Do you think we could have avoided recession if the Tories were in power?

Sir_Humphrey

nickmason wrote: »

on being poor - one of the biggest problems is that all politicians - or at least all parties - have accepted the argument that poverty is relative (but typically only within the UK - ie relative to each other, not relative to Africa for instance).

This is enormously corrosive; it has so many consequences:
1) One persons betterment pushes others "down".
2) Jealousy and envy become normal products of the "closed" system.
3a) The economic status of the country becomes irrelevant - as we are pitched against each other.
3b) Economic growth becomes meaningless.
4) We have no idea how to talk to Africa etc about poverty, because our linguistic concept is so different from the reality of absolute poverty.

I find it absolutely disgraceful that if, for example, I work hard to produce something and export it, which turns a profit, then I am effectively pushing others into official (relative) poverty - and then the government "resolves this" by taxing me and passing that to those who have not worked hard.

It depends where you start from Nick. Presumably on that argument, you favour a 100% inheritance tax (in principle)? The cost of living a middle class lifestyle in Africa is about 1/3 of the UK, so of course relative poverty is the measure to use. You ignore the fact that the rich can pull up prices for other people (eg house prices). No man is an island.

baby_boomer

Of course we'd have been in recession under a Tory government.

The question at the next election is "Who's best placed to steer us out of recession?".

Probably not the guys and gals who have to say "Sorry" every time a policy from the last 12 years has to be ditched or who would rather not admit the scale of the problems we now face.

Sir_Humphrey

baby_boomer wrote: »

Of course we'd have been in recession under a Tory government.

The question at the next election is "Who's best placed to steer us out of recession?".

Probably not the guys and gals who have to say "Sorry" every time a policy from the last 12 years has to be ditched or who would rather not admit the scale of the problems we now face.

The Tories will just do whatever the best lobby groups ask them to do. Just call up Mr Westlake (an old mucker of Nick Mason's IIRC) for a nice dinner and chat...

Teacher2301

treliac wrote: »

However, or so we read, teachers aren't allowed to suggest a child can be wrong, are they? Or is this far too simplistic a belief?

We call it 'positive reinforcement' and 'Every Child Matters' (ECM) with Personalised Learning (PL) to help them understand Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) and to work creatively together whilst at the same time manage themsleves, others and reflect on their learning (Personal Learning and Think Skills - PLTS) - you can forget teaching them Darwin's theory of natural selection - not enough time!

Notice the number of anacronyms - last count we had nearly 300 in education over the last 12 years - anyone spot a link?

Sir_Humphrey

Teacher2301 wrote: »

We call it 'positive reinforcement' and 'Every Child Matters' (ECM) with Personalised Learning (PL) to help them understand Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) and to work creatively together whilst at the same time manage themsleves, others and reflect on their learning (Personal Learning and Think Skills - PLTS) - you can forget teaching them Darwin's theory of natural selection - not enough time

So we'll have a load of ignorant children, who are nonetheless completely certain of their own crazy view of the world.



Seems that the future of internet debating is secure!

Sir_Humphrey

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The Tories will just do whatever the best lobby groups ask them to do. Just call up Mr Westlake (an old mucker of Nick Mason's IIRC) for a nice dinner and chat...

http://www.order-order.com/2005/06/nick-sheridan-westlake-are-you-there/

The answer to Guido's question is 'yes'. According to my sources, he wrote the recent Tory policy on localism. I believe he may have dumped the haircut since then.

I am sure that the Tory-boys on this forum cannot wait to see him in the Number 10 team.

a_rather_tall_man

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

2) Random allegiances: "I'm voting Labour because my parents always voted Labour and I always vote Labour". "Do you know what their policies are?". "No...".

Yes I agree, this one in particular I find really short sighted and also has always baffled me somewhat. I don't understand 'inheriting' an allegiance to a party or even selecting an allegiance independently and then sticking with it for ever in the same way some people follow a football team. It's also frowned upon if an MP decides to switch parties but if you decide your current party's policies are different to the ideals and values when you joined and have become complete nonsense then I'd rather they be honest and speak up to start with and move elsewhere if they feel that strong about it.

nickmason

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

http://www.order-order.com/2005/06/nick-sheridan-westlake-are-you-there/

The answer to Guido's question is 'yes'. According to my sources, he wrote the recent Tory policy on localism. I believe he may have dumped the haircut since then.

I am sure that the Tory-boys on this forum cannot wait to see him in the Number 10 team.

Haircut hasn't changed. I was speaking to someone the other day who said they saw that unmistakeable shade of hair across a crowded Waterloo, and knew it could only be one man.

Sheridan is still heavily involved in policy formation. If you see in him something of the arch old Tory, then it's probably well balanced against his direct boss, James O'Shaughnessy - who is very much from the progressive, modern, Cameroon element, having previously been head of research at Policy Exchange which has recently stood head and shoulders over other think tanks. And of course head of policy is Letwin who is considerably more moderate than most of your darling Labour Ministers.

But apart from getting me to rise to the bait (he's probably more your old mucker than mine, for starters), why did you bring up Sheridan? Is it really the best defence you can come up with for the failures of the government? We've gone from blaming the conservatives for everything to some pretty silly "look at them - he shouldn't be trusted with policy because of how he looks".

Or was it because you wanted to smear him (and by extension me) with suggestions that a quick drink in a club and Tory policy can be fixed?

The Tories will just do whatever the best lobby groups ask them to do. Just call up Mr Westlake (an old mucker of Nick Mason's IIRC) for a nice dinner and chat...

For that, Sir Humphrey, I suggest those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Your lot redefined sleaze. How is Mr Tessa Jowell?

nickmason

Teacher2301 wrote: »

Notice the number of anacronyms

Was that deliberate?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anacronym

If so, I commend you. I'm never quite sure whether anyone knew what they were for in the first place, though...

Gorgeous_George

Teacher2301 wrote: »

No - the less well off in the UK are not poor - they are relatively poorer than some but my point is - have you ever seen real poverty? Not that sentimental photography with someone talking over it asking for money - I mean real poverty? Where people have nothing, no state benefit to fall back on, nothing! - Perhaps we do need Africa to make us feel rich.

'Poor' people in the UK may not be poor globally. Our 'rich' people may be much richer than rich Africans.

All in all, yes, our poor are richer that those in many countries. I believe our poor would be poorer if the Tories were in Government.

GG