Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[beninho]

First topic message reminder :

https://officiating.worldrugby.org/?module=3&section=36&subsection=129&language=en

"It is not mandatory for the team receiving the challenge to face it."

How many effing times. If they don't face it up silently and respectfully they get massive media criticism.

No they don't!

This is getting crazy!

[pedro]

I am not sh!tting you. Google it. Why do you think people don't climb the social ladder these places?

[JAS]

JAS, the choice between Tory and Labour was hardly something where either option was especially preferable.

You sound like a bit of a conspiracy theorist with your "right wing Trumpian zealots" and your claim that "they care not one hairy bollock for anyone outside the top 1%".

Whilst having a Tory government might be far from ideal, the vast majority of the UK see it as the lesser of two evils than the horrendous alternative of Corbyn's socialism. Socialism of the type put forward by Corbyn, especially when he had no financial plan has never worked anywhere in the world ever.

Given the laughable content of the Corbyn manifesto, it's hard to see how Britain could possibly be any better off under Labour.
I'm not saying we'll be great under the current government, but I blame Corbyn and his deluded party for that. It was their job to provide a viable alternative to the government and they completely failed to do so, in a decade of the least popular leaders in Tory history, they managed to do the unimaginable, be even less popular and even less electable. Abandoning their roots and apparently only appealing to the Putney middle classes.
Good riddance Corbyn. If Cameron should face a probe for allowing Brexit to happen, Corbyn should face something similar for failing to stop the Tories, yet he hasn't even got the good grace to step down immediately.  He's as clueless as a Hollywood celebrity.

Super regardless of the circumstances or the choices, the fact is the country has elected with a sizeable majority the most right wing government since the 1980s. Yes Corbyn clearly had leadership issues, I still believe that despite a complete lack of charisma, life in a Corbyn Britain would not have been remotely as bad as portrayed, immaterial now as it wont happen but the point of my original post remains, anyone who thinks this bunch (and they are liars and ideological right wing zealots, no conspiracy theory required to square that one) will do anything remotely beneficial for ordinary working people is in for a big shock in the coming years. Are you seriously already blaming Corbyn for the problems we’re about to get mired in over the next decade. People had a choice to vote for him, warts and all and THEY chose not to. So the ills  of the next decade will be fault of those who voted for it, no one else.  

Thatcher got away with being a right wing ideologue by
a) being lucky enough to come into office just as North Sea oil was coming on tap
b) selling back to us what we already owned
c) encouraging us to become complete debt slaves

Blair could/should have addressed the debt issue (both personal and corporate) but being further right than any previous Labour PM and indeed some Tories he chose not to so we had a decade of perceived prosperity underwritten by an ever expanding debt crisis which had to go pop at some point

Now where are we? Post debt crisis (but with the threat another one on the horizon?), highly discredited left wing opposition, Stagnant wages for ordinary workers and the finger of blame being pointed at immigrants rather than corporate greed, an encouraged increase in jingoism/patriotism/Nationalism and emerging despotic regimes. Concerningly all very reminiscent of the 1930s.

[navyblueshorts]

JAS, the choice between Tory and Labour was hardly something where either option was especially preferable.

You sound like a bit of a conspiracy theorist with your "right wing Trumpian zealots" and your claim that "they care not one hairy bollock for anyone outside the top 1%".

Whilst having a Tory government might be far from ideal, the vast majority of the UK see it as the lesser of two evils than the horrendous alternative of Corbyn's socialism. Socialism of the type put forward by Corbyn, especially when he had no financial plan has never worked anywhere in the world ever.

Given the laughable content of the Corbyn manifesto, it's hard to see how Britain could possibly be any better off under Labour.
I'm not saying we'll be great under the current government, but I blame Corbyn and his deluded party for that. It was their job to provide a viable alternative to the government and they completely failed to do so, in a decade of the least popular leaders in Tory history, they managed to do the unimaginable, be even less popular and even less electable. Abandoning their roots and apparently only appealing to the Putney middle classes.
Good riddance Corbyn. If Cameron should face a probe for allowing Brexit to happen, Corbyn should face something similar for failing to stop the Tories, yet he hasn't even got the good grace to step down immediately.  He's as clueless as a Hollywood celebrity.

Super regardless of the circumstances or the choices, the fact is the country has elected with a sizeable majority the most right wing government since the 1980s. Yes Corbyn clearly had leadership issues, I still believe that despite a complete lack of charisma, life in a Corbyn Britain would not have been remotely as bad as portrayed, immaterial now as it wont happen but the point of my original post remains, anyone who thinks this bunch (and they are liars and ideological right wing zealots, no conspiracy theory required to square that one) will do anything remotely beneficial for ordinary working people is in for a big shock in the coming years. Are you seriously already blaming Corbyn for the problems we’re about to get mired in over the next decade. People had a choice to vote for him, warts and all and THEY chose not to. So the ills  of the next decade will be fault of those who voted for it, no one else.  

