# Immigration in Europe



## Pesky Wesky

FYI:
Article which gives some information about the Eurosts figures released today
Immigration to Europe: how many foreign citizens live in each country? Full data and visualisation | News | guardian.co.uk


----------



## xabiaxica

Pesky Wesky said:


> FYI:
> Article which gives some information about the Eurosts figures released today
> Immigration to Europe: how many foreign citizens live in each country? Full data and visualisation | News | guardian.co.uk


interesting

you have to click on the graphic to get the full info


over 12% of the population in Spain is immigrants


just under 7% of the population in the UK is immigrants


worth noting all those who want to leave the UK because there are so many immigrants there!!


----------



## mrypg9

xabiachica said:


> interesting
> 
> you have to click on the graphic to get the full info
> 
> 
> over 12% of the population in Spain is immigrants
> 
> 
> just under 7% of the population in the UK is immigrants
> 
> 
> worth noting all those who want to leave the UK because there are so many immigrants there!!


Yes, nothing makes me laugh more than reading posts from people who have left the UK because of 'all the foreigners'.
Not many on this site,in fact hardly any at all, unlike some others.
And it underlies the amazing level of acceptance of all these immigrants by the Spanish people.
The lack of resentment of the comparative wealth of some and the undesirable behaviour of others never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## xabiaxica

mrypg9 said:


> Yes, nothing makes me laugh more than reading posts from people who have left the UK because of 'all the foreigners'.
> Not many on this site,in fact hardly any at all, unlike some others.
> And it underlies the amazing level of acceptance of all these immigrants by the Spanish people.
> The lack of resentment of the comparative wealth of some and the undesirable behaviour of others never ceases to amaze me.


an acquaintance of my OH is always going on about all the 'bloody foreigners' - his words not mine - & he has a very loud voice which carries (too) well


I was so annoyed with him one day that, in the middle of the British Embassy in Alicante I said in my best teachers-reach-the-back-of-the-class-voice

'You're the bloody foreigner here & it's about time you realised it!'


absolute silence


followed by applause



apologies for the language but it doesn't work without it


----------



## Pesky Wesky

xabiachica said:


> an acquaintance of my OH is always going on about all the 'bloody foreigners' - his words not mine - & he has a very loud voice which carries (too) well
> 
> 
> I was so annoyed with him one day that, in the middle of the British Embassy in Alicante I said in my best teachers-reach-the-back-of-the-class-voice
> 
> 'You're the bloody foreigner here & it's about time you realised it!'
> 
> 
> absolute silence
> 
> 
> followed by applause
> 
> 
> 
> apologies for the language but it doesn't work without it


:nod:

:lol::rofl::rofl::lol:

What timing xabia!!
Good for you!


----------



## mrypg9

xabiachica said:


> an acquaintance of my OH is always going on about all the 'bloody foreigners' - his words not mine - & he has a very loud voice which carries (too) well
> 
> 
> I was so annoyed with him one day that, in the middle of the British Embassy in Alicante I said in my best teachers-reach-the-back-of-the-class-voice
> 
> 'You're the bloody foreigner here & it's about time you realised it!'
> 
> 
> absolute silence
> 
> 
> followed by applause
> 
> 
> 
> apologies for the language but it doesn't work without it





That's cheered me up.
Our Little Azor had the runs in the night, couldn't wake me up to open the garden door for him to get out.....so I woke to an indescribable stench and to find an unusual carpet everywhere
He is a VERY big boy...
Not feeling so good myself now..


----------



## gerrit

But the complainers are usually those who live in immigrant areas. I'm quite sure the number of expats in Madrid for example will be much much higher than in for example Melilla or Extremadura ; and in London you're more likely to run into a foreigner than in a quiet coastal town in Devon... Here in Barcelona about 20% is non-Spaniard, in the barrio where I live it's 49%! (however, personally I love it to live in a multicultural area, I wouldn't want it any other way)

I don't mind large immigration numbers. The earth is overpopulated as it is, so it's good that people from countries with large families can move to countries where there is a shortage of labour force. That keeps the balance somewhat. And unless someone refuses to talk to an immigrant, there's nothing as educative as learning from other cultures. I was born in a city crowded with immigrants, at school approx 30 or 40% was foreigner. Retrospectively I am very glad to have been in such a diverse environment.


