Very few traditional conservatives would, I'd imagine, view things like allowing abortion and gay marriage as conservative values.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Printable View
Very few traditional conservatives would, I'd imagine, view things like allowing abortion and gay marriage as conservative values.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I have no doubt that there are a few private schools which deliver a far superior education on several levels. The key word in that sentence is "few". I ask the question of who the economy is intended to serve and indeed what the point of nationhood is? If a country is only intended to serve a few people, then that's fine I suppose but I wouldn't really think that such a country is noble.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
I would also suspect that a privately run mail service would entirely fail to carry mail to places where it was unprofitable to do so; why should it?Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
I'm also convinced that an American state-run telecom would run inefficiently. I've been convinced for a long time that Americans are incapable of running properly funded government.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
Australia privatised its national telco in 1996. Telstra had plans to build a fibre-optic network across the country delivering services which it thought would be important in the future (which with the benefit of hindsight are now ubiquitous). Once it was privatised, the plans to build the National Fibre Optic Network were abandoned.
Cue 17 years later, Telstra never built the network and Australia went from being ranked 2 in terms of telco service to 21 out of 34 first-world countries (according to the OECD). The National Broadband Network which the Federal Govt announced in 2009 basically fulfills the function which private enterprise failed to do.
These days I don't even claim to lean closer to any specific party or thoughts on politics. Much like many things I just think for myself and don't care what category anyone using stereotypes might put me in.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Who would want to be a politician? Being a beacon of hope is not what it's cracked up to be: BBC News - Aung San Suu Kyi: From icon to political player
hmm to have a political inclinations is a strong question as i dnt have much knowledge aout the politics other than just voting for the netaas
but you see ignorance towards politics leads to a very bad situation in a countey economic wisw and ofcorse law-vise for these two things really affect one a lottttt.
a wrongly elected politician or a party can lead to avery good or a BAD country for which we will be the one to suffer
but neways i think all the politicians are corrupt except few but the fews are nt ablreto make much differecnce for the whole cause of cheat or scam the politicians cause
I hd never voted up to the last election as I didn't believe in any of the parties. However, I don't think it's a case of choosing who you want in but rather who you don't so I voted Conservative.
So, rather than saying what Paty I believe in, I'm going to touh on a few areas where I would make changes if I was in Power.
I am a firm beliver in reducing the size of Government and the Public sector. It creates jobs for the sake of it and a class of people that will always vote for a party that guarentees to keep them employed. I like employment but can't see the point of frivioulous employment for the purpose of having a job without actually producing or achieving anything.
So, I would take a huge swipe at the Civil Service, encourage (strongly) people to get off benefits, make the NHS much more fit for purpose instead of it trying to be a cash strapped, mediocre jack of all trades and take a fresh look at the Military. I will probably explain more as the thred develops.
As for social issues, I would take power away from Government to make every decision of our lives. People should have autonamy to run their lives as they want as long as it conforms to social acceptance. For example, we have Town Centres dying because people shun them for large, out of town retail centres. Well, hang on a minute. Why is local government obsessed with charging through the nose to park and enforce a draconian parking policy to penalise people. Much better to have more open parking policy, with little enforcement apart from tradittional traffic wardens penalising people that park illegally (double yellows and blocking roads). This way, it makes sense to visit town centres and if you abuse the Law of the road, youre nicked.
Abortion, smoking, drinking and other drugs; let the individual decide. It's personal choice and if you want to throw your life away by chasing dragons, then it weeds you out of the gene pool.
Keep bans on Guns and holding knives etc and if people are caught, bang them up. No messing about but a minimum 1 year with Hard Labour without any treats (TV, Playstation, Pool etc) for the first half of a sentence to punish them and then if they conform to the regime, they earn the right to a rehabilitation program that includes education, victim awareness and a positive, supported release program to help you back to the community and into a guarenteed job. If you don't conform to the regime, then keep them there until they do. I want prisons to rehabilitate people rather than just get them off the street for a period.
I would also implement a work fair policy to get people off long term benefits. You would get a maximum 6 months on benefit in a 3 year period on full benefits. If you haven't found a job in that time, you would go on a work program for a maximum of 30 hours per week to allow you time to find a job. The work would be in your local area collecting litter, gardening and mowing council land and the elderly. Assisting in Nurseries nder professional guidence to provide cheap childcare for parents wanting to work. Anything that benefits the community they live in and that supports them. I would also drop the 30 hours a week to 15 if they partake in back to work training but people need to contribute if they receive benefits instead of having no value associated with this support. If you don't conform, you lose your benefit.