Thatcher got away with being a right wing ideologue by
a) being lucky enough to come into office just as North Sea oil was coming on tap
b) selling back to us what we already owned
c) encouraging us to become complete debt slaves

Blair could/should have addressed the debt issue (both personal and corporate) but being further right than any previous Labour PM and indeed some Tories he chose not to so we had a decade of perceived prosperity underwritten by an ever expanding debt crisis which had to go pop at some point

Now where are we? Post debt crisis (but with the threat another one on the horizon?), highly discredited left wing opposition, Stagnant wages for ordinary workers and the finger of blame being pointed at immigrants rather than corporate greed, an encouraged increase in jingoism/patriotism/Nationalism and emerging despotic regimes. Concerningly all very reminiscent of the 1930s.

You say the above, but believe the country will be as bad as portrayed, pre-election, under Johnson? Hmm.

I won't comment on the rest, but have you considered that the majority U.K. population just aren't socialist in the way you'd like? You can bang on about it until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't look like it'll change. Labour (or whomever is the Tory opposition) will just have to accept that they'll have to be more centrist and/or simply a lot more clever than they've traditionally been.

[dynamark]

I agree this country will probably never again be lefty socialist enough to go for a corbyn/McDonald style regime(and good thing too)
Blair was very centre and managed to have a broad appeal.
JAS what are ordinary workers please .Nothing to stop any ordinary workers from applying for a better paid more responsible job,get some training,another part time effort.Its called progress ,ambition,hard graft,achievment and in this country virtually everyone can do it.Wages do creep upwards in particular when labour becomes scarce .Probably the biggest factor recent years has been low inflation and low interest .keeping that steady

[super_realist]

JAS, the choice between Tory and Labour was hardly something where either option was especially preferable.

You sound like a bit of a conspiracy theorist with your "right wing Trumpian zealots" and your claim that "they care not one hairy bollock for anyone outside the top 1%".

Whilst having a Tory government might be far from ideal, the vast majority of the UK see it as the lesser of two evils than the horrendous alternative of Corbyn's socialism. Socialism of the type put forward by Corbyn, especially when he had no financial plan has never worked anywhere in the world ever.

Given the laughable content of the Corbyn manifesto, it's hard to see how Britain could possibly be any better off under Labour.
I'm not saying we'll be great under the current government, but I blame Corbyn and his deluded party for that. It was their job to provide a viable alternative to the government and they completely failed to do so, in a decade of the least popular leaders in Tory history, they managed to do the unimaginable, be even less popular and even less electable. Abandoning their roots and apparently only appealing to the Putney middle classes.
Good riddance Corbyn. If Cameron should face a probe for allowing Brexit to happen, Corbyn should face something similar for failing to stop the Tories, yet he hasn't even got the good grace to step down immediately.  He's as clueless as a Hollywood celebrity.

Super regardless of the circumstances or the choices, the fact is the country has elected with a sizeable majority the most right wing government since the 1980s. Yes Corbyn clearly had leadership issues, I still believe that despite a complete lack of charisma, life in a Corbyn Britain would not have been remotely as bad as portrayed, immaterial now as it wont happen but the point of my original post remains, anyone who thinks this bunch (and they are liars and ideological right wing zealots, no conspiracy theory required to square that one) will do anything remotely beneficial for ordinary working people is in for a big shock in the coming years. Are you seriously already blaming Corbyn for the problems we’re about to get mired in over the next decade. People had a choice to vote for him, warts and all and THEY chose not to. So the ills  of the next decade will be fault of those who voted for it, no one else.  

Thatcher got away with being a right wing ideologue by
a) being lucky enough to come into office just as North Sea oil was coming on tap
b) selling back to us what we already owned
c) encouraging us to become complete debt slaves

Blair could/should have addressed the debt issue (both personal and corporate) but being further right than any previous Labour PM and indeed some Tories he chose not to so we had a decade of perceived prosperity underwritten by an ever expanding debt crisis which had to go pop at some point

Now where are we? Post debt crisis (but with the threat another one on the horizon?), highly discredited left wing opposition, Stagnant wages for ordinary workers and the finger of blame being pointed at immigrants rather than corporate greed, an encouraged increase in jingoism/patriotism/Nationalism and emerging despotic regimes. Concerningly all very reminiscent of the 1930s.

You do realise that Boris Johnson is LESS right wing than David Cameron right?

I'm not blaming Corbyn for anything other than failing to provide an electable government. How could one man be so out of touch? It is Corbyn's job to provide a party which is a viable, electable opposition and he failed more than any other Labour leader in 80 years, so yes, he is partly to blame. His hysterically bad and transparently ridiculous manifesto was always going to get laughed out of town. How could a party be so deluded to think they would get in with such ridiculous policies, abandoning their core voters and a leader being ambivalent on Brexit?

By the way, North Sea Oil began in 1969 and was well into the swing of things before Thatcher winning in 1979.

[super_realist]

Also, why is there a stigma about being single? I can do what I want, spend my own money, live how I like, go where I want. Guaranteed that a lot of people with a ball and chain of a wife and far too many children running around would love to be in my situation.

