FT: The cost of burgeoning national debt

carolt

True - but I don't believe that the aim of state socialism was to steal from the poor and give it to bail out the Fred Goodwins of this world. Etc etc etc etc ad infinitum.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Generali wrote: »

Are you prepared to explain your continued uncritical support for the UK Labour Party? Are you a paid supporter, a volunteer who has been asked to post here or just somebody who happens to find all Labour policies at all times perfect? Perhaps there's a different explanation for your love of all things Labour.

As I have said elsewhere I am an inactive party member. That means that I do nothing whatsoever on behalf of the party apart from pay a membership fee.

And what do you mean uncritical? Don't you read what I post on various threads? As discussed on the thread talking about party tribalism you get to a point where whatever gripes you have with your own lot you start defending them vs the horrors of the opposition.

Anyway, what appears to have uncorked this cavalcade of questions is me answering one. I was asked if I thought the UK or Germany was better placed to pay their debts. I have answered the UK and given my rationale as to why. I was not aware that I was NOT allowed to answer UK and that any attempt to query Germany's economic performance by posting the facts would be batted away as "proof" that I am a Labour stooge with my head up brown's !!!!.

Is this a forum to debate? Or do some of you simply want to read what you believe and nothing else?

Wookster

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Is this a forum to debate? Or do some of you simply want to read what you believe and nothing else?

There you go again! Twisting people's comments to extreme to build a straw man argument :rolleyes:

benood

I don't think I offered my interpretation of socialism - apart from to say I thought Labour were closet socialists. They have been quietly redistributing for the last 12 years by not increasing tax thresholds mostly so no one notices.

Doubtless they have looked at the electoral maths and worked out that their approach to socialism will win power more often than yours. There's no point being ideologically pure if you'll never be in a position of power as a result. I suppose they discovered the value of Machiavelli.

ninky_2

for those who a putting forward the term "socialist" as an insult, i'm interested in what your actual concept / definition of the word is.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Wookster wrote: »

There you go again! Twisting people's comments to extreme to build a straw man argument :rolleyes:

In what way have I misunderstood your comment "You are the most myopic, Labour parrot I have ever seen: when presented with facts you try and sully them" ?

I give an opinion you disagree with and that apparently makes me a "myopic Labour parrot". Am I allowed to forward different opinions to yours? And unlike yourself when I make an argument I tend to post evidence to support it. If I was making it up as I went along then fair comment - but I'm not.

carolt

benood wrote: »

I don't think I offered my interpretation of socialism - apart from to say I thought Labour were closet socialists. They have been quietly redistributing for the last 12 years by not increasing tax thresholds mostly so no one notices.

Doubtless they have looked at the electoral maths and worked out that their approach to socialism will win power more often than yours. There's no point being ideologically pure if you'll never be in a position of power as a result. I suppose they discovered the value of Machiavelli.

Absolutely. I can certainly agree with that.

We differ on the desirability or otherwise of socialism, I think, but probably not on the desirability or otherwise of most of Labour's policies.

benood

carolt wrote: »

Absolutely. I can certainly agree with that.

We differ on the desirability or otherwise of socialism, I think, but probably not on the desirability or otherwise of most of Labour's policies.

You mean we disagree with Labour policies but would apply different alternatives?

shaggydoo

Generali wrote: »

On Saturday (and afterwards) I'll most likely be standing in Shopping Malls signing people up to be called by salesmen for a housing related product. It's a real 'bottom of the heap' job - I wasn't asked for qualifications or even for references.

With the deepest respect, how on earth would you expect to support a family on the wage of someone who stands in a shopping mall without the help of socialism? Without socialism you and your family would have no access to health care, without socialism your children would have no access to education.

The only reason you can consider taking such a job is because of socialism. It is sad that you would deny this to others, particularly to those who through no fault of their own were born poor.

carolt

benood wrote: »

You mean we disagree with Labour policies but would apply different alternatives?

Yes. That seems about right.