The Left: Moribund.

[scottycelt]

Be that as it may or may not, that was not what I was writing about, as you should be able to see for yourself if you re-read what I did write...

Good Morning, ahinton!

Right (or Left!) ... I've just re-read your admirably concise post and I'm ashamed to confirm that I can think of no other plausible interpretation of it from what you actually did write.

You appeared to make two points:

a) That you hoped I wasn't referring to you when I rather unkindly referred to 'unthinking politically-correct propagandist leftist clap-trap' ... you somewhat uncharacteristically omitted the last phrase!

b) That you wished clarification that my perceived 'implication' did not indicate that I believed that 'unthinking politically-correct propagandist clap-trap' was confined to those on the Left.

I responded to both your questions ... maybe not quite the way you expected, but in the manner I thought somewhat appropriate at the time.

[MrGongGong]

But that's the thing. I'm not affected by the pension reforms. So why should I care? The strikes are only going to cause me some inconvenience - so by and large I am against it.

It's the same for the argument that we need to foster a more equal society. For goodness sake why? As long as I'm not in the bottom quartile - it doesn't affect me or my family. So why should I alter my standard of living slightly to help someone else? It doesn't seem rational to me. Even if we accept that greater inequality is a direct cause of civil disobedience like rioting etc...well we've seen how it's possible to take measures to protect one's property against such actions through the use of gated communities etc in the USA, Latin America, etc.

I'd like to know compelling reasons to push for greater wealth equality in society that would benefit the top 20% of earners in the same way as it would benefit the lowest quintile. At the moment, it seems that with a more equal society, the lowest quintile would benefit disproportionately, while the top quintile would benefit less or in some cases stand to lose greater - some may argue that this is equitable/fair but if we assume that I and most people only look out for their own self-interest, how can we be convinced otherwise?

What a great attitude
I guess that as I don't have cancer I shouldn't be paying for doctors to treat those who do ?
ALL the political parties (sadly IMV) spend all their time appealing to narrow self interest , at the election the message was very clear "vote for us and we will make YOU better" . Sadly, I don't see much humanitarian solidarity from those going on strike either, unlike the student protest, its very much about protecting your own position and wealth.


If you really need to be "convinced otherwise" I suggest you try being seriously ill for a few weeks .............

Treat everything as a market and it will bite you on the bum !

[scottycelt]

I'm not sure what "leftist" means anymore anyway
it did used to have a meaning
but
just seems to be a general term of abuse rather than having any solid meaning

Fine! Can 'leftists' (or whichever noun you prefer) then afford the same courtesy to others by therefore dropping their very own 'general terms of abuse' like fascist, racist, sexist, heterosexist, homophobic, religionist, capitalist, etc, etc, etc... ?

I don't see that 'leftist' is any more a term of abuse than 'rightist' or even 'centrist', the latter I broadly consider myself to be .

I do agree, however, that labelling individuals can be a convenient and sometimes misleading short-cut in any debate, though I fail to spot any major inaccuracy in daring to describe a left-leaning person as 'a leftist'.

Call me 'a centrist' any time if you wish to generally abuse and insult me, Mr GG!

[teamsaint]

I should have thought that as Europe stares down both barrels of financial calamity, (some people don't seem to realise how bad things really are), and as we see glimpses of the social disorder that may occur as a result, that the time for "narrow" self interest were past.

[MrGongGong]

I should have thought that as Europe stares down both barrels of financial calamity, (some people don't seem to realise how bad things really are), and as we see glimpses of the social disorder that may occur as a result, that the time for "narrow" self interest were past.

one would think that might be the case
but as long as the politicians go on about supporting "hard working families" (as if anyone would be against ??) then we know that they are peddling the same old bullshit........... things that would really help the economy in innovative ways are off the agenda.
The rhetoric of "austerity" simply makes people more selfish regardless of the whole "big society" nonsense that seems to have gone a bit quiet recently

[Lateralthinking1]

I was harsh in what I said to Lat, I withdraw that, I have no wish to knock a man when he is down and out and hurting

Anna, I didn't take offence because I know that you are supportive to people.

There are so many lines of argument criss-crossing on this thread, it reveals where the economic crash is taking people. Society is becoming like a coil of entangled Christmas lights that will never fit back into the box.

I agree that left, right and centre are not what they were.

I think people are right to oppose the idea that if someone is not in the bottom 25% he or she shouldn't be worried. I have always had feelings towards people who are not like me but I recognise that not everyone is the same.

For those I would say this. You make the mistake of seeing yourselves too rigidly in the here and now. You might not be old now but you might be one day. You might not be disabled now but you might be one day. You might not be poor now but you might be one day. To be against things because you aren't currently in those categories could have a devastating impact on you - either directly or via the slippery slope - one day.

Additionally, let us say for the sake of argument that you remain in comparative wealth terms in the same percentile throughout your life but the bottom 25% or more drop into absolute desperation. Crime - particularly theft - could become so commonplace that the police and the courts just could not cope with it.

That would affect you in ways that currently seem so remote as to be fiction. I wouldn't want that for you personally if you are in, say, the 50%-75% range and believe that requirements on you to pay towards a fair society now will save you from that fate.

[MrGongGong]

we could all move to rural Derbyshire ?
Simon Says there's no crime there (apart from the odd decapitation of course !)
and everyone is nice and friendly and helpful

[Lateralthinking1]

I think ahinton and I agree on one point but reach a different conclusion. He and I both agree that pensions were never guaranteed because they relied on market investment, although many of us were told that ours were guaranteed.

My argument would be that in that light there is absolutely no point in changing them now because it is disrupting society on the grounds of a dialogue about the unknown. The argument is half taking place in reality and half in fiction.

This is not the only example of where one wonders if in life it is better not to know. We were all much happier when we believed that there was no risk attached to what had been promised.

[MrGongGong]

I think ahinton and I agree on one point but reach a different conclusion. He and I both agree that pensions were never guaranateed because they relied on market investment, although many of us were told that ours were guaranteed.

My argument would be that in that light here is absolutely no point in changing them now because it is disrupting society on the grounds of a dialogue about the unknown. The argument is half taking place in reality and half in fiction.

NOTHING is guaranteed
some people seem unable to live with what seems to many of us (and most people in the world) fairly low levels of insecurity
there are no "jobs for life"
education will not "guarantee" you a job

I find that digging the allotment will feed us if the work gets sparse !

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes Mr GG, I lose track of individual conversations but my feeling is that you and I are the classic example of agreeing half the time and disagreeing on the rest.

I think the whole question of living with "fairly low levels of insecurity" is an interesting one that digs deeper into what is at stake. While personal psychology is involved in the formulation of financial policy - the ideas of "nudge", negotiation, etc - and we see similar things in putting together a manifesto that is designed to be popular with sufficient numbers, they don't delve nearly enough into the "character range" of citizens and hence frequently underestimate cause and effect.

I am precisely the kind of person for whom the existence of a welfare state was an essential driver to functioning. Knowing that support systems would be there for me if necessary throughout my life, I didn't think "sod it, I won't do anything then, they can look after me". They gave me the security to get a degree, to work often under stress in high profile areas, almost certainly to perform at my maximum capability with benefits to wider society. Being there, I didn't need them.

The reduction of that security, the removal of some aspects of it, renders me virtually dysfunctional. I can't cope at all easily with "fairly low levels of insecurity". That is why I went into the public sector in the first place and, of course, some 25 years on those traits are heavily reinforced for having been institutionalized. Had we been where we are now in 1981 or 1985 - I was on medication for anxiety at the age of 12 - I would have probably had a lifetime on benefits or more likely, as now, nothing at all.

They simply don't understand the complexities of human beings. It is all "welfare state encourages laziness" and nothing else. While I don't for one moment doubt that in many cases it does, in many cases it doesn't. It would be nice to think that in the assessment of individuals, they would actively try to distinguish between those who have tried and those who haven't.

One further point and I see it as crucial although it is hardly ever mentioned. We have had decades of Governments promising to clamp down on wasters and those promises have never been met. Now that genuine people are being made redundant by the Government, all three main parties are getting tough. That is I feel another indication of what is essentially a bullying instinct.

[doversoul1]

OPB Lateralthinking1

For those I would say this. You make the mistake of seeing yourselves too rigidly in the here and now. You might not be old now but you might be one day. You might not be disabled now but you might be one day. You might not be poor now but you might be one day. To be against things because you aren't currently in those categories could have a devastating impact on you - either directly or via the slippery slope - one day.

Honestly Lat, do you have a picture of your fellow Forum members as young, rich and gleaming with health? Relax. I’m sure a lot of us fall into at least one of the categories you seem to assume we are not. And I am certainly not ‘in comparative wealth terms’. A lot of us are straggling against the sort of things that are bothering you or have done so. Don’t think you are alone and remember, somewhere over the rainbow, you’ll probably find the same thing as you have now, just in different shapes and colours.

Mr GG

I find that digging the allotment will feed us if the work gets sparse !

I’ve been digging my garden for years. It has fed me nicely as well as saving my sanity.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, thanks. Walking, gardening and music are the best medication.

[MrGongGong]

As someone who often works with (and is a parent of someone) people with autism and Aspergers syndrome I am more than slightly aware of the devastating effects of the withdrawal of support from the most vulnerable in society. Some people will simply not be able to function when they are capable of making huge contributions and giving is great insight and , sometimes, great art !

However, most people are not like my son. We are capable of dealing with the unexpected and unpredictable. The sad effect of much of this governments actions will mean that more disabled people spend a lifetime on benefits as the support (that Lat refers to ) will simply not be there.

One terribly sad thing that I have realised is that I always thought that a personal experience of something would give one understanding and empathy. When Cameron was elected many of us thought , at least he will have some understanding of the issues around disability. Don't believe it for a moment, the people who will suffer the most are the people with disabilities like his son had........ oh , unless you are rich of course !

Most of the people who are up in arms about their pensions are more than capable of dealing with it ! Some are not and they need support not (and i'm really going to loose all my friends here )people like my friend who has been given "early retirement" from his teaching job at age 55. The rest of us are going to have to pay for his endless surfing trips ! Most people can work for longer, some people (such as teaching staff in PRU units or coalface workers) can't and should get more support. Education looses huge amounts of expertise in all these folk taking "early retirement" as a money saving ruse.

[Lateralthinking1]

I completely agree. I am not in the categories of Autism, AS or schizophrenia. For one thing I don't think I have anything like the talents such people often, but not always, have. Another is years of a reasonably high level functioning in employment and to some extent socially, albeit with many years of commonplace social crutches, many of which have gone with some determination, and at times significant and even devastating moments of what others would describe with bewilderment as bizarreness.

Still, those closest to me would say that with all of the everyday normality there has always been an "air" of those conditions about me which is generally best handled by being seen as irrelevant. I agree but the problem is that this is not quite how the tick box merchants categorize people. Known GPs would understand. Unknown ones wouldn't. Of course, back in 1975, a kid walks into a doctors surgery with his parents worried about nuclear war etc to the extent that he is walking around physically shaking all of the time. They say it is a short-term phase.

Things settle down reasonably quickly but then have an uncanny habit of reappearing in different forms from one decade to the next. What happens is significant to his life in adverse ways but not to anyone else. Nowadays, the child would probably have psychologists racing to find some medical category to put him in for better and for worse. Sensible professionals - the ones you can have faith in - tend to look at in the round. There isn't much point going down that road now. It has led to significant problems but 95% of the time he comes across as just like everyone else.

Actually I feel better for this for some reason. Let's now talk about other people. Can I also wish your son the very best for the future. You are making a very positive contribution there.

[amateur51]

Actually I feel better for this for some reason. Let's now talk about other people.

Attaboy Lats