----------



## mrypg9

gerrit said:


> But the complainers are usually those who live in immigrant areas. I'm quite sure the number of expats in Madrid for example will be much much higher than in for example Melilla or Extremadura ; and in London you're more likely to run into a foreigner than in a quiet coastal town in Devon... Here in Barcelona about 20% is non-Spaniard, in the barrio where I live it's 49%! (however, personally I love it to live in a multicultural area, I wouldn't want it any other way)
> 
> I don't mind large immigration numbers. The earth is overpopulated as it is, so it's good that people from countries with large families can move to countries where there is a shortage of labour force. That keeps the balance somewhat. And unless someone refuses to talk to an immigrant, there's nothing as educative as learning from other cultures. I was born in a city crowded with immigrants, at school approx 30 or 40% was foreigner. Retrospectively I am very glad to have been in such a diverse environment.


Sadly not everyone has the same sensible and humane views that you have.....


----------



## Alcalaina

gerrit said:


> But the complainers are usually those who live in immigrant areas.


Not necessarily! I used to live in East Oxford where Afro-Carribeans, Asians, Irish and Eastern Europeans have coexisted peacefully for decades. My mother, who lives in a village in Kent which is homogeneously WASP, is convinced the country is overrun with immigrants - it must be, because she read it in the Daily Mail!


----------



## Alcalaina

xabiachica said:


> an acquaintance of my OH is always going on about all the 'bloody foreigners' - his words not mine - & he has a very loud voice which carries (too) well
> 
> 
> I was so annoyed with him one day that, in the middle of the British Embassy in Alicante I said in my best teachers-reach-the-back-of-the-class-voice
> 
> 'You're the bloody foreigner here & it's about time you realised it!'
> 
> absolute silence
> 
> 
> followed by applause
> 
> apologies for the language but it doesn't work without it


Brillliant! 

The other day my OH was helping a non-Spanish speaking colleague with similar views to get her bank account sorted out. She hadn´t understood that she was supposed to have gone back to sign something, but of course she blamed the people in the bank for not speaking English. "They can never get anything sorted round here", she whinged, "it´s all mañana, mañana, mañana."

She had forgotten "mañana" was a Spanish word. Everyone in the bank turned to look at her! They knew exactly what she was implying. I am constantly amazed at how tolerant Spanish people are when confronted with this sort of bigotry.


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> Not necessarily! I used to live in East Oxford where Afro-Carribeans, Asians, Irish and Eastern Europeans have coexisted peacefully for decades. My mother, who lives in a village in Kent which is homogeneously WASP, is convinced the country is overrun with immigrants - it must be, because she read it in the Daily Mail!


PW alerted me to your YOUTUBE post....brilliant!!
I hate the Daily Mail with a powerful visceral loathing. It represents all that is pusillanimous, bigoted, vicious and nasty in our 'national culture'.
It disingenuously stirs up class and racial hatred. I am sick of the way it brandishes the term 'middle class' at every opportunity - the Wayne Rooney tart is from a 'middle-class' background. Road accident reports tell us a 'grammar school boy' has been run over by a truck. 'Middle-class families' are about to lose their benefits and so on.
That's a joke as The Maul is chiefly read by C1s, those who choose it because they think it's classier than The Sun.
I read it online as I like to reply to some of the more putrid reader responses to the pieces they publish. I don't often get my replies posted though....
My OH gets seriously annoyed when I'm caught reading it.
But I have to say if I had the power to do so, I'd ban it. Completely. It's toxic, harmful. I don't believe in banning many things but I would ban that rag.
Honestly I would.


----------



## gerrit

It's no different in the other countries I've lived in. In my native Belgium the most read newspaper is a pure Belgian look-a-like of The Sun, and the online version's most read articles tend to be about female celebrities spotted topless or nude including pictures. This sort of things decorate front page, while political and economical news are somewhere on the second or third pages ... And if people do react on those articles about politics or economy, it's usually full of populist reactions saying everything is to blame on immigrants, politicians who don't dare to stand up against criminals hard enough, youth having bad manners, ... I feel really ashamed when I read those comments, at the same time I love reading them because it motivates me to keep engaging in political debates etc - sometimes the best motivator is realising that a lot of people need to be re-educated.

But fact is that the lower the quality of a newspaper is, the more readers it will have. This I fear is valid for any country ; just like TV channels with low-quality but easy-to-understand programs will have more viewers than the Discovery Channel. The scary thing is that these people who are filled with propaganda from such media outlets, are able to vote in elections.


----------



## gerrit

mrypg9 said:


> Sadly not everyone has the same sensible and humane views that you have.....


