The biggest mistakes the British left made....

[phildwyer]

Treating the actual causes - lack of jobs, opportunities, and consequentially ambition - and imo also taking anti-social crime seriously, because people's lives are made a misery in some working class communities. I do disagree about locking up more people because it doesn't work, or only whilst people are locked up anyway

It doesn't even work while they're locked up. More crimes are committed inside prisons than outside.

 

[kyser_soze]

Ah another stock phrase - 'big investments in the alternatives'.

Which alternatives? Nukes for the medium term, with money invested in investigating fast breed, throrium & Accelerator driven powerplants? Wind & Wave, of which we'll start hearing tales of their specific forms of environmental degradation & impact as their important grows.

A good example is the two principle design choices for the Severn Barrage. Should it be a fuck off great big wall, with a road over it, built around known ideas, or the tidal lagoons idea, which worked brilliantly on paper but has never actually been trialled?

Besides, those alternatives aren't going to fertilise wheat, or do any of the zillion & one other things oil does.

 

[Plumdaff]

Everyone, of every political hue, social class & background, has ignored the elephant in the room that is oil prices because actually discussing it (beyond grumbling about how expensive petrol is), and the implications of peak oil on wider society are scary.

The reason no-one wants to discuss it properly is because it's terrifying at an existential level and, like pensions, no-one (and no, not even the greens) has a fucking scooby about what to do about it. In some ways it reminds me of those threads where someone tries to bring some new light to w/c politics, to breathe life into the shattered carcass of the w/c - there are stock phrases like 'Re-engage at a grass roots level' that appear in them, just as the phrase 'We need to realise we can't live the life we're living. It's unsustainable, we have to make up plans for peak oil that involve us using less of it.', and it's just as empty. There should be less focus on shiny huge initiatives such as HSR2 and more focus on getting a basic public transport infrastructure throughout the country.



Oil - and the soon to be with us lack of it - are an issue for everyone on the planet.

Well as a simple start, many people complain about fuel prices because getting to work, getting kids to school, shopping for food and so on is virtually impossible without a car in many areas and most planning in this country for the past 30 years has been for the Thatcherite car-driving society. Even in areas where there is good public transport fares are increasing above inflation.

So, a good start would be to campaign and lobby for a practical public transport system throughout the country to stop such heavy reliance on cars throughout the country, and to stop public transport costs rising so highly (over the 13 years of New Labour car ownership became cheaper, while public transport fares went up hugely - they are not greens and never will be).

I'm anti-nuclear as it requires stupid amounts of public money and is hugely polluting, but we also need to look at tidal and hydro power. Most vitally, we do (and this isn't popular) need to look at planning to enable people to live their lives with less oil. I don't honestly think people enjoy spending time in traffic jams but many have no alternative right now.

I'm also a big fan of urban agriculture to stop so many bloody lorries chugging up and down our motorways. Look a Cuban initiatives on permaculture in their cities (not a fan of everything about Cuba, but they're far more ready for peak oil than we are).

 

[kyser_soze]

Look a Cuban initiatives on permaculture in their cities (not a fan of everything about Cuba, but they're far more ready for peak oil than we are).

And how did that happen? Because they had to do it. It was that or starve.

And that's when you'll start to see people taking it really fucking seriously in this country - find an alternative or starve to death.

 

[Proper Tidy]

It doesn't even work while they're locked up. More crimes are committed inside prisons than outside.

In terms of the effect on the communities they come from, however, it clearly does Phil.

I did say, which you seem to have missed, that I am not talking about necessarily adopting the conclusions people reach, but that the concerns and grievances should be taken seriously. They are not the gripes of those with an agenda imo, they are the gripes of the mainstream working class, and they are all class issues at core. What the fuck does the rich man care about fuel costs? Or anti-social crime when the estates they know have pheasants? Or wages and terms and conditions being driven down?

 

[Proper Tidy]

Well as a simple start, many people complain about fuel prices because getting to work, getting kids to school, shopping for food and so on is virtually impossible without a car in many areas and most planning in this country for the past 30 years has been for the Thatcherite car-driving society. Even in areas where there is good public transport fares are increasing above inflation.

So, a good start would be to campaign and lobby for a practical public transport system throughout the country to stop such heavy reliance on cars throughout the country, and to stop public transport costs rising so highly (over the 13 years of New Labour car ownership became cheaper, while public transport fares went up hugely - they are not greens and never will be).

Precisely.

 

[phildwyer]

In terms of the effect on the communities they come from, however, it clearly does Phil.

I did say, which you seem to have missed, that I am not talking about necessarily adopting the conclusions people reach, but that the concerns and grievances should be taken seriously. They are not the gripes of those with an agenda imo, they are the gripes of the mainstream working class, and they are all class issues at core. What the fuck does the rich man care about fuel costs? Or anti-social crime when the estates they know have pheasants? Or wages and terms and conditions being driven down?

They care about any kind of lower-class misbehavior.

Look at the eighteenth century. Absolutely insanely harsh penalties for crime, in a society where all power rested with the rich.