Not sure what sort of abusive relationships you have been part of but I am in a long term relationship and both me and my partner have all the freedoms you mention.

I believe you have a partner in the way I believe you have an MSc and have lived abroad.

[super_realist]

Pedro


I think part of the issue is that welfare has mainly been used as a safety net rather than a process for narrowing the inequality gap.  I don't think the right could ever be persuaded to do more than the bare minimum when it comes to welfare.

Mac, not sure if you’re trying to equate socialism and welfare? Financial redistribution to a certain degree is fine,  if you - as JAS points out - provide basic needs and/or use it to mitigate or reduce potential issues. But if you do it based on ideology it turns into a problem.

IMO inequality shouldn’t be a problem if there’s no poverty. For instance in Scandinavia you will struggle find poverty, in the true sense. But as the social mobility is still limited, the “moral” inequality may be the bigger issue here, rather than financial inequality. And for that there seems no easy cure.

That's nonsense Pedro, as someone who has been to Denmark, Norway and Sweden probably in excess of 30 times, I can assure there is poverty there. You see plenty homeless people, prostitution,  plenty people running round picking up deposit bottles/cans for 10 kroner etc. Poverty is alive and kicking in Scandinavia. It's true that it is almost entirely the immigrant population, but it is there for sure.

Must be illegals then, paying off their trafficker. A single unemployed parent with two kids are guaranteed £2K/month after tax. May not be a fortune, but call it poor would be a stretch.

Which country is that in? 2k wouldn't go very far in Norway, Sweden and Denmark are much cheaper, but still more expensive than the UK. How much does someone who isn't a single parent with two kids get?
Some places in Scandinavia are some of the worst places I've ever seen. Kiruna for example in the Arctic Circle is one of the least pleasant places I've ever been.

[Soul Requiem]

People need to look beyond Brexit when claiming the government are overly right wing, Johnson is socially and economically more liberal than David Cameron.

[super_realist]

Pedro


I think part of the issue is that welfare has mainly been used as a safety net rather than a process for narrowing the inequality gap.  I don't think the right could ever be persuaded to do more than the bare minimum when it comes to welfare.

Mac, not sure if you’re trying to equate socialism and welfare? Financial redistribution to a certain degree is fine,  if you - as JAS points out - provide basic needs and/or use it to mitigate or reduce potential issues. But if you do it based on ideology it turns into a problem.

IMO inequality shouldn’t be a problem if there’s no poverty. For instance in Scandinavia you will struggle find poverty, in the true sense. But as the social mobility is still limited, the “moral” inequality may be the bigger issue here, rather than financial inequality. And for that there seems no easy cure.

That's nonsense Pedro, as someone who has been to Denmark, Norway and Sweden probably in excess of 30 times, I can assure there is poverty there. You see plenty homeless people, prostitution,  plenty people running round picking up deposit bottles/cans for 10 kroner etc. Poverty is alive and kicking in Scandinavia. It's true that it is almost entirely the immigrant population, but it is there for sure.

Must be illegals then, paying off their trafficker. A single unemployed parent with two kids are guaranteed £2K/month after tax. May not be a fortune, but call it poor would be a stretch.

**** me! Is that for real? I have a Ph.D., have been in paid work continuously since ~1992, am now (sadly) 53 and I don't even take home enough to hit the 40% income tax bracket.

It's amazing how badly some PhD required jobs are paid. I see a lot of jobs requiring a PhD but they are only paying £35k (some far less than this). Why would anyone do a PhD to take home so little? How can employers justify their requirement for someone who has put in so much effort in their education to be rewarded with such meagre pay?

I suppose it's double edged and depends on what the PhD is in. If it's in something fairly pointless and useless like sociology or art history then one wouldn't expect to get paid well for it and you can't expect an employer to offer a lot for it, however if it's something useful like Engineering, Physics, Geology, Maths etc then I would.

Whether you work in the public or private sector with a PhD also makes a difference. Some of the public sector salaries for those with PhD's just make you laugh, although pensions are usually pretty good and jobs are pretty secure.

[McLaren]

I won't comment on the rest, but have you considered that the majority U.K. population just aren't socialist in the way you'd like?

I have considered this and a long time ago I accepted that the UK (England in particular) are a very conservative nation, especially socially. There will be a lot of analysis of what killed the labour party but I think it was becoming the clear party of progressivism. The working class were asked to either betray their economically socialist roots or or their conservative social leanings. Turns out they hate gays and foreigners more than Thatcher.

[McLaren]

PS Navy, nice work on getting a PHD, if you don't mind telling us, what field is it in?

[super_realist]

I won't comment on the rest, but have you considered that the majority U.K. population just aren't socialist in the way you'd like?

I have considered this and a long time ago I accepted that the UK (England in particular) are a very conservative nation, especially socially.  There will be a lot of analysis of what killed the labour party but I think it was becoming the clear party of progressivism. The working class were asked to either betray their economically socialist roots or or their conservative social leanings. Turns out they hate gays and foreigners more than Thatcher.