I have loads of other ideas but I'll let the indignant pull these ideas apart and answer them before elaborating :D
Are you able to cite specific examples? It's all very easy to make such statements, but very often difficult to back them up with genuine cases of people whose jobs are actually worthless — an accusation that's often quite offensive to the individuals concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Furthermore, I would far rather retain most of the public sector jobs you deride than the low-paid, often temporary ones the private sector, which has proved itself time and again no more capable of running public services than the public sector, has created in recent times. This has enabled the Government to trumpet the role the private sector is playing towards economic recovery, ignoring the nature of the jobs being created.
How can one define 'social acceptance'? This is a dangerous road down which to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
And why has this happened? Not because of car parking, but because of the free market, in which I assume you believe. This is an essential contradiction in your point of view. If you want a free market coupled with a light touch by local authorities, you're going to have out-of-town shopping centres and a related decline in town centres — and this is before one even considers the changes in shopping habits, again brought about by the free market, that have contributed to the downfall of many long-established high street shops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Much better still to encourage public transport use and end the dependancy many people have on cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Well, the individual can decide already on abortion, smoking and drinking. On drugs I tend to agree with you about decriminalisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
So do I, but the sort of prison you suggest is not, I believe, the answer. We seem obsessed in the UK with the notion of toughening prisons up, when there is little evidence that this approach pays off. Indeed, examples from overseas suggest quite the reverse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Workfare only benefits the employers, not the employees — it's cheap labour under a different name. Making benefits dependant upon participation in such schemes is not appropriate on those grounds alone, quite apart from all the others. I think we should be focusing on creating the conditions in which proper jobs exist rather than forcing people into menial, low-paid ones. Only then will the problem — if it is a problem; of this, despite the deliberate efforts on the part of sections of the media and certain politicians to demonise those on benefits, I am not convinced — truly be solved for the longer term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
How can I vote for Angela Merkel? :evil:
:arrows:Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Presumably you have to first ensure you are registered to vote either in person in Germany or by postal vote or representation at the embassy in your country of residence. I believe there is now a paperless system (correct me if I'm wrong) operating in German elections so if you need help in the correct procedure for finding Angela's entry, where you want to make your choice I'm sure there will be a 'help' button or a nice young civil servant on hand to explain the intricacies to you. Good Luck in ensuring another term of office for Silvio Berlusconi's favourite woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by odykas
As do I. All the big parties in this country are terrible. Politicians acting like children instead of trying to make Australia a better place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
In my electorate, the only minor party we had in the lower house election was the Greens, so they got my vote.
Until one of the major parties show some proper direction and start acting like grown ups, then I will keep voting for minor parties.
Nice (perhaps sad is a better word) to see we're not the only ones with that problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by millencolin
Isn't it a problem the world over? With every form of government.
This is a thread in itself. I'll wait until Eurotroll starts it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Socially acceptable is not something that can be defined, but just is. For example, it's socially acceptable to go out for a drink in the High Street but not socially acceptable to be blind drunk in the high street, falling all over the place and peeing in shop doorways.Quote:
How can one define 'social acceptance'? This is a dangerous road down which to go.
I don't remember advocating the curtailment of out of town shopping centres or even limiting the free market. If you have drawn that conclusion from what I wrote then you are wrong as it was never said or implied.Quote:
And why has this happened? Not because of car parking, but because of the free market, in which I assume you believe. This is an essential contradiction in your point of view. If you want a free market coupled with a light touch by local authorities, you're going to have out-of-town shopping centres and a related decline in town centres — and this is before one even considers the changes in shopping habits, again brought about by the free market, that have contributed to the downfall of many long-established high street shops.
What I did say was that the draconian parking war that local government wages on town centre motorists, using them as a cash cow, turns people off using Town Centres which if anything, restricts the free market for those town centre shops.
Why shouldn't I be dependant on my car. It's my choice and if I want to drive my car to commute, go shopping or even just go out for a drive for fun, then what's wrong with that? Public transport works very well in Cities and for those that want to travel to cities or home again but for those that live in the Country, it's pretty ineffectual.Quote:
Much better still to encourage public transport use and end the dependancy many people have on cars.
If I travel to London, I jump on the train and then use the Tube or Busses in town. If I want to go to my local Sainsburys which is a mile and a half away, I must use the car or walk there and back half a dozen times with all the shopping I need.
I just don't think banning everything works.Quote:
Well, the individual can decide already on abortion, smoking and drinking. On drugs I tend to agree with you about decriminalisation.