(Also massive rates of crime btw)

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Ah another stock phrase - 'big investments in the alternatives'.

Which alternatives? Nukes for the medium term, with money invested in investigating fast breed, throrium & Accelerator driven powerplants? Wind & Wave, of which we'll start hearing tales of their specific forms of environmental degradation & impact as their important grows.

A good example is the two principle design choices for the Severn Barrage. Should it be a fuck off great big wall, with a road over it, built around known ideas, or the tidal lagoons idea, which worked brilliantly on paper but has never actually been trialled?

Besides, those alternatives aren't going to fertilise wheat, or do any of the zillion & one other things oil does.

The one that struck me recently was they've just given the go ahead for the palm oil based power station, whilst in the same city there was a startup that made turbines that could be powered by tides, but are placed under water, which negate the environmental disadvantages. Invest in them and lets try and start making stuff in this country again!

Other things I can think of are alternative ways to power to cars, which would mean the oil that is left can go further. I'd support more nukes in the medium term.

 

[coal-face]

Wtf is "political correctness"?

Google it

 

[kyser_soze]

The problem you've got PT, is that when someone rejects your approach to analysis of how & why crime happens - on the grounds that it's showing too much understanding & compassion, but just as likely to spring from 'I come from that background and I'm not a criminal, so why do they get the excuse?' - you're back to flogging & hanging.

What the fuck does the rich man care about fuel costs?

When his energy bill is eating into his company profits at an increasing rate.

 

[phildwyer]

Also look at the USA.

Ridiculously high penalties for crime, in a society entirely ruled by capitalists.

(Also massive rates of crime btw).

My point is that "getting tough on crime" is in no way a working-class policy, or a policy that reflects working-class interests. Quite the reverse.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

Also look at the USA.

Ridiculously high penalties for crime, in a society entirely ruled by capitalists.

(Also massive rates of crime btw).

My point is that "getting tough on crime" is in no way a working-class policy, or a policy that reflects working-class interests. Quite the reverse.

I think it can be, when coupled with other policies that give working class people an alternative to crime. Like having a job, and a decent home and something to aspire to. The problem in America is that, yes, they are tough on crime, but they don't have enough decent social housing, or enough working class jobs with security and prospects (as opposed to McJobs).

 

[phildwyer]

Empirically speaking, the evidence suggests that the tougher penalties are, the more crime is committed.

In the USA advocates of "getting tough" have given up arguing that it deters crime. They now argue for "retributive justice," the idea that society demands and deserves vengeance against criminals.

Do we want to go down that route I wonder?

 

[Plumdaff]

There's also US prison labour. More profit involved when you can pay people 42 cents an hour. I'm sure that has something to do with the high levels of imprisonment there.

According to the Left Business Observer, the federal prison industry produces 100% of all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture. Airplane parts, medical supplies, and much more: prisoners are even raising seeing-eye dogs for blind people.

Source - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289

 

[Proper Tidy]

My point is that "getting tough on crime" is in no way a working-class policy, or a policy that reflects working-class interests. Quite the reverse.

Phil, you're a fucking idiot with the politics of a liberal amoeba.

I did say, which you seem to have missed, that I am not talking about necessarily adopting the conclusions people reach, but that the concerns and grievances should be taken seriously. They are not the gripes of those with an agenda imo, they are the gripes of the mainstream working class, and they are all class issues at core.

I am not favouring longer sentences, on the simple grounds that prison doesn't work. I'd take the same line with prohibition of drugs - it isn't working and the underlying causes are about class; poverty, social exclusion, lack of jobs, no future. I am making the point - quite clearly, I thought - that we should be engaging with people about these issues, not staying silent or trotting out empty liberal slogans. We need to talk about the class bias of criminalisation, how it is that the city runs on cocaine yet it's mostly working class kids who end up in prison or addicted to hard dugs, but we also need to remember that working class people are disproportionally more likely to be the victims of crime. So it is a daft position to avoid discussing these issues or dismissing them because they don't fit into the fetishes of the liberal left, just as it would be if somebody quite rationally thought that criminalising drug use was the right position to deal with the consequences of drug abuse.

They care about any kind of lower-class misbehavior.

Look at the eighteenth century. Absolutely insanely harsh penalties for crime, in a society where all power rested with the rich.

(Also massive rates of crime btw)

Who's 'they'? You seem to have flip-flopped from talking about the concerns of working class people to talking about the concerns - with entirely different motivations - of the capitalist class. It isn't 'left' just to adopt a contrary position to the bosses.

 

[Proper Tidy]

The problem you've got PT, is that when someone rejects your approach to analysis of how & why crime happens - on the grounds that it's showing too much understanding & compassion, but just as likely to spring from 'I come from that background and I'm not a criminal, so why do they get the excuse?' - you're back to flogging & hanging.

I see your point, but if we don't engage on these issues then people will adopt the conclusions pedalled by others, and it entrenches the view that the left doesn't understand or engage with working class issues and toes the establishment liberal line - that we are no different from the political mainstream, that we are liberals - with the obvious consequences, namely apathy and the far right.