More rubbish from Mac. Voting Tory doesn't mean you hate gays or Foreigners. Which party legalised Gay marriage? Was it Labour? No.
These same people who voted Tory voted Labour in the past, so are you saying that Labour voters are latently homophobic and anti foreigner? The Tories took tons of Labour seats, so you can't have it both ways Mac.
How is what Labour were proposing "progressive"? Lunacy would be a better word.

[navyblueshorts]

Pedro


I think part of the issue is that welfare has mainly been used as a safety net rather than a process for narrowing the inequality gap.  I don't think the right could ever be persuaded to do more than the bare minimum when it comes to welfare.

Mac, not sure if you’re trying to equate socialism and welfare? Financial redistribution to a certain degree is fine,  if you - as JAS points out - provide basic needs and/or use it to mitigate or reduce potential issues. But if you do it based on ideology it turns into a problem.

IMO inequality shouldn’t be a problem if there’s no poverty. For instance in Scandinavia you will struggle find poverty, in the true sense. But as the social mobility is still limited, the “moral” inequality may be the bigger issue here, rather than financial inequality. And for that there seems no easy cure.

That's nonsense Pedro, as someone who has been to Denmark, Norway and Sweden probably in excess of 30 times, I can assure there is poverty there. You see plenty homeless people, prostitution,  plenty people running round picking up deposit bottles/cans for 10 kroner etc. Poverty is alive and kicking in Scandinavia. It's true that it is almost entirely the immigrant population, but it is there for sure.

Must be illegals then, paying off their trafficker. A single unemployed parent with two kids are guaranteed £2K/month after tax. May not be a fortune, but call it poor would be a stretch.

**** me! Is that for real? I have a Ph.D., have been in paid work continuously since ~1992, am now (sadly) 53 and I don't even take home enough to hit the 40% income tax bracket.

It's amazing how badly some PhD required jobs are paid. I see a lot of jobs requiring a PhD but they are only paying £35k (some far less than this). Why would anyone do a PhD to take home so little? How can employers justify their requirement for someone who has put in so much effort in their education to be rewarded with such meagre pay?

I suppose it's double edged and depends on what the PhD is in. If it's in something fairly pointless and useless like sociology or art history then one wouldn't expect to get paid well for it and you can't expect an employer to offer a lot for it, however if it's something useful like Engineering, Physics, Geology, Maths etc then I would.

Whether you work in the public or private sector with a PhD also makes a difference. Some of the public sector salaries for those with PhD's just make you laugh, although pensions are usually pretty good and jobs are pretty secure.

I did it for interest in the subject - Biochemistry - as I wanted to go into research. My employer is utterly blasé about what it pays me and my colleagues w/ similar qualifications and takes no notice even if we attempt to strike (as recently shown pre-Christmas). I suppose I should upsticks to something better, but easier said than done. Even pensions have been shafted now (another reason for recent strike) and they ignored the independent body's recommendations from after previous strike.

[navyblueshorts]

I won't comment on the rest, but have you considered that the majority U.K. population just aren't socialist in the way you'd like?

I have considered this and a long time ago I accepted that the UK (England in particular) are a very conservative nation, especially socially.  There will be a lot of analysis of what killed the labour party but I think it was becoming the clear party of progressivism. The working class were asked to either betray their economically socialist roots or or their conservative social leanings. Turns out they hate gays and foreigners more than Thatcher.

I would dispute that. Their recent Manifesto and utterings weren't 'progressive'; more Marxist/Socialist.

[navyblueshorts]

PS Navy, nice work on getting a PHD, if you don't mind telling us, what field is it in?

Biochemistry; 1993. On some bollox about gene expression in the rabbit mammary glad. I kid you not.

[super_realist]

PS Navy, nice work on getting a PHD, if you don't mind telling us, what field is it in?

That's a rich and ironic question Mac given you are too scared to divulge what you studied.

[superflyweight]

PS Navy, nice work on getting a PHD, if you don't mind telling us, what field is it in?

Biochemistry; 1993. On some bollox about gene expression in the rabbit mammary glad. I kid you not.

Are you an expert in bunny t1ts (sounds like an 80's grumble flick performer)?

[JAS]

I agree this country will probably never again be lefty socialist enough to go for a corbyn/McDonald style regime(and good thing too)
Blair was very centre and managed to have a broad appeal.
JAS what are ordinary workers please .Nothing to stop any ordinary workers from applying for a better paid more responsible job,get some training,another part time effort.Its called progress ,ambition,hard graft,achievment and in this country virtually everyone can do it.Wages do creep upwards in particular when labour becomes scarce .Probably the biggest factor recent years has been low inflation and low interest .keeping that steady

I also agree that the country will never be “lefty socialist” ever again, it had one real flirtation with it (Attlee from ‘45  and that was obviously such a complete disaster wasn’t it?? Wilson you could argue how left he was, Blair you'd be easier arguing how left he wasn’t).