Again, one for Eurotroll this one :laugh: However, I didn't say just have tough prisons which I agree do little (if anything) to rehabilitate offenders.Quote:
So do I, but the sort of prison you suggest is not, I believe, the answer. We seem obsessed in the UK with the notion of toughening prisons up, when there is little evidence that this approach pays off. Indeed, examples from overseas suggest quite the reverse.
I suggested a multi dimensional approach where the first part of the sentence is the short, sharp shock. The tough prison if you like, to introduce a base line for criminals. "If you do wrong, you get punished" is a message I want to get across. BUT, once the punishment is administered and a prisoner conforms, then there is a consequence and that consequence is the provision of luxuries in their cells. Possibly the move to a different cell which is more comfortable and allows the prisoner to start building up dignity and self respect. Education, training and the tools necessary to leave prison and become a valued member of society rather than just an ex-con.
And more, a propper transition mechanism for when the prisoner is released, to integrate them back in society. Half way houses with proper support as part of their sentence so they have to participate and an understanding that help will be availiable to get them in employment and when they are ready, to leave the half way house and return to a full life. We can go further and have ongoing 24/7 support as and when needed that an ex-prisoner can call upon if crisis or temptation arises.
I would much rather have that sort of framework than the current process which does little to stop reoffending and the beauty is that it would pay for itself many times over by reducing the prison population as it succedes.
Quote:
Workfare only benefits the employers, not the employees — it's cheap labour under a different name. Making benefits dependant upon participation in such schemes is not appropriate on those grounds alone, quite apart from all the others. I think we should be focusing on creating the conditions in which proper jobs exist rather than forcing people into menial, low-paid ones. Only then will the problem — if it is a problem; of this, despite the deliberate efforts on the part of sections of the media and certain politicians to demonise those on benefits, I am not convinced — truly be solved for the longer term.
Gordon Bennet. Don't blame it all on the Daily Mail FFS. :)
Seriously, I think we are failing every single person that's on long term unemployment benefit. Lack of dignity, respect and purpose are by products of sucessive governments failure to address this issue.
I think if we take all the points raised, this thread will spiral out of control but possibly take one that you feel is really worthy of discussion and start a thread. Lets have an open discussion looking at pro's and cons where we try to understand the others point of view and judge the subject on it's merits rather than just argue our corner in a closed, negative manner?
There are many things that some people deem socially acceptable and others don't. It's wrong, therefore, to believe that there is too much common ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
The notion that car parking charges are to blame for declining town centre footfall really does strike me as rather fanciful. Town centres are declining because not enough people actively need or want to go to certain shops any more; therefore, they close. If a shop is good enough, or meets a particular need, people will go to it. It's all very well beating about the bush, but this is the central reason for the decline you outline, not car parking prices. Nothing's going to make the problem go away, and we need to bear that in mind rather than adopting a 'finger in the dyke' approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Yes, precisely because the attitude you describe is very common, and has led to public transport in such areas being neglected by politicians at all levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Nor do I, but the ban on smoking in public places I wholeheartedly agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
With much of this I agree, and I do appreciate the fact that you're not simply coming at this from the 'hang 'em and flog 'em' angle, I don't think there's a great deal of evidence for the 'short, sharp shock' approach working — at least, not in Europe. Would you deem it suitable for, to take a recent example, Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce upon their entry to prison? In any case, we send far too many people to jail as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Well, while there are those who are long-term unemployed through no-one's fault but their own, I don't see how forcing people into menial, low-paid jobs — which is basically what workfare means — does anything to help. It certainly doesn't assist those who have very good qualifications but don't especially want to be made to stack shelves for a large supermarket chain (which can thus take advantage of cheap labour, and is the prime beneficiary of the whole thing).Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Public school educators. Most are liberal, and while some are outstanding at what they do, there are many more who are "paycheck" employees, biding their time in a system where it's darn hard to get fired, in hope of an comfortable retirement. They tend to vote the way of the union, that is, for democrats. They are a large voting block (lobby) and, as such, can perpetuate their own "success." I frankly don't care if they are offended.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
A federal job funded by taxpayers, say, one earning $60,000 annually, must be supported by 5-6 private sector employees making the same salary. Here's the math: each earner probably pays on average 10-12K in taxes. $10,000 x 6 employees= $60,000.
In this scenario, governments soon run out of O.P.P.: Other People's Money. In this sense, the job isn't necessarily worth-LESS, but it's clearly not sustainable. Oh yeah, I forgot, it IS sustainable--because the government just prints or borrows money. :rolleyes:
My best friend built up a business to where he provided a livelihood to 15 full-time employees, with benefits. It took him about five years. Part of that time he was still waiting tables, working out of our apartment, etc. Of course, now he's done quite well himself, but I have the utmost respect for what he has accomplished--how he has helped the economy. He produced a product and provided a service--quantifiable proof. And some of those employees have used their experience to move to other jobs and make an even better living for themselves. All of those employees paid into the system--did not take out.