Whenever I stand up for the multicultural society, pointing to how much we can learn from the presence of other cultures and how the stereotypes they read in the papers are tiny minorities, the term "leftist rat" will be the response  (not realising that this is not even remotely insulting to someone who indeed is left-wing)

Sadly enough indeed xenophobia is finding its way on the countryside as well. There was this news broadcast prior to elections in Belgium where a woman was asked who she voted for. When she responded she had voted for Vlaams Belang (a very right-wing racist, especially islamophobe, party) and the journalist asked why, the response was "because I got something against them immigrants". This woman lived in a big villa in a town where immigrants make up less than 1% of the population ...

Another very silly re-occuring answer is "if we have to adapt to local laws in Dubai or Saudi Arabia, why don't they do the same if they come to our country?". "They" in their opinion is the entire Muslim world, not making the slightest distinction between different branches of Islam or different countries. Last time I checked most Muslim immigrants in Europe come from other countries than Saudi or UAE (and even if it were... one wrong doesn't make another right, and the majority of Muslim immigrants does integrate and adapt to local laws in Europe)

Argh, those racist parties should be a perfect example of why functioning democracy is an illusion. it's scary when looking at election results in for example the Netherlands


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> PW alerted me to your YOUTUBE post....brilliant!!
> I hate the Daily Mail with a powerful visceral loathing. It represents all that is pusillanimous, bigoted, vicious and nasty in our 'national culture'.
> It disingenuously stirs up class and racial hatred. I am sick of the way it brandishes the term 'middle class' at every opportunity - the Wayne Rooney tart is from a 'middle-class' background. Road accident reports tell us a 'grammar school boy' has been run over by a truck. 'Middle-class families' are about to lose their benefits and so on.
> That's a joke as The Maul is chiefly read by C1s, those who choose it because they think it's classier than The Sun.
> I read it online as I like to reply to some of the more putrid reader responses to the pieces they publish. I don't often get my replies posted though....
> My OH gets seriously annoyed when I'm caught reading it.
> But I have to say if I had the power to do so, I'd ban it. Completely. It's toxic, harmful. I don't believe in banning many things but I would ban that rag.
> Honestly I would.


Don't hold back, Mary!

If anyone hasn't seen it yet:-


----------



## dunmovin

mrypg9 said:


> PW alerted me to your YOUTUBE post....brilliant!!
> I hate the Daily Mail with a powerful visceral loathing. It represents all that is pusillanimous, bigoted, vicious and nasty in our 'national culture'.
> It disingenuously stirs up class and racial hatred. I am sick of the way it brandishes the term 'middle class' at every opportunity - the Wayne Rooney tart is from a 'middle-class' background. Road accident reports tell us a 'grammar school boy' has been run over by a truck. 'Middle-class families' are about to lose their benefits and so on.
> That's a joke as The Maul is chiefly read by C1s, *those who choose it because they think it's classier than The Sun.*
> I read it online as I like to reply to some of the more putrid reader responses to the pieces they publish. I don't often get my replies posted though....
> My OH gets seriously annoyed when I'm caught reading it.
> But I have to say if I had the power to do so, I'd ban it. Completely. It's toxic, harmful. I don't believe in banning many things but I would ban that rag.
> Honestly I would.


used bog roll has more class than the SUN..... but the hard of thinking need to be catered for


----------



## Alcalaina

gerrit said:


> It's no different in the other countries I've lived in. In my native Belgium the most read newspaper is a pure Belgian look-a-like of The Sun, and the online version's most read articles tend to be about female celebrities spotted topless or nude including pictures. This sort of things decorate front page, while political and economical news are somewhere on the second or third pages ... And if people do react on those articles about politics or economy, it's usually full of populist reactions saying everything is to blame on immigrants, politicians who don't dare to stand up against criminals hard enough, youth having bad manners, ... I feel really ashamed when I read those comments, at the same time I love reading them because it motivates me to keep engaging in political debates etc - sometimes the best motivator is realising that a lot of people need to be re-educated.
> 
> But fact is that the lower the quality of a newspaper is, the more readers it will have. This I fear is valid for any country ; just like TV channels with low-quality but easy-to-understand programs will have more viewers than the Discovery Channel. The scary thing is that these people who are filled with propaganda from such media outlets, are able to vote in elections.


I haven't come across this sort of thing in Spanish newspapers. I buy El Pais but I flick through La Razon and ABC in our local bar, which is where most Spaniards seem to read the paper. It's all politics, sport and the royal family, with the occasional celebrity gossip, but nothing that's anywhere near as obnoxious as the Mail or the Sun. They have a lot of sex ads of course, but the government trying to put through a law banning those.