The ordinary workers jibe is a good point, so workers in or around the average wage and below (I.e. the majority of the working population and therefore what “should” be labours core vote. Did anybody see the one the QTs before Xmas when some complete and utter Mr Winklechops had a pop at the Labour guy on the panel as a Liar.
The Mr Angry line was basically “Corbyn is a liar, he says that only the top 5% will pay extra income tax, well I’m going to have to pay more and I’m not in the top 5%, I’m not even in the top 50% and I’m going to have to pay more” Bruce chips in with “well what do you earn?” and the Mr Winklechops replies “only £80000 - there’s loads of doctors and solicitors earning MUCH more than me!!” I just found the guys deluded stupidity utterly staggering.

So...Corbyn is a loony but the guy discrediting him as a loony and a liar genuinely thinks that earning £80000 a year puts him in the bottom half of the income distribution!! Worse than that, a sizeable proportion of viewers were probably thinking “yeah, he’s got a good point - and under the Conservatives I’ll soon be on £80000+ too so I’m with that guy, Corbyns a lying tool”
Seriously if this country wants to sort out its political discourse it has to elevate the basic factual information from independent fact checking agencies into some sort of trusted portal and take it away from the press and media. If said press and media then lie and or misrepresent facts then they should be heavily fined. Same for ALL political parties, if they’re caught blatantly lying then they should be subject to massive fines.
With regard to the latter half of your point Dyna, no virtually everyone can’t.  Yes virtually everyone can try but only a fairly small percentage of well constituted determined people will actually manage to make any significant gain. And as for wages creeping up...average wages for average roles have crept across and down for the past decade not up.
The cost of essential items has crept up, the cost of luxury items has crept up faster. Bringing the conversation around to golf...golf club subs, visitor rates at top courses and equipment costs have ALL easily outstripped average wage growth over the past decade...correlate that with the numbers now playing the game compared to a decade ago. There’s a good part of the reason golf is is decline right there. Because most of us earn a decent crust, unless we look closely, we don’t actually realise how tight the squeeze has been on many over the past decade. Apologies for the pessimism but the worst of the past decade has been mitigated by initially the flip flappers in coalition and up to last month a pitifully slim (DUP supported since 2017) majority curbing the worst excesses. Now a free reign exists to shaft us totally so after an illusion of hope in the next budget we are going to get shafted until early 2024. It would be nice if I was proved to be a pessimistic bell end but only time will tell.

[super_realist]

Take off the tin foil hat Jas, you're just surmising complete nonsense. Do you genuinely think someone on 80k thinks they are in the bottom half of earners based on the rant of one moron? That's ridiculous. Furthermore, no one who isn't currently earning 80k or very near to is suddenly going to start earning 80k and anyone who thinks they are is an idiot.

Also, stuff like food is a much lower % of income than in recent decades. Just look how many fat people to prove that. Food has  hardly ever been cheaper and we have more choice than ever. Also more people own a house than ever before, interest rates are lower, technology is cheaper and more readily available. Life is most definitely better now.

It's funny how you think that life wouldn't be as bad as we might think under Corbyn, but that somehow doesn't apply to Boris. Could be bad, might not be so bad, we just don't know, but we will find out.

I'm happy to say I don't know what will happen with this government . Put your crystal ball away and stop trying to second guess what all these "traitors" think because you haven't got a clue what they are thinking. You know what you think, that's it and if it is bad then we can vote them out if Labour aren't messing around with a Corbyn 2.0 like RLB.

One point though, if things are so bad for the masses, why is it that the saviour of the poor, Labour have such a dreadful record of getting into power?

[pedro]

Funny how socialists try to re-label themselves as “progressives”. Socialism is probably the least progressive you can imagine.

[Be_the_ball]

Something really bizarre has happened in the UK in very recent times, really only over the past 4-5 years. A polarisation based on ideologies that conform to strict definitions and boundaries. Which is ridiculous, life and the world is more complicated than that.

Bizarrely what the Labour movement was and what it did for ordinary workers in the UK has been redefined in recent times by this ideology. All those gains to create opportunity in education & social mobility totally forgotten and now actually labelled as a bad thing. Listening to ordinary people from the UK speak about socialism now in such negative terms I find really bizarre, you have lost who you are and where you have come from. All of the hard fought social protections and employment rights have been taken for granted and are now being wilfully disregarded.

Watch this clip of Chris Hitchens, listen to what he says about UK society, specifically at the end of the clip - https://youtu.be/E3tIcmtSbas

Another bizarre twist is the alt right using Hitchens as a poster boy, which I would imagine would make him turn in his grave.

I don't mean what I have said here with any disrespect to anyone, and I'm not talking about brexit. I am outside that bubble. But I do see what direction you're being taken in, just be careful.

[super_realist]

BTB, socialism has always been talked about in negative terms by the majority of people because it has never worked anywhere.
People need to be able to separate socialism from social protections. Likewise socialism isn't simply being left wing. It's taking it to an extreme degree which is why the UK rejected Corbyn and his idiots.

As far as I can see the only way the UK will get back on an even keel is to have two main parties, one who is left of centre, one who is right of centre. There is no room for extremes.

