and if we're lucky and the maths works out OK they represent us in Parliament.

Mark.

[Dr. Stein]

My God these things get out of hand quickly, don't they?

That would be social mobility getting better, that's the opposite of Afghan stated above, the gap is getting wider, not smaller.

I interpreted it as increasing, rather than literally worsening. On your interpretation of course I can't imagine a scenario where getting worse is an improvement, that just doesn't make sense.

[Dr. Stein]

i don't think we were in need of quick money. gordon himself claimed it was the end of boom and bust. and we were in the longest sustained period of economic growth for ages (if not ever).

You may well be right, but my initial point still stands - these issues are far too complex to be summed up in 2-3 sentences. You can't expect something like the above to actually convince anyone, can you?

I take your point about social mobility being zero being alright if we've already reached some mythical utopian state, but (a) we clearly haven't and (b) more to the point, I did not say social mobility was zero, I said it was getting worse. Even if we HAD reached some perfectly emancipated state where getting ahead was based entirely on merit, social mobility getting worse would be a bad thing. In fact, I'm not sure social mobility WOULD necessarily be zero in a utopian state (you might need a dissertation to explain that), because for it to be a utopian state, there would need to be a large amount of social mobility, as to whom you were born shouldn't affect your chances in life at all. Unless your utopian state were some kind of socialist paradise where there were no social hierarchies at all. And even then you'd need a dissertation to explain why social (and not economic) factors weren't influencing children's chances (i.e. who your parents were, etc.).

Well this is a bit of a strawman really, isn't it? I never said anything about necessities.

perhaps instead of refusing to read or accept what I posted because i didn't post proof, you should actually read what i wrote. Maybe there's not the need for gigantic dissertations which you at first assumed.

I did, but if you'd like me to quote them all individually:

-PFI

I don't know what the impact was (is?) of this, so I can't agree with you without significantly more information.


-iraq war

I see positives, I see negatives, what I don't see is how the two stack up overall.


-turned a blind eye to the banks getting in over their heads

You'd have to be more specific on what exactly happened for me to form an opinion on this.


-overly friendly with oligarchs (mandelson) and allowing ridiculous tax loopholes for the super-rich

What tax loopholes? Overly friendly how?


-selling off gold reserves when gold was at an all-time low

There must have been some reason for this, without knowing what that reason was it'd just be idiotic to form an opinion. If all I knew about my laptop was that the fans make a noise which is occasionally mildly irritating I'd refrain from hating the thing until I found out a bit more about it...


-dithered about bailing out/then nationalising the banks when they realised they were in over their heads

Again, this needs to be *far* more specific. You might as well have just said "did a load of shite stuff".


-getting rid of 10p tax rate

What were the negative consequences of this then? Why do they outweigh the positive?


-social mobility is getting worse, not better

This is not expressed as something Labout did, it is just something that (allegedly) happened while they were in office. What are you suggesting they did wrong?


-starting wars then underfunding the defence forces (i'd prefer they didn't start wars, but if you're going to start them you need to do it right)

There's no such thing as an adequately funded soldier. Unless you buy them bullet proof skin some of them are still going to die. Sort of comes with the job description... Should they have funded the forces better? How much better, taking the money from where?


-iirc, pretended we'd have a referendum about the lisbon treaty then changed mind

If you recall correctly. Not the most convincing authority, your questionable recollection...


-blatantly admitted to refusal to listen to scientific evidence regarding drugs policy

Why would it have been better not to admit to this? What would have happened differently?


-knife/gun policy- you get almost more jail time for carrying a weapon than using it (if you're convicted of manslaughter rather than murder)

So what was actually done, and were there no good reasons at all for what was done?


-ridiculous anti-terror laws

This is just vague as hell. What was done?


-use of said ridiculous anti-terror laws against iceland, that well-known al quaida heartland

What was done?


- ID cards

What about them?



- CCTV everywhereT

Where is everywhere, and why is this a bad thing?






Those would be my initial questions on any of those topics.

[38thBeatle]

Wibble.

[Johnny Mac]

Shut up and play your guitar Doc!  :lol:

[AndyR]

I am inclined to agree with Johnny, Doc, there is no point arguing with him over it :lol:

I see exactly what you mean, and agree with you entirely on the point you're trying to make :D

Some of those things I do not see as a bad thing myself, some I do, some, like you, I don't know enough about... so I'm not prepared to accept a short statement along the lines of "X wears Y-fronts" as proof of "badness" ...

That's about it, isn't it?

(I think 38th might be expressing the same thing, but more succinctly :lol:)
(apologies if you're not 38th, you don't need to clarify/expand :lol:)

[Afghan Dave]

Shut up and play your guitar Doc!  :lol:

Why should he play his guitar?
Should he play his guitar well or should he play it badly?
Left handed or right handed?

I fear you will have to provide alot more information for him to accept this request...  :?

[Johnny Mac]

Of course he is. Wibble is a well know expression of Roger Irrelevant!

Anyway This thread is still going strong. Another weeks work under our belts, which must mean its Friday. 5 0' Clock came and went so I missed Crackerjack but the pub is still open, just, so I'm off out to drink lager and fight like the stereotypical working class scumbag that I am. Bye!  

[Dr. Stein]

Honestly you try to make one simple, innocuous point and then nobody will leave you alone.  :lol: I've been up for 26 hours so guitar is a no no, my last shred of hand to brain coordination vanished around lunchtime.  :(