Guardian Lies

[ViolentPanda]

It is consumer debt that helps to keep Britain's economy in the world's top whatever-it-is. From a moral point of view, it is entirely wrong. From an economic point of view it's short-termism gone mad.

That's the very raison d'etre of free market capitalism though, isn't it? Gain today and fuck tomorrow.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You stupid ignorant middle class cunt

The first two adjectives I agree with, the other three are a matter of personal opinion.

 

[London_Calling]

If you're that thin-skinned I'd rather you didn't engage with me.

However, I suspect it's merely an excuse for disengagement rather than a reason.

If you don't understand sexual/gender-based abuse, then I'd encourage you to try.

That notwithstanding, you are of course correct, I have no choice but to disengage due to your unassailable argument.

 

[exosculate]

If you don't understand sexual/gender-based abuse, then I'd encourage you to try.

That notwithstanding, you are of course correct, I have no choice but to disengage due to your unassailable argument.

Any chance of you stating your political position?

 

[ViolentPanda]

If you don't understand sexual/gender-based abuse, then I'd encourage you to try.

You absent yourself from substantive argument because you have chosen to interpret a point relating to your repeated reference to that article as a term of "sexual/gender-based abuse"?

It is, after all, a matter of interpretation. I'd argue that most people would interpret it to mean "brandishing vigourously but without thought to offence", whereas you've chosen to interpret it as abuse. How very...novel...of you.

Your decision does, however, reinforce my conviction of an aexcuse, rather than a reason, for disengagement.

That notwithstanding, you are of course correct, I have no choice but to disengage due to your unassailable argument.

Someone of your obvious wit and intellect is left with "no choice"?

Surely not?

 

[London_Calling]

Any chance of you stating your political position?

Thang yew for asking:

a) I find labels unhelpful
b) I'm issue orientated, not party political or ideological or particularly dogmatic
c) I have a highly sensitve bullshit meter, and
d) It tends to go off an awful lot

 

[ViolentPanda]

...
c) I have a highly sensitve bullshit meter, and
d) It tends to go off an awful lot

May I venture the opinion that you have it set too sensitively, and that you're self-activating it?

 

[London_Calling]

I suppose there's an irony in a Panda poking people with sticks.

 

[Darios]

‘course there’s always the argument that people are being trained to be good capitalists and dependable tax payers, but that rather ignores the fact they’re being handed another opportunity and skill; critical thinking.

I really wish - no, I really do - that critical thinking was an integral part of the education system in the U.K. Even if only at University level. Though if critical thinking as as skill was developed and nurtured from, say, secondary school, and people were taught to critically assess the bullshit spoon fed to them, this society might suddenly become start staring sane.

I have severe doubts about any claim that University education offers critical thinking skills, at least with regard to any critical thinking outside of a very narrowly defined area.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I really wish - no, I really do - that critical thinking was an integral part of the education system in the U.K. Even if only at University level. Though if critical thinking as as skill was developed and nurtured from, say, secondary school, and people were taught to critically assess the bullshit spoon fed to them, this society might suddenly become start staring sane.

I have severe doubts about any claim that University education offers critical thinking skills, at least with regard to any critical thinking outside of a very narrowly defined area.

Even if most people were skilled in critical thinking, what leads you to believe that many (or indeed any) of those people would actually wish to apply those faculties to daily life?

"We" may have to accept that for some people "ignorance" or passivity is a choice that they make in order to avoid having to "critically assess the bullshit spoon fed to them". In some cases the choice will be a conscious one, in other cases an unconscious one (an avoidance of cognitive dissonance, if you will), but a choice nonetheless.

 

[London_Calling]

I really wish - no, I really do - that critical thinking was an integral part of the education system in the U.K. Even if only at University level.

So do I. Someone was suggesting recently that some subjects - he mentioned Philosophy - do address critical thinking directly.

Fwiw, as the world becomes increasing more complex and the media far more important, I think there's a case for it to be a core curriculum subject - some chance.

 

[Pete the Greek]

Martin Kettle writes in The Guardian on 27 January 'Socialism is dead. There now remain only socialists' an article related to the Nick Cohen book (see other threads).

Martin states "that much of what the left a century ago yearned for has actually been achieved". Lazy journalist comments on lazy book.

Poverty, inequality, pay not keeping pace with inflation etc in the UK. However, it seems the left can put up its feet and relax -everything is rosy on planet Martin.