Now, on the other hand, I'm a schoolteacher (in a private school). It is difficult to quantify what I produce. It's more than nothing, sure, but arguably less than my friend.
There is a litany of examples of large private companies that run efficiently and responsibly. It's easy to say that the public sector creates jobs because they simply write checks on borrowed money. An privately-owned company can't do that. Even an incorporated one can't do that for very long, because soon word gets out--stock prices tumble--and then the poop hits the fan. Enter Enron--Exhibit A.
It's too bad--there are a LOT of people who think government-controlled business is a good thing. It's actually an oxymoron. They have no stake in it's succcess because, as I pointed out, they can simply keep writing checks.
BDunnell, you do realize you are also generalizing on this topic and haven't provided any solid evidence?
I'll be voting Labour or Green at the next election, depending on if Labour have a chance of winning in whatever constituency I'm living in. If I can vote in any Polish elections as a non-resident, then I'll be voting for Palikot's movement. Janusz Palikot's views match up with mine almost totally, you can find out more about him here:
Janusz Palikot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My political views tend to stem from Scandanavian style Democratic Socialism, Liberalism and Libertarianism. I believe in economic stimulus over austerity, a big government in terms of providing services e.g. the NHS whilst staying out of people's private lives. I believe in legalising all drugs (some will obviously need to be far more heavily regulated than others - Tesco Value Black Tar Smack isn't something I ever wish to see on the shelves, however M&S outside grown 6 month cured Alaskan Thunder**** buds would be nice :s mokin :) , allowing all sorts of different marriage types between consenting adults (gay marriage, polygamy etc) and so on.
Foreign policy-wise, I view foreign aid as something that, carefully managed, is a good thing, and that military intervention can easily be justified to aid uprisings against dictatorships and prevent genocide, it's my view that we should have intervened in Syria long before the Islamists did, hell if those Golden Dawn ****s try to start racist massacres in Greece then I think we should nip it in the bud. I'm pro EU, and would like to see a global union in the long term future promoting ideas like democracy and unrestricted free movement of people (yes I know this will be unfeasible for AT LEAST 50 years). I'm moderately pro-Palestinian, and take the view that the UK should immediately recognise a PLO controlled Palestinian state that exists in peace with Israel.
Environmentally, I view protecting the rainforests as a higher priority than reducing greenhouse gas emissions as a way of fighting global warming, and vastly increasing the use of cannabis for paper, bio-fuels, food, hempcrete and medicine, either to reduce the use or replace many of the unsustainable sources of raw materials we use today (rainforest wood and crude oil, to name a couple). I'm against fracking, and I'd like to see most of our electricity generated through nuclear and renewable sources.
I could list opinions for ages, feel free to ask me what I think of any given issue.
A class full of students will eventually go on to become both people who provide labour in the economy and taxpayers. A teacher in principle adds value to the workforce, which has benefits on a year by year basis going over possibly 40 years of productive working life.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
You can't quantify that in the short term but to suggest that the value adds aren't that valuable is incredibly short-sighted.
Over the lifetime of a person, I suggest that the value adds of a teacher amortised across all students would be roughly worth 80 times the input costs.
(40 years/12 years)*24 student = 80 times the input costs
Education in principle is an investment in maintaining and improving the quality of labour.
"arguably less than my friend" - really?
Do you know, I really don't care for the notion that one can work out in any detail how much a teacher is 'worth' to society. Not everything should be, or can be, given a financial worth. This is not the be-all and end-all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Yes, really. I don't prepare them all by myelf. And you sort of proved my statement--it's difficult to quantify. And I certainly wouldn't use some hocus-pocus formula.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
My friend's payroll is well over 500K annually--this year, and every year. Those employees pay taxes immediately--this year, and every year. Thing is, there is no guarantee that, without him, all of his employees would be as well off.
True. But contributing to the economy is a very real problem, and I'm attempting to tell you that to pay one public school teacher, who has a job that produces an unquantifiable product, would take the entire tax liability of 5 taxpayers. That schoolteacher, in turn, contributes taxes that pay for only 1/5 of another schoolteacher. It's an unsustainable system.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I don't believe it is, on the grounds that there is no viable alternative short of forcing all parents to pay over and above taxation towards school fees, which is not socially acceptable and does not, I have to tell you, guarantee a better education. Far from it, in fact. One meets some extraordinarily useless people who have come out og the British private/public school system, just as one meets many hugely intelligent people who went to state schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
I must say, I don't at all like the idea that a teacher 'produces' a 'product' — these are human beings we're talking about, after all — and don't believe it matters one jot that the end result is 'unquantifiable'. Not everything in life is, and nor should we think of everything that way. This is the language and the thought process of the person obsessed with business and the superiority of the private sector, a superiority that, when it comes to running public services, I would question.
