danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Alex Massie is a mad-arse free marketeer.
Ayn Rand died on benefits, Alex. Suck that up.
Will you vote for independence?
- Thread starter ska invita
- Start date
Ayn Rand died on benefits, Alex. Suck that up.
geminisnake
a complex mass of conflicting ideas
Article - But – and this is the inconvenient thing some nationalists refuse to allow – Britain is also a real country and, yes, also a democracy.
Me - No it's not A country, it is a group of countries and islands and as for it being a democracy, aye ok then. That article doesn't explain how 4 countries can be all one and the same. I'm not being nationalist about this just confused why/how they see it as one.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Massie, along with many nationalists (for he is one) is confusing "country" with "state", even when he thinks he isn't. Which is an incoherent thing for a self-proclaimed "libertarian" to do.
gosub
~#
I see the UK as one country, I've wondered all over the place and considered it home and mixed with lots of people who've done likewise. Scotland has been the most different partially the different legal system but mainly cos I've got here at a time when a lot of the people living here are trying to make the most of the differences.
Not done Northern Ireland though, and that does seem different, but its what you are used to
Not done Northern Ireland though, and that does seem different, but its what you are used to
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
DairyQueen
Well-Known Member
Not sure UK is a democracy. It is has some wealth, those that don't are demonised and that helps the government to tolerate some freedom of expression. Not sure I would call that democracy if I am honest.
I don't really consider the UK a real country, maybe it is more like a dying imperial state from my perspective. Old, decrepit aristocratic 'state' of Britain clinging to a few rocks as if it is still an empire. The way the queen carries on is a bit depressing. Like dressing up a senile old relative in an elaborate dress from a period drama at a party so everyone else patronisingly ooh and ah. "You look lovely Doris, would you like some of Ben's crumpets? He made them especially for you."
I don't really consider the UK a real country, maybe it is more like a dying imperial state from my perspective. Old, decrepit aristocratic 'state' of Britain clinging to a few rocks as if it is still an empire. The way the queen carries on is a bit depressing. Like dressing up a senile old relative in an elaborate dress from a period drama at a party so everyone else patronisingly ooh and ah. "You look lovely Doris, would you like some of Ben's crumpets? He made them especially for you."
Last edited:
DairyQueen
Well-Known Member
Ah yes. Britain is the land of opportunity where dreams are there to be made. Face it, if I replaced the 'UK' with 'Russia' and the 'Queen' with 'Putin' and instead made some reference to him fighting bears you would be nodding furiously.
You must be having a serious brain fart.
Remind me, how many changes of government have we had in the past 10 years? And how many has Russia had? Putin is a dictator in all but name; for all of their faults, Brown and Blair were not and Cameron is not. Again, remind me, has the UK recently annexed any territory against the wishes of its inhabitants? Remind me, have Cameron, Blair, or Brown had any of their political opponents jailed? Remind me, has the UK threatened to cut off supplies of oil or gas to other countries?
Remind me, how many changes of government have we had in the past 10 years? And how many has Russia had? Putin is a dictator in all but name; for all of their faults, Brown and Blair were not and Cameron is not. Again, remind me, has the UK recently annexed any territory against the wishes of its inhabitants? Remind me, have Cameron, Blair, or Brown had any of their political opponents jailed? Remind me, has the UK threatened to cut off supplies of oil or gas to other countries?
DairyQueen
Well-Known Member
No, the New Labour government was directly responsible for 'just' 200,000 deaths, but probably indirectly responsible for over a million in Iraq alone. He had no UN approval. The same as Russia (although Russian interventions were not nearly as bloody EDIT: perhaps including Chechnya it gets closer). We have had two governments since 1997. The same as Russia. Has the UK threatened and implemented fairly significant sanctions against poor countries over that period? Are you serious?
Last edited:
No, it wasn't. Remind me, how many of those deaths were by British bullets shot from British guns?
Funny, I could have sworn that Putin has been in power since he started. Medvedev was a puppet.
I forgot to address this part:
There are 20% more millionaires since 2010.
(Bolding mine.)
Also:
And let's not forget that pesky immigration issue...
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Depends on what you call a "change of government". But if you mean changing from one party to another, the answer is one.
Whether that's evidence of democracy or not is another question, since there's little to choose from between the parties; they represent the same interests, and follow the same neoliberal ideology.