Maybe that's why, on the whole, there is less racial intolerance here? Just a thought ... do newpapers influence or reflect public opinion?

I do love living in a country where socialism is not a dirty word! In the UK Tony Blair ordered his canvassers never to use it on the doorstep. Our town is known as "la cuña de socialismo andalus" because so many left-wing politicians come from here, including Bibiana Aido, Ministra de Igualidad.


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> I haven't come across this sort of thing in Spanish newspapers. I buy El Pais but I flick through La Razon and ABC in our local bar, which is where most Spaniards seem to read the paper. It's all politics, sport and the royal family, with the occasional celebrity gossip, but nothing that's anywhere near as obnoxious as the Mail or the Sun. They have a lot of sex ads of course, but the government trying to put through a law banning those.
> 
> Maybe that's why, on the whole, there is less racial intolerance here? Just a thought ... do newpapers influence or reflect public opinion?
> 
> I do love living in a country where socialism is not a dirty word! In the UK Tony Blair ordered his canvassers never to use it on the doorstep. Our town is known as "la cuña de socialismo andalus" because so many left-wing politicians come from here, including Bibiana Aido, Ministra de Igualidad.


Yes, newspapers do influence public opinion...in the UK anyway. Sadly.
Remember when the Tories won in 1987 The Sun had the headline 'It was The Sun wot won it!!!' (their spelling, not mine). They crucified the then Labour Leader Neil Kinnock...OK he wasn't Prime Ministerial material (and John Major was) but he was a decent man.
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Clegg, Cameron...they all bend over to kiss the a*** of News International.
I've been indoors with a stomach upset for the past two days - Azor has it too -and we've been flicking through daytime tv....a revelation. I've seen something that is like the lowest tabloid newspapers on film...unbelievable. It's called 'The Jeremy Kyle Show' and if that's an accurate picture of life in the UK today, God help us all. It features a revoltingly smarmy presenter, the eponymous Kyle, interviewing some of the most cretinous, inarticulate chav low-life you could imagine. And these people have a vote. They wouldn't know a socialist from a satanist but you can bet they know all about Z list celebrities, the 'love' life of footballers and how much you can claim 'off the social'. If they vote, it won't be after serious reflection on the parties' manifestos.
I like reading serious books and newspapers whose opinions I disagree with - I hate being agreed with all the time, it's bad for you -but I read sensible serious stuff. If I want right-wing views I'll read The Telegraph or The Spectator.
Perhaps I should stop reading The Maul online. Like voting, it just encourages them.


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> I do love living in a country where socialism is not a dirty word! .


That's because Spain has a Government which puts some sensible leftish or at least Keynsian - policies into practice. Plan E strikes me as so sensible...why not subsidise local people and businesses to WORK for their communities rather than pay them benefits????
Would that our Coalition bunch of t*****s could be so sensible.... (Have just watched Clegg on PMQs. Oh dear.)
We've had so many improvements to our little village- avenues of palms, new road surfaces, pavements relaid, new sewage works and work on a a new infant school to be started soon. (Plus the Michelle O. facelift...)
People also remember what a real right-wing regime was like.
I would no longer describe myself as a socialist but I was for many years (was a CP member years ago!!) but at least I know what socialism is and can explain why I no longer see it as a practical political philosophy. Most people in the UK who are not that interested in politics (99% of the population, probably) think socialists want to nationalise everything that doesn't move, tax you to the hilt, take away your small business, make everyone gay, legalise paedophilia,introduce sharia law and so on ad nauseam.
Because that's how our monopoly-dominated media portray it.
And it's got to be true 'cause they read it in The Daily Mail


----------



## gerrit

In the US the media is highly influential, if not sometimes decisive, in political matters. Fox for example is in fact nothing more but a Republican propaganda channel, not shunning to twist facts when it benefits the Republicans. But it clearly works, even to the extent that not only many people watch it but also some really consider it to be a reliable and honest news channel  The propaganda that works is the type of propaganda that makes one not realise he's listening to propaganda instead of facts.

I cannot speak for Spain as my Spanish is too limited to judge the quality of media, but I lived in several countries now and I can say that the boulevard press were the most read in CZ and Germany as well, and in Ireland many people were reading The Sun as well (both the UK one and the Irish variant). I hear from Dutch friends that populist media is highly swallowed as well by the population there.