There isn't, but to my mind there's no comparison between the two things. Personally, I would class your contribution as being superior on the simple grounds that I place a higher emphasis on learning, but this is just a matter of opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
Teachers deliver a 'service'. I mean to be blatantly honest, if we applied keysersoze's logic, the entire of the financial industry should also be done away with because they also do not produce a 'product'; neither does any form of management for that matter either.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
To my way of thinking, they provide, rather than 'deliver', a service. 'Delivery', in my view, should only be applied to the physical delivery of objects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Not necessarily obsessed with business--consider that perhaps some are concerned with a government that will not manage their resources responsibly.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I taught in public schools for the first 7 years--the last 13 have been in private schools. Now, if you go by the notion that the better educated are bigger earners--a fairly conventional idea--then you might be impressed to know that over 99% of the private school students I've taught have matriculated to a 4-year university (I currently have a former student attending Harvard). By contrast, the percentage of my public school students who went to a 4-year university was under 20%. The likely destination was junior college (a 2-year school). About one-third to half never set foot in a college.
The per pupil spending is not that different, if the school is a parochial one.
Another interesting fact: the private schools where I've taught have graduated around 100-110 students each year. And each year those 100-odd students earn 1.5 to 2 million dollars in scholarships to attend college. One of my weaker students walked away with a $120,000 scholarship. My point is that the private education pays these families back for their investment.
Another random factoid: 2/3 of my property tax liability (thousands of dollars) goes to fund public education. Guess what? We don't have any children. Not only is this situation socially questionable, it's downright immoral IMO.
I don't think I suggested that car parking charges were responsible for the decline in High Street shopping :confused: I merely suggested it might make people shop in Town Centres more if they could park their Jam Jars without getting robbed blind by Local Councils obsessed with squeezing every last penny out of Motorists. A prime exmple of needless jobs for the boys comrade seeing as you asked for examples. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
You should suggest that. BDunnell's comment, "Town centres are declining because not enough people actively need or want to go to certain shops any more;" completely misses the point of why they don't want to go there anymore. Parking fees are obviously not the only reason people might avoid a particular area, but certainly are part of the issue. I know that, absent a strong reason to do otherwise - price or limited availability elsewhere, I take my business where I can park with no charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Personally, I vote for the man that will lead us in the right direction. Was that a pun? Anyway, I voted for President Obama twice as I felt he was a spark that was needed and we certainly were wallowing in some serious problems. I also liked Chuck Hagel(as a senator (R). I felt he spoke his mind and was not swayed by party lines.
Sure, going for the man who leads us in the right direction is good, but then you contradict yourself by saying you voted for Obama because he gave us a "spark." Those aren't the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
"[Speaking] his mind" is a bit vague. What was in his mind?
Down through history there are a number of notorious men who were quite adept at providing the spark needed to get people to do their bidding--a very evil bidding.
Sure, an engaging personality helps, but I would hope that a citizen votes for the candidate that squares with their own ethos, an ethos derived from great study and introspection. There are way too many people in the U.S. who vote for a personality, or the "vibe" they get from a candidate, rather than a genuine knowledge of a candidate's:
1) accomplishments
2) voting record (assuming they served in Congress)
3) ethics
4) quantifiable leadership abilities
5) position on various fiscal (most important) and social issues (less important)
Of course you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Well, it might, but I still think the problems are significantly deeper-seated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
I knew you were anti-education, but not to that extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
We have covered the reasons why in other recent threads. People go to supermarkets rather than local shops because they consider them cheaper (which, a lot of the time, they aren't), more convenient for reasons other than car parking (which, sometimes, they are, especially for those with full-time jobs), because in some cases of downright laziness, and because more shopping is now done online. The end result is the slow death of traditional high streets. Cutting car parking costs is the proverbial 'finger in the dyke' response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Hyperbole. Also, rather selfish. Bits of my tax contributions go to all sorts of things I don't personally use, yet I don't feel this sense of resentment.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
This is what happens when one tries to discuss stuff with a liberal. They mis-characterize your comments, then attack your character.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
This is what happens when one tries to discuss stuff with liberals. They mis-characterize your comments, then attack your character.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell