Der Fliegender Proto Nazi Russki

[Flosshilde]

Ones who think that the State should run everything? Or those who think that there is a bottomless pit of money to give out benefit to all and sundry ?

There is a bottomless pit of money - the one used to pay CEOs & Directors tens of millions of pounds every year.

[umslopogaas]

I agree that the extreme left is as bad as the extreme right: in fact it is probably far worse, Stalin killed far more people than Hitler. However the extreme right of Hitler was particularly repugnant because it was racist, whereas the extreme left of Stalin just killed anyone it saw as class enemy or that Stalin didnt like. And of course we ended up fighting the extreme right, with the extreme left as our allies.

And now, on the extreme right you get Nick Griffin and his homophobic union jack waving thugs: I cant think of any equally repugnant equivalent on the extreme left; there probably is one, but if so, they are not so much in the public eye.

[Flosshilde]

And now, on the extreme right you get Nick Griffin and his homophobic union jack waving thugs: I cant think of any equally repugnant equivalent on the extreme left; there probably is one, but if so, they are not so much in the public eye.

Quite, which is why RM's & Scotty's 'extreme left' is simply a diversionary tactic & a red herring to avoid addressing the undoubted extreme unpleasantness & undesirability of the rise of the extreme right in Europe today.

[scottycelt]

Quite, which is why RM's & Scotty's 'extreme left' is simply a diversionary tactic & a red herring to avoid addressing the undoubted extreme unpleasantness & undesirability of the rise of the extreme right in Europe today.

A 'red' herring ... sounds fishy in the extreme to me, Flossie ..

[Flosshilde]

Not to mention socialist. Would a Bluenose fish be any better, Scotty ?

[mangerton]

Not to mention socialist. Would a Bluenose fish be any better, Scotty ?

That's a shame. Poor scottyCELT! Anyway, I thought he was a Thistle supporter.

[Resurrection Man]

There is a bottomless pit of money - the one used to pay CEOs & Directors tens of millions of pounds every year.

No..while your suggestion has some merit, it is NOT a bottomless pit. And why keep singling out CEO's and Directors? What about professional footballers? TV celebrities? Film stars?

And let us not forget just how we got here especially when one considers the pay package of bank Directors. They could only pay themselves huge bonuses if there were large profits (or a gullible Govt who handed over vast sums of money...viz Labour). Those profits came from an abuse of the system viz. HBOS, RBS, Barclays Libor...because the culture of the organisation fostered this. This culture didn't happen overnight. It came into being as a result of Brown's 'light touch'. More 'Light Touchpaper and stand well back'.

But back to the Left. Not a red-herring at all..simply an observation. Why are there no threads posted about the Human Rights abuses in China? Why no threads about China (and Russia) blocking attempts by the UN to seek a solution to the human tragedy in Syria? I would put money on it (and easy money at that) that as soon as there was the lightest hint that the UN might instigate a no-fly zone that all the usual suspects here will start banging on about 'How soon before we send the troops in' etc etc....as was the case with the Libyan situation...posts which ultimately proved predictably unfounded.

Flosshilde, let me ask you two direct questions. A simple 'Yes' or 'No' is all I am after.

1) Do you agree that there are some people in society who have no intention of working because they can live on Benefits?

2) if the answer to (1) is 'Yes' then do you agree that these benefits should be limited/removed to the extent that they are encouraged to work?

[scottycelt]

Not to mention socialist. Would a Bluenose fish be any better, Scotty ?

It would appear 'Oceania' almost rivals Glasgow for bluenoses, Flossie ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottlenose_dolphin ... of course, as we are all currently aware, bluenoses are infamous for occasionally finding themselves in 'deep water'.

However the Tims have their shoals of followers 'Down Under' as well, although something decidedly bluenosed seems to have happened to the hoop-colours along the way ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_fish

As for Thistle ... nothing fishy about them, whatsoever!

[Flosshilde]

Flosshilde, let me ask you two direct questions. A simple 'Yes' or 'No' is all I am after.

1) Do you agree that there are some people in society who have no intention of working because they can live on Benefits?

2) if the answer to (1) is 'Yes' then do you agree that these benefits should be limited/removed to the extent that they are encouraged to work?

A simple yes or no to the first question is not possible, as I don't know the motivations of everyone in society. I don't believe everything (or, probably, anything) the Daily Mail publishes.

As for the second, removing/limiting benefits for such people, if there are any, affects those who do want to work but can't, for a variety of reasons, far more.

Unfortunately the present government seem to believe that they can force people into work by removing benefits - ignoring the fact that under their administration the number of jobs available has been reduced significantly. Just as they believe that they can force people to live in cheper housing by reducing housing benefit, with the result that many people will become homeless becuase the cheaper housing doesn't exist.


But, as I said, this is a red herring on a thread that was about an opera singer's unthinking (I hope) use of a symbol associated with one of the worst political movements in the 20th century. So far you have said nothing about the rise of the 'new right' - the extreme, racist & fascist parties - in Europe today. You are presumably, as you haven't said anything about it, comfortable with it?