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> If they vote, it won't be after serious reflection on the parties' manifestos.


... and that's the way politicians like it !!!


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> ... and that's the way politicians like it !!!


I tried my utmost to tell the truth when I was a politician. Honestly
When I fell out with my Party over policy I refused to sign a document saying I'd abide by Group decisions so I sat as an Independent ....then they expelled me


----------



## JBODEN

Alcalaina said:


> My mother, who lives in a village in Kent which is homogeneously WASP, is convinced the country is overrun with immigrants ...


It may be! 
The stats that were presented show the % immigrants in particular Countries. By immigrants they mean non-British citizens.
Thus they don't take into account all the Asians, Africans, Europeans etc who have come to the UK and received citizenship.


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> I tried my utmost to tell the truth when I was a politician. Honestly
> When I fell out with my Party over policy I refused to sign a document saying I'd abide by Group decisions so I sat as an Independent ....then they expelled me



Either tow the line our act ignorant (or better still, be ignorant). That's the way they like it!


----------



## gerrit

JBODEN said:


> It may be!
> The stats that were presented show the % immigrants in particular Countries. By immigrants they mean non-British citizens.
> Thus they don't take into account all the Asians, Africans, Europeans etc who have come to the UK and received citizenship.


Rightfully so. Once someone has been naturalised, he's as British as every other Brit in legal terms. Also, people don't get offered citizenship for nothing, so usually those naturalised have been living in their adopted homeland for a lengthy amount of time (I know, loopholes and exceptions exist) so there's no reason to still treat them as "outsiders".

Same goes for any naturalisation, regardless in which country you were born and which country offers you citizenship. Usually this means you meet the criteria your adopted home country sets (although I know in Belgium some get the passport in less than a year - we just got very flexible criteria ) so once naturalised you're a national and shouldn't be considered otherwise. I don't agree with those who claim "once a foreigner, always a foreigner" (a quote that sounds xenophobic to me)


----------



## jimenato

mrypg9 said:


> We've had so many improvements to our little village- avenues of palms, new road surfaces, pavements relaid, new sewage works and work on a a new infant school to be started soon. (Plus the Michelle O. facelift...)


Hmm.. I wonder where the money to pay for that is coming from...



mrypg9 said:


> People also remember what a real right-wing regime was like.


Yes - that's something the UK has never had. It must make a difference.


----------



## mrypg9

jimenato said:


> Hmm.. I wonder where the money to pay for that is coming from...
> 
> *
> The same source as the money for benefits would come from....taxpayers
> But...in the case of Plan E and other Keynesian schemes, there is the benefit to the individuals and society as a whole of doing work plus the state receives some money back in the form opf income tax and VAT/IVA.
> That's why I hope Ian Duncan Smith's welfare reform proposals get off the ground.
> Not quite Keynsianism and in the first instance they will cost more than they will eventually save -hence Osborne's opposition - but getting people into work is the first step to alleviating what we mistakenly call 'poverty' in the UK.
> It's not really poverty - it's gross inequality.
> But whatever, it needs tackling.*
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - that's something the UK has never had. It must make a difference.


_*Yes, Thatcher was never that right-wing. The result of her policies was the direct opposite of her stated intentions - more state spending, more people reliant on welfare, laxer public morals, spendthrift society not a frugal one...[/B*_*]*


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> It may be!
> The stats that were presented show the % immigrants in particular Countries. By immigrants they mean non-British citizens.
> Thus they don't take into account all the Asians, Africans, Europeans etc who have come to the UK and received citizenship.



Why would EU citizens want British nationality? Most European immigrants have been from EU states and enjoy all the benefits of British citizenship by virtue of good old Maggie T. signing up to the Single European Act.
I very much doubt that recent arrivals from the former Commonwealth who no longer have automatic citizenship under the 1948 Act have acquired it.


----------



## Pesky Wesky

mrypg9 said:


> That's because Spain has a Government which puts some sensible leftish or at least Keynsian - policies into practice. Plan E strikes me as so sensible...why not subsidise local people and businesses to WORK for their communities rather than pay them benefits????
> Would that our Coalition bunch of t*****s could be so sensible.... (Have just watched Clegg on PMQs. Oh dear.)
> We've had so many improvements to our little village- avenues of palms, new road surfaces, pavements relaid, new sewage works and work on a a new infant school to be started soon. (Plus the Michelle O. facelift...)