This is really lazy and poor journalism.

good thread /OP. This stuff needs to be talked about. Seems to be an issue completely and deliberately left off the map of liberal discourse.

 

[Giles]

Universal Suffrage - Choose between Tory and Tony.
Free healthcare - NHS being privatised by stealth - and go get your teeth seen to free one of these days, do!
Free education - Well, of a sort. More like a free training in being a capitalist lackey though - don't THINK!
Poverty greatly reduced? Depends on your base line. Better than the
1880s and 1930s, worse than 1945 - 1979 - at least for a great many people.

I do not believe that any significant percentage of the population are materially worse off than in 1945.

There may be an issue with perceived inequality, but in absolute terms - what people have in their houses, what they spend, people are far better off than in 1945. And 1979 for that matter.

Giles..

 

[mk12]

Martin Kettle writes in The Guardian on 27 January 'Socialism is dead. There now remain only socialists' an article related to the Nick Cohen book (see other threads).

Martin states "that much of what the left a century ago yearned for has actually been achieved". Lazy journalist comments on lazy book.

Poverty, inequality, pay not keeping pace with inflation etc in the UK. However, it seems the left can put up its feet and relax -everything is rosy on planet Martin.

This is really lazy and poor journalism.

Maybe he means things like centralisation of various assets in the hands of the state, national health service, workers parties coming to power etc etc. Maurice Brinton wrote a good piece on recuperation of previous generation's demands.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I do not believe that any significant percentage of the population are materially worse off than in 1945.

There may be an issue with perceived inequality, but in absolute terms - what people have in their houses, what they spend, people are far better off than in 1945. And 1979 for that matter.

Giles..

Depends entirely on how you measure poverty, Giles.

If you're talking about (and I'm sure you are, people like you always do) "absolute poverty" then of course you're right. After all, people in 1945 didn't have a state welfare safety net and had to rely on a state-restricted mutual system alongside familial support.

In terms of relatve poverty though, it's a different story. Your average worker in 1945 could expect to find a job that paid a living wage (that's a single wage per household) without much difficulty. rationing meant that basic dietary needs were fulfilled, so no malnutrition or malnourishment-related illnesses (a growing problem) like nowadays.

 

[Giles]

If people today are suffering from "malnutrition" then that is because they are eating (usually too much of) the wrong stuff. Not because they are starving.

Are you suggesting that food rationing was a good thing, then?

And the the things that people tend to have are far more now than in 1945. Central heating, fridges, cars, TVs, holidays etc etc.

And back then people didn't have stuff like Celebrity Big Brother to watch on TV!

Giles..

 

[belboid]

What are you talking about; If you’re disputing £18,000 = £5.19 a week, I’d like to see your maths.

Also, I did read it "properly", whatever that is, hence:

. . . based on the part in the article that says:

"Meanwhile, for rent and living costs, financial help comes in the form of grants, loans and bursaries. Means-tested maintenance grants of up to £2,700 a year will be available and you don't have to pay these back."

To state the ovbious, those in poverty do get the maximum free Grant of £2,700 - over, what, an academic year of 40 or so weeks ?


Yeah, really, really, really.

But I do know kids who were never going to go and/or never worked to get the grades to go, and recite the cost excuse to people who don't understand the system.

woo! £2700 a year! Well they'll live a jolly old time on that wont they. It's actually ever so slightly higher than I got - twenty years ago! If you think that that is 'fair' or 'decent' or any such thing you are either a fool or a liar - as evidenced again by your final sentence. Oh, and dont bother talking about bursaries, hardly anyone gets the, and they're are still bugger all.

You are, at best, a piss-poor apologist for Blairite shite, and you should have your name forcibly changed to remove any inkling of a connection to the mighty Clash who would laugh in your face and then spit in it for your appaling third-hand and fourth rate opinions.

You go to university, you will end up in thousands of pounds worth of debt. you will, probably, later earn enough to pay for it, and so you should do so, but by a fair method. Such as progressive taxation. In fact, drop the 'such as'.

 

[nino_savatte]

If people today are suffering from "malnutrition" then that is because they are eating (usually too much of) the wrong stuff. Not because they are starving.

Are you suggesting that food rationing was a good thing, then?

And the the things that people tend to have are far more now than in 1945. Central heating, fridges, cars, TVs, holidays etc etc.