As for human rights abuses in China, I think there might have been threads touching on that - if you feel there should be one, how about starting one?

(ps - the 'light touch' administration of financial services started with the last Tory governments - the rot started with them. The present massive salaries & bonuses paid in banks are, arguably, being paid from taxpayer's money, as the government bailed them out. The obscene amounts of money paid to footballers is, at least, not being paid from the public purse)

[Resurrection Man]

Your reluctance to answer a simple yes or no scares me, to be honest, as it typifies all to often the unwillingness of those sharing your views to actually admit that there are some people who willingly abuse the system. At least I like to think that there are many others of us (myself included) who see both sides of the coin and have a willingness to embrace views from those two sides. A great shame that you do not share that willingness.

You sidestepped the question. I asked for 'some people'...not 'everyone'. No-one mentioned the Daily Mail. In fact the constant denigration of anyone who attempts to put a different point of view to you (and others) is rather puerile and does your viewpoint no great service. I seem to remember that there are quite a few countries out there...China, for instance...where any dissenting comment is firmly dealt with and censored. This censorship by coterie seems endemic in many posts on this forum and I see no difference to this intolerance of a dissenting view and China. Ah well, nothing like a closed mind.

It is also concerning that you place emphasis on 'if' there are any. Of course there are. I know of at least two. So how does removing their benefit affect those who do want to work but can't? Did anyone say anything about that? I didn't.

In the end it comes down to a willingness to listen to and understand, even tolerate, an opposite point of view. But, as I have already said, this tolerance is sadly lacking among many posters here.

You asked for my views on the extreme right etc. No, I am not comfortable with it.

Regarding 'light touch' regulation. I have to disagree with you. Thatcher brought into effect a loosening on private finances etc but it was Brown and New Labour who brought in 'light touch'.

He therefore called for ‘light touch regulation,’ in other words less regulation on the City and finance capital. Before his Mansion House audience in 2007, he called for, "a risk-based regulatory approach". It was an old theme. In the same hall three years before, he pledged that "in budget after budget I want us to do even more to encourage the risk takers" (2004). This is the approach that got us in the present pickle.

Likewise he told the CBI in 2005 how he proposed to crack down on red tape about boring stuff like health and safety standards that got in the way of profit-making. “No inspection without justification, no form filling without justification, and no information requirements without justification, not just a light touch but a limited touch.”

[french frank]

I remember in the days of the old SDP, there was a proposal (very left-wing!) for a Citizen's Wage. It was a minimal benefit for people who (as far as I remember the details) chose not to 'work' in the formal sense of employment or self employment, in order to pursue interests, creative occupations, charitable works - whatever they liked that would in some sense have a value for society. They would be the kind of people who didn't need or want a lot of money for consumer goods and put quality of life above standard of living.

The thinking behind it was that this would not be abused because the vast majority of people don't want to live on low benefits: they want a proper wage; they want to be able to buy and do things like everyone else.

It's a bit like the idea of 'justice' where the judicial system appears to tilt in favour of the guilty to ensure that the innocent don't suffer.

So with the benefit system: it can't be perfect because there is no cost-effective way to sort the rogues from the needy, so it has to allow some of the rogues to abuse the system in order that all those in need receive their due.

[Flosshilde]

So with the benefit system: it can't be perfect because there is no cost-effective way to sort the rogues from the needy, so it has to allow some of the rogues to abuse the system in order that all those in need receive their due.

As the actions of the present government demonstrate.

RM's definition of the extreme left is

Ones who think that the State should run everything? Or those who think that there is a bottomless pit of money to give out benefit to all and sundry ?

Leaving aside the hyperbole, that would suggest that the extreme right believe that the State should run nothing, or as little as possible, and that benefits should be severely restricted, if not abolished - which pretty well sums up the Republican Party in the USA, & the underlying principles of the present government in the UK.

[Resurrection Man]

.... the underlying principles of the present government in the UK.

That is just errant tosh.

By the way, you still haven't responded to any of my points. But then again I am not surprised as it is par for the course for those with left-wing leanings when it comes to open forums. There is another forum that I frequent and a left-leaning member there. As soon as the discussion starts to get tricky, he ducks and dives, prevaricates, changes the subject, goes off on a tangent. Why can't he and others be open and honest and accept that there are differing viewpoints?

[french frank]

Have you stopped beating your wife, RM?

YES or NO?

By the way, you still haven't responded to any of my points.

[Flosshilde]

It is also concerning that you place emphasis on 'if' there are any. Of course there are. I know of at least two. So how does removing their benefit affect those who do want to work but can't?

OK, so there are two people who don't want to work (although I note that you say that you know of them, not that you know them. How you know they don't want to work - have they told you? Or do you just assume so? In other words, what is your evidence?). How is their benefit to be cut - they are unlikely to walk into the benefits office & say 'I don't want to work'? So any attempt at cutting their benefits will have to apply generally - which means that those people who do want to work but can't because of caring responsibilities, disability, or simply because there aren't any jobs for them will be affected.