Hmmm. I don't agree with you on the planE projects mrypg9, because it didn't do what it was supposed to do - create employment. It was used by most town halls to get some labouring jobs done (in our area, prettify a couple of roundabouts, tarmac a road that literally doesn't lead anywhere and so on) so it kept a few people employed, in low category jobs, for a short periods of time. What long term employment has come out of it? Where are the start ups, the entrepreneurs, the new businesses? What local companies have benefited from this? Oh yes, the construction businesses - yet again!


----------



## mrypg9

Pesky Wesky said:


> Hmmm. I don't agree with you on the planE projects mrypg9, because it didn't do what it was supposed to do - create employment. It was used by most town halls to get some labouring jobs done (in our area, prettify a couple of roundabouts, tarmac a road that literally doesn't lead anywhere and so on) so it kept a few people employed, in low category jobs, for a short periods of time. What long term employment has come out of it? Where are the start ups, the entrepreneurs, the new businesses? What local companies have benefited from this? Oh yes, the construction businesses - yet again!


Those are very valid points and I agree with them all. But useful things have been done here...the extension to the sewage works and the new school for example.
It's a 'quick fix'....but I'd say it's better than nothing. 
I've posted before about the need for entrepreneurs, venture capital, investment in new technologies because you are right...absence of these is holding back Spain's economic development and that is what is worrying the bond markets.
I notice that the Czech Republic's bond yield is less than Spain's!!!
There just doesn't seem to be a culture of risk-taking in Spain -and I mean normal business culture considered risk and long-term investment, not speculative gambling. 
Governments can foster that - hasn't the Spanish Government invested heavily and productively in green technology in the transport system? Maybe money should be invested -in start-up capital as well as in Plan E? Look at the record of intervention and guided investment by the Tiger economies of East Asia...and the Chinese brand of communist capitalism!! Therein lies the path to growth, higher living standards, a higher social wage and democratic institutions. (Although we in the West have a bad habit of thinking 'one size fits all' where government is concerned. Western democracy cannot simply be exported to cultures where different traditions are entrenched).
Spain's history in the twentieth century shows a society divided between authoritarian fascism/falangism/Francoism, call it what you will, authoritarian socialism and socio-anarcho-syndicalism. There hasn't been a tradition of bourgeois liberal democracy and the market economy that accompanies it.
Whereas in the 1930s, Czechoslovakia was one of the most prosperous and progressive countries in Europe.
History will out.....


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> Why would EU citizens want British nationality?


??? Did I mention EU Citizens?

The thread started with some stats which show that the UK has less immigrants than Spain (shock/horror). What was the reason for showing this? Was it a misconception that all UK Citizens from other countries are immigrants and thus they only represent 6.7% of the total population? The stats define immigrants as those who live/work in another Country but have not adopted citizenship of that Country. 

A xenophibe doesn't differentiate between a UK Citizen from another Country and an immigrant. As far as he/she is concerned they are all foreigners.


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> ??? Did I mention EU Citizens?.
> 
> .


What Europeans in the UK in large numbers aren't either EU or EEA citizens
Serbs, Bosnians and Croats are now being sent home as their countries are considered strife free.
There weren't that many of them anyway..


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> That's because Spain has a Government which puts some sensible leftish or at least Keynsian - policies into practice. Plan E strikes me as so sensible...why not subsidise local people and businesses to WORK for their communities rather than pay them benefits????
> Would that our Coalition bunch of t*****s could be so sensible.... (Have just watched Clegg on PMQs. Oh dear.)
> We've had so many improvements to our little village- avenues of palms, new road surfaces, pavements relaid, new sewage works and work on a a new infant school to be started soon. (Plus the Michelle O. facelift...)
> People also remember what a real right-wing regime was like.


We've done really well here out of Plan E too - the whole town has had a facelift, and it seems so much more sensible to pay out-of-work construction workers to do something useful rather than just sit around on the dole, even if it is only temporary.

However most of the money for it was borrowed rather than raised through taxes, which might prove ZP's downfall as he is now having to make all these cuts. I hope not, because although he has a lot of shortcomings he is basically principled and honest. And a return to the Partido Podrido doesn't bear thinking about.


----------



## Alcalaina

JBODEN said:


> ??? Did I mention EU Citizens?
> 
> The thread started with some stats which show that the UK has less immigrants than Spain (shock/horror). What was the reason for showing this? Was it a misconception that all UK Citizens from other countries are immigrants and thus they only represent 6.7% of the total population? The stats define immigrants as those who live/work in another Country but have not adopted citizenship of that Country.
> 
> A xenophibe doesn't differentiate between a UK Citizen from another Country and an immigrant. As far as he/she is concerned they are all foreigners.