[beninho]

Realist, ypu seem a bit fan of the scandi countries. Do you feel that labour shoukd follow more the social democratic path as per the nordic model? Which is pretty left wing, compared to most things in the uk. Would it work here?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

[super_realist]

It's not as left wing or as socialist as you think Beninho, it's a decent mix of highly capitalist societies combined with good care of the population. The reward is very much for those who work hard.
Would it work here? I'm not sure, and the reason is the difference between attitudes of Scandinavian and British people.  

Scandinavians are high achievers, Brits are very average. Scandinavians go out and do stuff for themselves, Brits prefer to blame someone else other than themselves. I'm not sure the model would work in a society where so many people rely on the state.

Would it also work on the scale of the UK compared to Nor, Den and Sweden? I'm not sure.

[beninho]

But, my understanding, and I'm no expert at all, is that the scandinavian countries, have high government workforce, around 30% of the population, high taxes, and a generous welfare package. Is this what a labour government should focus on?

[super_realist]

I think you're missing the point Beninho. It works in Norway, Denmark and Sweden because of their attitude to life. An active lifestyle, high achievers, high education, emphasis on health. This is the polar opposite to so much of Britain.

People don't want to be reliant on the state in these countries, in the UK if you increased the welfare package, due to the attitude of British people I think you'd see too many people using it as a lifestyle even more than many already do.

In regards to the % of people working in the public sector, I'm not sure it would make a difference in the UK, currently it's 16.5% in the UK, but in the 80's when we had those appalling public sector industries like the state owned car companies, coal, gas, telecoms, rail, steel etc which employed a much higher % of the population life wasn't exactly great and those companies weren't exactly great examples of state owned companies, terrible products, terrible services, inefficient, rife with strikes and bad management.

They might have high taxes, but their salaries are considerably higher too. These countries suit a certain type of person, and I don't see that person in much of Britain. I can't see Labour being able to get Britain around to the Nordic way of thinking, which would be crucial to making it work.

I've worked for a Danish company, I've worked with a huge amount of Danes and Norwegians as well as in offices in Copenhagen, Oslo and Stavanger. It would take so much more than just adopting the "Nordic Model" to make Britain anything like these countries. In terms of attitude I think they are just too far apart.

[Soul Requiem]

The total population of the Nordic countries is approximately 25 million compared to 67 million for the UK that makes a big difference.

[kwinigolfer]

Something really bizarre has happened in the UK in very recent times, really only over the past 4-5 years. A polarisation based on ideologies that conform to strict definitions and boundaries. Which is ridiculous, life and the world is more complicated than that.

Bizarrely what the Labour movement was and what it did for ordinary workers in the UK has been redefined in recent times by this ideology. All those gains to create opportunity in education & social mobility totally forgotten and now actually labelled as a bad thing. Listening to ordinary people from the UK speak about socialism now in such negative terms I find really bizarre, you have lost who you are and where you have come from. All of the hard fought social protections and employment rights have been taken for granted and are now being wilfully disregarded.

Watch this clip of Chris Hitchens, listen to what he says about UK society, specifically at the end of the clip - https://youtu.be/E3tIcmtSbas

Another bizarre twist is the alt right using Hitchens as a poster boy, which I would imagine would make him turn in his grave.

I don't mean what I have said here with any disrespect to anyone, and I'm not talking about brexit. I am outside that bubble. But I do see what direction you're being taken in, just be careful.

[super_realist]

It's about the individual countries, not the collective. Each country doesn't operate in completely the same way, for example there are massive differences on things like owning cars. Norway and Denmark is high, Sweden it is not. Norway has massive taxes on alcohol, Denmark does not (£13 quid a pint in Norway, £6-7 in Denmark)

They are very distinct and different countries and they are governed differently whilst adopting a similar, but not identical model.

Culturally they are very distinct from one another, and even across each country they are different because of the distances involved (apart from in Denmark which is small)

[Soul Requiem]

The point is SR that socialism is easier to implement in countries with smaller populations.

[super_realist]

The point is SR that socialism is easier to implement in countries with smaller populations.

I thought you were meaning that there wasn't that big a difference in the collective populations and the UK.

I also wouldn't say that the political set up in Scandinavia is anything like the socialism which Corbyn was proposing.

The political landscape in Scandinavia works primarily because of their attitude. This attitude doesn't exist in sufficient numbers in the UK, so regardless of population differences, I don't think that the Labour party could make Scandinavian model work here anything like as successfully. It's not just attitude either, it's the failure of publicly owned industry in the UK, it's got a history of being terrible, whereas things like energy and rail in Norway is excellent.

[beninho]

Things didn't work in the uk, because we have had years of tory government, who are against any form of social democracy politics. I'm therefore a bit surprised, by your hatred of corbyn who seems to stand for what you like. A bigger well paid public sector, state run transport, higher taxes especially for the wealthy, and a decent welfare state, and increased social housing.

It may not work in the uk, but its never going to work under the right wing tory government, who did all they can to privatize everything anyway.