Furthermore, although the Commons is elected, the Lords are not. There are around 800 unelected members right there. It's the second largest legislative body in the world in absolute terms. (As a proportion of the population it's 0.0125%). The first being the Chinese National People's Congress. Although, the Lords is way ahead as a percentage of population. China's NPC can only muster 0.0002%, and it holds elections, unlike the Lords. The Lords doesn't even pretend.
In the last ten years, Putin has switched from President to Premier and back to President. Not unusual. Chirac was twice Prime Minister of France before he became President.
If you are using length of tenure as your measure, then in the UK, Labour were in government for 13. The Tories before that, for 18. Mitterrand was president of France for 14 years.
So, what is your complaint? Moving from Prime Minister to President? If that makes him undemocratic, then France is in question, too. Length of tenure for one party? That calls the UK, France and many others into question.
There are many more salient complaints we can make against Putin than these.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
He has been either President or Prime Minister for 15 years. He beats Labour by 2, but is beaten by the Tories.
No, actually, he isn't beaten by the Tories. Major was his own man and not Mrs Thatcher's puppet. And both Major and Thatcher were freely and fairly elected as were Blair and Brown. I'm really not sure you can say that elections in Russia are free or fair.
As for the Lords, they cannot override the Commons, and almost all are now there on merit (however dubious that merit might be).
DairyQueen
Well-Known Member
What? Putin was elected in 1999. I was not even counting Medvedev. If you count him, they've had three heads of state. I suppose it is similar to claiming Gordon Brown's takeover was a change of government. As for the comment about British guns. I have no idea. Well into five figures in Iraq alone. They were responsible for the control of Basra.
As for the millionaires bullshit. Do some proper research. So are Russian oligarchs buying up state assets evidence of a capitalist wonderland? You're scraping the barrel if you have to start counting the change in the number of millionaires in a country to big up its democratic credentials, not to mention the time period you have chosen (think massive financial meltdown in 2008).
DairyQueen
Well-Known Member
Putin was elected, and is broadly popular. No-one is that stupid to claim that Putin did not win the election. The main gripe is that Russian media is horrendously biased in order to ensure a Putin victory. The same happened to the communists when Yeltsin was elected (but we shut up about that).
Anyway... this is a digression.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What election did brown win? If you're going to be consistent you must argue that the period of his govt was one of dictatorship and one less democratic than that of russias.
Last edited:
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
That is not democracy, though. And they have real legislative power.
However, let's be clear. The comparison with Russia is fatuous. You don't need to resemble Russia in order for your democracy to be faulty. We're not Russia, but that doesn't mean nothing's wrong.
Westminster is rotten to the core. And I don't just mean petty corruption like expenses scams. Nor sordid cover-ups of paedophile allegations. I mean the number of MPs who have direct business interests in firms that stand to profit from NHS "deregulation", like the cancer care "outsourcing". Or Osborne's best man making a killing from the Royal Mail sell-off. Despite public opposition (two thirds opposed). The business interests directly represented in the Commons that benefit from decisions made by those same people. To our detriment.
And then there's the fact that a large majority of UK voters - including Tory voters - support energy companies and rail companies being brought back into public ownership. And yet we have an electoral system that encourages all parties to shift rightwards as they chase a handful of swing voters in a handful of marginal seats, so the choices people actually want - like public ownership of energy, rail and mail - are not on offer.
And then we have the class that makes up government. Privately educated people are vastly over represented. 7% of the UK population (4% in Scotland) is privately educated. What about government ministers? Is it 10%? 15%? 20%? No. 70% of government ministers since the war have been privately educated. (Sutton Trust figures). That includes Labour governments. That is not a blip or an outlier. That's a huge in-your-face trend. Of 119 Government ministers in the coalition government, 66% went to public schools. Not 7%. Or 15%. Not even 50%. But 66%. That in no way represents the population.
And the Sutton Trust also tells us that top ranking 'public service' (which includes people in national, public or local government organisations) is dominated by privately educated people, at 68%; followed by law at 63% and armed services officers at 60%.
And when people make the rational, evidence-backed decision that voting makes no difference at all to their lives, they're called "apathetic". Instead of what they actually are, which is right.