When his energy bill is eating into his company profits at an increasing rate.

Yeah, fair point, but it isn't the same concern as working class people trying to get by with stagnating wages and rising costs. Rich people won't reach the same political conclusions, for instance.

 

[Proper Tidy]

The problem in America is that, yes, they are tough on crime, but they don't have enough decent social housing, or enough working class jobs with security and prospects (as opposed to McJobs).

Yep, the underlying issue isn't the response to crime but the causes of that crime in the first place.

 

[phildwyer]

I am making the point - quite clearly, I thought - that we should be engaging with people about these issues, not staying silent or trotting out empty liberal slogans.

Hardly a controversial point then.

But in reality, I suspect that your point was quite different.

 

[phildwyer]

Labour purposefully moved to a liberal position from an at least partially class-based position

See, when you say stuff like this, people will get the impression that you think a "class-based" position is one that punishes criminals harshly.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Hardly a controversial point then.

But in reality, I suspect that your point was quite different.

Suspect away backpacker

 

[Proper Tidy]

See, when you say stuff like this, people will get the impression that you think a "class-based" position is one that punishes criminals harshly.

Why? I made the point about the Labour party broadly, so why would you reduce it to one area of policy?

 

[phildwyer]

Why? I made the point about the Labour party broadly, so why would you reduce it to one area of policy?

OK, I thought you were talking about crime. And on a couple of other occasions you've said things that sounded as though you favored harsher penalties, or thought that working-class people favored harsher penalties.

imo also taking anti-social crime seriously, because people's lives are made a misery in some working class communities. I do disagree about locking up more people because it doesn't work, or only whilst people are locked up anyway, but I can also understand why, when people are the victims of crime, they support more prisons and harder sentences.

But if I'm wrong I stand corrected.

 

[Proper Tidy]

OK, I thought you were talking about crime. And on a couple of other occasions you've said things that sounded as though you favored harsher penalties, or thought that working-class people favored harsher penalties.




But if I'm wrong I stand corrected.

Which bit of 'I do disagree about locking up more people because it doesn't work, or only whilst people are locked up anyway' did you misinterpret?

Although thank you for illustrating my point about how 'the left' should engage with these concerns rather than just dismissing, sneering and, indeed, insinuating.

Tougher sentences is a rational conclusion for people to arrive at for the issue of what is perceived to be rising crime. It works on the assumption that prison - the toughest punishment we have - works, that it is effective at combating crime. What the left has to do is get across the point that crime is driven by class issues and that prison doesn't solve that.

 

[phildwyer]

Which bit of 'I do disagree about locking up more people because it doesn't work, or only whilst people are locked up anyway' did you misinterpret?

The last bit, since you ask.

And I had good reason for my interpretation. For when I responded to you by noting that locking people up didn't reduce crime in prison, you answered:

In terms of the effect on the communities they come from, however, it clearly does Phil.

So here it seems that you do in fact believe that locking people up reduces crime.

In short, your opinions are all over the shop on this issue. The reasons why are not hard to find.

 

[frogwoman]

Its not only driven by class issues though but class affects the application of the law and the creation of the law. It's also the case that people who are able to can almost buy their way out of it through financial or for that matter social capital - they know how to play the system etc. And that certain acts that are "wrong" are not only less lilely to be punished if they are from the richer sections of society but in many cases what they're doing isn't even considered wrong by the law anyway.

 

[frogwoman]

For example a boss of a large company who rapes his secretary, there is a very good chance that that person won't be punished in the first place, and he will just be able to get away with it. Far more likely than the other way round.

 

[Proper Tidy]

The last bit, since you ask.

And I had good reason for my interpretation. For when I responded to you by noting that locking people up didn't reduce crime in prison, you answered:



So here it seems that you do in fact believe that locking people up reduces crime.

In short, your opinions are all over the shop on this issue. The reasons why are not hard to find.

No, Phil, you said this:

It doesn't even work while they're locked up. More crimes are committed inside prisons than outside.

And I responded:

In terms of the effect on the communities they come from, however, it clearly does Phil.

You thick bourgeois ex-pat

 

[phildwyer]

Right, so you're saying that locking people up reduces crime in the communities from which they come.

Aren't you?

You silly gog.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Right, so you're saying that locking people up reduces crime in the communities from which they come.

Aren't you?

You silly gog.

I am saying, Phil, you dibbling tourist, that when somebody is locked up then they are not able to commit crime in the community from whence they came. Obviously. Because they are not there, Phil, are they? Being in prison and all.

 

[phildwyer]

I am saying, Phil, you dibbling tourist, that when somebody is locked up then they are not able to commit crime in the community from whence they came. Obviously. Because they are not there, Phil, are they? Being in prison and all.

No, that is not what you said. You said that locking people up reduces crime in the communities from which they come.

But elsewhere, you said the precise reverse.

So it seems that you are trapped in an ideological contradiction. Do you want me to explain the reasons behind your logical error?