[super_realist]

Things didn't work in the uk, because we have had years of tory government, who are against any form of social democracy politics. I'm therefore a bit surprised, by your hatred of corbyn who seems to stand for what you like. A bigger well paid public sector, state run transport, higher taxes especially for the wealthy, and a decent welfare state, and increased social housing.

It may not work in the uk, but its never going to work under the right wing tory government, who did all they can to privatize everything anyway.

The failure of state owned companies had no more to do with the Tories than it did with Labour. It was bad management, poor services, poor manufacturing, poor goods, lack of incentive to be efficient or innovative. We didn't stop coal mining, steel or car manufacturing because of the Tories, we stopped because other countries do it better and cheaper. Would you really want to be sending people down a Welsh mine? Getting rid of these industries is a good thing when you get better products elsewhere. Who wants a car of the quality that was coming out of Morris, Austin, Triumph MG at the time? They were terrible.

Corbyn doesn't stand for what I like at all. He's a man hell bent on mad, transparently ridiculous policies such as abolishing private schools and returning private industries to the public sector. He's anti business, anti innovation and intent on ruining economies with laughable policies like free broadband (who wants state owned broadband like China?)

I don't especially like the idea of a larger public state at all and I've never said anywhere I do, especially when the UK have a history of making such a bad job of it.

My fondness for Scandinavia and the Scandinavian model is because they have a different attitude and have a history of doing things successfully. Just because it works in other countries, doesn't mean it would here, and I've pointed out why I think it would fail. I'm not for the state running anything if they do it badly, and Britain runs state owned industries VERY badly.

[McLaren]

I would dispute that. Their recent Manifesto and utterings weren't 'progressive'; more Marxist/Socialist.

By progressive I meant in relation to views on gay marriage, equal rights, equal pay etc. So more like social justice stuff. Also I was extending this back to the time of Blair.

From Blair to Miliband the Labour party was more about social justice issues and attracting the university educated and younger liberal types (it worked on me). This obviously didn't chime with the lower classes.



PS, Again well done getting a PHD, especially in real subject like Biochemistry . If super ever bothered to read posts he would know that is a subject quite close to my background.

[McLaren]

It would take so much more than just adopting the "Nordic Model" to make Britain anything like these countries. In terms of attitude I think they are just too far apart.

It would. But we would have to start with massive funding of programs that would educate and alleviate the poverty of those who have been driven to racist and backwards attitudes. We are a country where a black woman has been forced to leave because we can't cope with the idea of a non white princess.

[super_realist]

So "progressive" Mac that they didn't instigate Gay Marriage and so into "social justice" that they introduced tuition fees.

How didn't Labour of Blair appeal to "lower classes"? They were the backbone of 13 years of Labour government Mac.

Are you trying to tell me you're a "biochemist" now Mac? You always claimed you weren't proud of the job you did. If you are in this business, why wouldn't you just admit it. It's a respected career don't you think? If I was a biochemist, I wouldn't be ashamed to say so.

[super_realist]

It would take so much more than just adopting the "Nordic Model" to make Britain anything like these countries. In terms of attitude I think they are just too far apart.

It would. But we would have to start with massive funding of programs that would educate and alleviate the poverty of those who have been driven to racist and backwards attitudes. We are a country where a black woman has been forced to leave because we can't cope with the idea of a non white princess.

Mac, you have to stop this comical 6th form rant that people who vote Tory are by default racist and backward. It's like saying that if you vote Labour then you're an anti-Semite. You sound as ridiculous as Owen Jones.

I know you're trying to wind people up, but only an idiot would think that Meghan has left due to racism.

[McLaren]

Super

Read the posts properly. I said biochemistry was in the same ball park, and secondly I once posted exactly what my degree was and you somehow missed it despite your great interest in it.


On labour and social justice, there is no doubt that since the mid 90's they portrayed themselves as pro social justice. My hypothesis is that over those 13 years the untermenschen (as you like to say) figured out that they didn't want social justice tagged onto the protection of their jobs (the irony of course lost on them).

Mac, you have to stop this comical 6th form rant that people who vote Tory are by default racist and backward. It's like saying that if you vote Labour then you're an anti-Semite. You sound as ridiculous as Owen Jones.

I know you're trying to wind people up, but only an idiot would think that Meghan has left due to racism.

My very point is that labour won with racist voters until those voters worked out what they had voted for, and I guess I am an idiot because I believe that was a large part of why she left.

[super_realist]

Super

Read the posts properly. I said biochemistry was in the same ball park, and secondly I once posted exactly what my degree was and you somehow missed it despite your great interest in it.


On labour and social justice, there is no doubt that since the mid 90's they portrayed themselves as pro social justice. My hypothesis is that over those 13 years the untermenschen (as you like to say) figured out that they didn't want social justice tagged onto the protection of their jobs (the irony of course lost on them).

You might find it crushing Mac, but I don't read everything that you write. Why would you not be proud of a career in anything scientific?