And back then people didn't have stuff like Celebrity Big Brother to watch on TV!

Giles..

What the fuck this has to do with relative poverty is anyone's guess. Where was food rationing mentioned?

 

[Idris2002]

Food rationing was a good thing from a nutrition point of view, wasn't it?

 

[nino_savatte]

Food rationing was a good thing from a nutrition point of view, wasn't it?

It was, people ate less shite. There were no ready meals either.

 

[Giles]

What the fuck this has to do with relative poverty is anyone's guess. Where was food rationing mentioned?

VP in post #45:

"rationing meant that basic dietary needs were fulfilled, so no malnutrition or malnourishment-related illnesses (a growing problem) like nowadays."

Giles..

 

[nino_savatte]

VP in post #45:

"rationing meant that basic dietary needs were fulfilled, so no malnutrition or malnourishment-related illnesses (a growing problem) like nowadays."

Giles..

All the same, people didn't eat shite like ready meals and loads of crap from tins.

 

[Giles]

All the same, people didn't eat shite like ready meals and loads of crap from tins.

True, but people don't eat ready meals and crap food because they cannot afford better.

Giles..

 

[rhys gethin]

True, but people don't eat ready meals and crap food because they cannot afford better.

Giles..

A lot of them haven't the time, the knowledge or the kind of cooking equipment to use traditional-type cheap food - it's crap in the microwave, crap out.

 

[nino_savatte]

True, but people don't eat ready meals and crap food because they cannot afford better.

Giles..

Ever hear of food education? Also, many people are working such long hours that they do not have time to prepare and cook food. Whose fault is that? Theirs or the employers? If you answered "theirs", you are wrong.

 

[likesfish]

food its about knowledge and attiude you can prepare fresh food if you want to
left has achieved the big things
healthcare
education
welfare
universal sufference free press rule of law.
capatilism works its economics without people
socialism is people with out economics.
you can't expect everyone to pay more tax so you can spend 3 years at university look at the cost of a degree in the states for instance.

 

[London_Calling]

woo! £2700 a year! Well they'll live a jolly old time on that wont they. It's actually ever so slightly higher than I got - twenty years ago! If you think that that is 'fair' or 'decent' or any such thing you are either a fool or a liar - as evidenced again by your final sentence. Oh, and dont bother talking about bursaries, hardly anyone gets the, and they're are still bugger all.

You are, at best, a piss-poor apologist for Blairite shite, and you should have your name forcibly changed to remove any inkling of a connection to the mighty Clash who would laugh in your face and then spit in it for your appaling third-hand and fourth rate opinions.

You go to university, you will end up in thousands of pounds worth of debt. you will, probably, later earn enough to pay for it, and so you should do so, but by a fair method. Such as progressive taxation. In fact, drop the 'such as'.

0/10 for lucid financial argument, 7.5/10 for quality of the personal attack.

No chance of addressing the issue with facts and figures ?

How about having a stab at why the UK is third in the EU in percentage of people successfully graduating ?

 

[ViolentPanda]

If people today are suffering from "malnutrition" then that is because they are eating (usually too much of) the wrong stuff. Not because they are starving.

Are you suggesting that food rationing was a good thing, then?

In terms of preventing malnutrition, and in asuring correct nutrition, yes.

And the the things that people tend to have are far more now than in 1945. Central heating, fridges, cars, TVs, holidays etc etc.

And back then people didn't have stuff like Celebrity Big Brother to watch on TV!

Giles..

Wow, that's such a good argument I hardly know what to say.

Oh, I know.

What a load of musty sweaty bollocks.

Did you miss what I said about relative vs absolute poverty?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Food rationing was a good thing from a nutrition point of view, wasn't it?

I did make that point to Giles. He appears to have missed it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ever hear of food education? Also, many people are working such long hours that they do not have time to prepare and cook food. Whose fault is that? Theirs or the employers? If you answered "theirs", you are wrong.

There's also a problem of access.
If you live on a big old council estate then often the only shops within a reasonable walking distance are independents, where prices reflect their poor economies of scale, high rents etc, so if you're low-waged or on benefit it can actually be "cheaper" (in purely financial terms) to buy ready-shite meals once a week from Iceland than to shop for fresh and then spend the necessary time on food preparation and cooking.
Bob Holman up in Easterhouse coined the term "food desert" for places without access to reasonably-priced fresh food. There are plenty of "food deserts" even in Urban centres.