DairyQueen
Well-Known Member
Danny, just to say that this referendum has really shown (to me) just how undemocratic political life is in this country. The BBC is still covering Rory Stewart's cairn, basically begging people to build the fucking statue for him. Nothing like that happens for a Yes campaign. You could get thousands of diverse people turning up for some event and you'd get nowt.
Sure, the Russian example is a stretch.
Sure, the Russian example is a stretch.
It was not I who made the initial comparison
So stand up and be counted! Stand for Parliament on an anti-corruption ticket. Convince your electorate that you can and will do something about it. Unlike certain other countries you won't get assaulted or harassed for doing so.
(And I've not heard of the Scottish Parliament being any less corrupt.)
And not so long ago they all had to shift leftwards.
Blame Labour for getting rid of Grammar Schools, and the Tories for not reinstating them.
DairyQueen
Well-Known Member
Plenty of anti-corruption campaigners get harassed in this country, some undoubtedly assaulted. Any serious movement along these lines would be pilloried in the press, the leaders would be at risk of having their lives destroyed and defamed. Not to mention the amount of time and money required just to run a proper campaign.
As for grammar schools. There is a reason Labout got rid of them and the Tories never reinstated them. Just be honest.
Yes indeed: too many of their pupils were becoming Tories. Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, and John Major all went to grammar schools.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
The Labour party tried, 120 years ago; it was set up to increase working class representation in parliament. It ended up being thoroughly co-opted into the system, and now represents the same interests as the others.
When was that?
This is a whole different thread. But first of all, you seem to assume the problem is the quality of education provided by state schools as compared to private. That is incorrect. Secondly, since we're in the Scotland forum, the comprehensive system in Scotland is far more ...comprehensive. In England, the comprehensive system was not ever fully introduced. They always had a half-hearted mish-mash. Lastly; I don't want selection reintroduced, I want bought privilege abolished.
It worked once; why shouldn't it work again?
Before 1974 and after 1997.
Please don't put words into my mouth, because you're wrong.
Actually, as we're finding with my nephew, it doesn't appear to be. He's having to choose to specialise far too early. This may be more a reflection on the school rather than the system, though.
No, given the limited funds, the basic idea behind the grammar school / high school split is better.
Selection is good. It allows pupils of similar intellectual ability to be grouped together. I want equality of opportunity, not equality of results.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
So stand up and be counted! Stand for Parliament on a reinstating the Grammar Schools ticket.
Come up with a brilliant idea that earns you lots of money and set up your own Grammar School Party. Write a wonderful and persuasive manifesto and get all the various political parties behind you so you win a landslide majority and then they'll all jolly well sit up and take notice and there'll never be ignorance or diseases ever again.
Or were you just trying to stop the discussion with this 'Stand for Parliament' stuff?
Last edited:
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
how anyone saw 1997 as a shift leftwards is beyond me.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
It didn't.
Wrong. Read up on the New Right & neoliberalism.
So you don't think there's anything wrong with the quality of state education as it is currently structured? I thought you did.
You may be confusing selection with streaming/setting. In fact, you are.
No it isn't.
I do. I think that the state shouldn't be directly educating children at all. Oversight of quality (e.g. OFSTED) and funding? Yes. Actually educating? No. Get rid of the political interference, exam targets, etc, and let the schools get on with actually teaching and producing educated young people, and let the parents decide which schools their children should attend.
No, I'm not. As I said, he's going to have to specialise very soon. Far too soon IMO. He's only 11 and in the next year or two will have to choose subjects to drop and he'll take far fewer exams than I did. I had to choose between Greek and German at 13 but didn't start dropping subjects until the year of my O levels.
That would be why the grammar school / high school system in Buckinghamshire worked so much better than the comprehensives in east Berkshire in the 90s. Of course, I'd actually prefer a different system entirely.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
If he's at a state school in Scotland, he will make his subject choices in S3, for the beginning of S4.
Since the CfE, high school kids have done BGE (Broad General Education) for the first 3 years. This is new. My elder daughter made her subject choices in S2, as indeed I did.
O grades (which I sat) were a 2 year course. As were the Standard Grades that replaced them. (Which my oldest sat). My younger daughter will sit Nationals, in her coming S4. As will your nephew, when he reaches S4. They are a 1 year course.
Highers remain as they always were, a 1 year course taken in S5, with S6 optional for additional Highers, or Advanced Highers (in my day these latter were SYS).
Completely off topic. But now you'll know what your nephew is talking about.
Similar threads