On Labour, you are wrong, the working classes simply don't want the moronic policies of a crackpot like Corbyn. Labour had the perfect opportunity to knock the Tories off their perch not once but twice, but they couldn't even beat May or Johnson because Corbyn has taken the party to the far left lunacy of maniacal socialism. Anyone who has a pair of eyes can see that if Labour were to go back to where they were before they would be a credible opposition. These have been the weakest Tory governments since before WW2 and Labour were even more unpopular. How is that possible? That tells me it's more about Labours failing, then it is about the Tories. The Tories haven't changed much at all, and Labour have gone from being 13 years in power, lurching to the ultra left and you are surprised that no one votes for them? It doesn't infer racism or backwardness at all, in fact if anything you should be giving the voters a bit more credit for not voting in the type of government which has never been successful anywhere in the world ever.


The UK doesn't want ultra left politics, just as it doesn't want ultra right. Corbyn and his minions only have themselves to blame because they abandoned their core vote due to this idiotic, juvenile momentum movement.

[beninho]

Weren't civil partnerships brought in 2004, under the civil partnerships act?

[beninho]

Labour lost, in a large part because people in the north, midlands and wales believed that Brexit was important and that labour wouldn't get it done. They also didn't like Corbyn. From what I've read, tge policies, were generally positive. A lot of these votes went to tge brexit party, the tory vote was not massively up, but labours was massively down.

Labour now need to get a decent leader, starmer for me, then bang on about how Brexit won't be down, and the impact its already having on the country. Brecit will ve a sht show, and labour need to stay away from it, even though the north want it.

[super_realist]

I agree, it would be suicidal for Labour to go down the Rebecca Long Bailey route, a woman stupid enough to say that she would give Corbyn 10/10 for leadership.

It can really only be Starmer, and they absolutely have to move back to the centre ground, otherwise it's going to be not just 5 more years of Tory government, but 10 or 15.

[super_realist]

Weren't civil partnerships brought in 2004, under the civil partnerships act?

Civil partnerships are not marriage, which is specifically what I was referring to.

[beninho]

But you wouldn't have got marriage without civil partnerships. It was the vital starting point. And its foolish to ignore that.

[super_realist]

But you wouldn't have got marriage without civil partnerships. It was the vital starting point. And its foolish to ignore that.

Nonsense, there's nothing in law that says one has to come before the other.

[Soul Requiem]

Progressive on gay marriage but it was the Tories who legalised it, good one Mac.

[beninho]

Ok, lets just pretend the civil partnerships act and the equality act, which ultimately laid the grounds for same sex marriage act. And praise those tories, even though a number were against civil partnerships, the party made it a free vote, so didn't even agree with it.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_uk/article/kzqqzm/why-it-took-so-long-for-labour-to-address-gay-rights

This is quite interesting, I think its easy to forget what society was like in the late 90s and even.early 2000s.

[dynamark]

We should all boycott Iranian barbers shops that show them,
An aside on the car manufacturing I had a couple of good mates who worked at Longbridge for Rover.
One of them (now sadly not with us) had the family name Minor(his dad worked there too) and guess what they gave him for a first name --Morris ,Nice fella a decent golfer

[navyblueshorts]

PS Navy, nice work on getting a PHD, if you don't mind telling us, what field is it in?

Biochemistry; 1993. On some bollox about gene expression in the rabbit mammary glad. I kid you not.

Are you an expert in bunny t1ts (sounds like an 80's grumble flick performer)?    

I was, but that was some time ago! Was a bit 'nits on the gnats nuts', as my former boss said.

Funny how socialists try to re-label themselves as “progressives”. Socialism is probably the least progressive you can imagine.

You're wrong. What's happened is that the term 'socialist' has been very successfully conflated (by the right wing) with 'communist' or 'Marxist', primarily in the U.S., but also now, apparently, over here. 'Socialism' is almost a swear word in the U.S. and increasing so here. Branding anything 'socialist' as bad is just the sort of childish, absolutist, black/white level of intellect that we have to deal with now - not getting at you pedro with this last, more the general dumbing down of political discourse in the so-called advanced democracies.

We're a social species, but being social in outlook is somehow a bad thing? Stop the World, I want to get off.

[navyblueshorts]

Something really bizarre has happened in the UK in very recent times, really only over the past 4-5 years. A polarisation based on ideologies that conform to strict definitions and boundaries. Which is ridiculous, life and the world is more complicated than that.

Bizarrely what the Labour movement was and what it did for ordinary workers in the UK has been redefined in recent times by this ideology. All those gains to create opportunity in education & social mobility totally forgotten and now actually labelled as a bad thing. Listening to ordinary people from the UK speak about socialism now in such negative terms I find really bizarre, you have lost who you are and where you have come from. All of the hard fought social protections and employment rights have been taken for granted and are now being wilfully disregarded.

Watch this clip of Chris Hitchens, listen to what he says about UK society, specifically at the end of the clip - https://youtu.be/E3tIcmtSbas

Another bizarre twist is the alt right using Hitchens as a poster boy, which I would imagine would make him turn in his grave.

I don't mean what I have said here with any disrespect to anyone, and I'm not talking about brexit. I am outside that bubble. But I do see what direction you're being taken in, just be careful.

[Sponsored content]