Personally I don't give a **** where somebody was born or where they live now, as long as they conduct themselves with dignity and respect other people's rights. If I ruled the world I would remove all borders and boundaries and there would be no such thing as immigration or emigration - just migration! To quote John Lennon:

Imagine there's no countries 
It isn't hard to do 
Nothing to kill or die for 
And no religion too 

(yeah I know it's corny but I like it!) :flypig:


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> Personally I don't give a **** where somebody was born or where they live now, as long as they conduct themselves with dignity and respect other people's rights. If I ruled the world I would remove all borders and boundaries and there would be no such thing as immigration or emigration - just migration! To quote John Lennon:
> 
> Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too
> 
> (yeah I know it's corny but I like it!) :flypig:



Yes, I too couldn't give a toss about people's ethnic/national origins.
Not so sure about abolition of borders....while so many people are homeless and jobless and hungry it would be impractical. How could we sustain the huge extra numbers?
Surely it would be more sensible and practical to increase in quantity and application the aid we give to needy countries. Not only would it give hope and dignity to the world's poorest, it would also create a huge market and give a much-needed boost to the global economy.
Shame you quoted that uber-hypocrite John Lennon though....
he who wrote 'Imagine no possessions' yet rented a second apartment in the Dakota Building opposite Central Park NYC to store his wife's collection of fur coats, designer clothes and shoes and other expensive items..


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> .
> 
> However most of the money for it was borrowed rather than raised through taxes, which might prove ZP's downfall as he is now having to make all these cuts. I hope not, because although he has a lot of shortcomings he is basically principled and honest. And a return to the Partido Podrido doesn't bear thinking about.


I fear that the faceless one Rajoy will be Spain's next PM, unless both he and ZP resign as the PSOE is more popular than its leader.
Money borrowed has to be repaid via taxation, though. Just as mortgages and other loans by individuals are repaid through money accumulated by work...for most people, anyway.


----------



## xabiaxica

JBODEN said:


> It may be!
> The stats that were presented show the % immigrants in particular Countries. By immigrants they mean non-British citizens.
> Thus they don't take into account all the Asians, Africans, Europeans etc who have come to the UK and received citizenship.


the article actually says foreign* born
*

so any who have received citizenship are still counted as immigrants for the purpose of these stats


----------



## gerrit

Alcalaina said:


> Personally I don't give a **** where somebody was born or where they live now, as long as they conduct themselves with dignity and respect other people's rights. If I ruled the world I would remove all borders and boundaries and there would be no such thing as immigration or emigration - just migration! To quote John Lennon:
> 
> Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too
> 
> (yeah I know it's corny but I like it!) :flypig:


Borders are needed purely for practical reasons, it's hard enough to govern a medium-size country, let alone governing a whole continent or more. But the borders should be open. Let anyone live where they want. The world's nobody's private territory but it should be everybody's territory full stop.


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> Shame you quoted that uber-hypocrite John Lennon though....
> he who wrote 'Imagine no possessions' yet rented a second apartment in the Dakota Building opposite Central Park NYC to store his wife's collection of fur coats, designer clothes and shoes and other expensive items..


Sure - but I didn´t quote that bit!!


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> I fear that the faceless one Rajoy will be Spain's next PM, unless both he and ZP resign as the PSOE is more popular than its leader.
> Money borrowed has to be repaid via taxation, though. Just as mortgages and other loans by individuals are repaid through money accumulated by work...for most people, anyway.


It SHOULD be repaid through taxation - tripling the tax on cigarettes would be a start! Not through 5% cuts in teachers´salaries and freezing pensions, which is what is actually happening.


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> It SHOULD be repaid through taxation - tripling the tax on cigarettes would be a start! Not through 5% cuts in teachers´salaries and freezing pensions, which is what is actually happening.


It never makes sense to cut back on demand during an economic downturn as Cleggaron will find out.
Any Government that triples the tax on tobacco would be out on its ear.....
The public sector in most European countries is bloated - takes up far too high a proportion of the economy - and to some extent inefficient so carefully considered cuts will have to be made. Cutting pensions and wages will not help as recovery in Spain as in the UK will only occur when the private sector picks up and spending power is needed for that.The key to it all is getting people into work and the Government will need to pump-prime.
When I compared the way the school I worked in was run with the way we ran our business......the public sector isn't a business and shouldn't be run for profit but it should be business-like in terms of efficiency and cutting down waste.
The lax attitude to resources and the number of 'sickies' was quite shocking. If I so much as took a box of paper clips from our business office block for personal use I got an earbashing from my partner.
Yet teachers took valuable equipment and resources, lost or damaged it, there was no up-to-date inventory of resources., books, sports equipment...
When I was in charge I tried to change that and put tracking systems in place but it was like King Cnut faced with the tide.
We should have first-class public services staffed by conscientious professionals but in my experience there's too much waste and lack of accountability.
I bet it's the same in Spain.
I actually believe that all important public services including utilities should be in public ownership but I don't think delivery should be left in the hands of the state or local authorities. I think that these services should be franchised out not to the lowest bidder but to any private company who has to deliver to the highest contractual standards. Responsibility for these franchises should be in the hands of the relevant Ministers who should be answerable to Parliament.
Failure to deliver will incur penalties and loss of contract. Contractors should supply bonds as a guarantee of service delivery. Profits should habve a ceiling and a proportion ploughed back into the enterprise. Shares could be sold to the public on a non-transferrable basis.
I also think banks shoul be nationalised - they were for a period in the USA and France and Norway took banks into public ownership - but again run by private companies.
This kind of franchising is nothing unusual in some European countries, I believe.
Committees can't run businesses and nationalised industries aren't efficient. Productivity in the coal industry actually fell after nationalisation.
But business should have incentives to efficiency too and a curb on excessive profits.
All that might sound airy-fairy but the system we're used to hasn't delivered and we badly need to think 'outside the box' as management-speak has it!


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> What Europeans in the UK in large numbers aren't either EU or EEA citizens
> Serbs, Bosnians and Croats are now being sent home as their countries are considered strife free.
> There weren't that many of them anyway..


... and Russians, Ukrainians, Turks, Gnomes .... 
But seriously, what was the point of the initial post? 
Was it to convince us that there are less 'immigrants' in the UK than in Spain? If so, we need the author's definition of 'immigrant'.
... or was it to highlight something else.


----------



## Pesky Wesky

JBODEN said:


> ... and Russians, Ukrainians, Turks, Gnomes ....
> But seriously, what was the point of the initial post?
> Was it to convince us that there are less 'immigrants' in the UK than in Spain? If so, we need the author's definition of 'immigrant'.
> ... or was it to highlight something else.


Point?? 
The point was to post information that was pertinent to us as we are immigrants. Some people have wanted to comment on the content.

Normal goings on for a forum.

Or not????


----------



## JBODEN

Alcalaina said:


> If I ruled the world I would remove all borders and boundaries and there would be no such thing as immigration or emigration - just migration!


 Generally the conqueror incorporates conquered lands into his own, therefore by definition a Ruler of the World (how else would you become RoW unless by conquest (and, since you conquered the lands the last thing you are going to be is benevolent!) ) wouldn't really need borders or boundaries and so it follows, logically there wouldn't be any immigration or emigration.
Unfortunately we humans are tribal (and we have our own cultures and languages) so eliminating borders would probably lead to friction (example, Basques).


----------



## Pesky Wesky

JBODEN said:


> Unfortunately we humans are tribal (and we have our own cultures and languages) so eliminating borders would probably lead to friction (example, Basques).


example, Basques
Wrong...
example ETA - not all Basques are members of ETA. Not all Basques have problems with borders.


----------



## JBODEN

Pesky Wesky said:


> Point??
> The point was to post information that was pertinent to us as we are immigrants. Some people have wanted to comment on the content.
> 
> Normal goings on for a forum.
> 
> Or not????


Xabiachica wrote ''... over 12% of the population in Spain is immigrants, just under 7% of the population in the UK is immigrants *worth noting all those who want to leave the UK because there are so many immigrants there*!!...''

Sorry PW my comments should have referred to Xabiachica's post. I hope she doesn't believe that 93% of the UK population are WASPs.


----------



## JBODEN

Pesky Wesky said:


> example, Basques
> Wrong...
> example ETA - not all Basques are members of ETA. Not all Basques have problems with borders.


OK! point taken
(_blam & darst, I'll try and think up some other examples_ )


----------



## xabiaxica

JBODEN said:


> Xabiachica wrote ''... over 12% of the population in Spain is immigrants, just under 7% of the population in the UK is immigrants *worth noting all those who want to leave the UK because there are so many immigrants there*!!...''
> 
> Sorry PW my comments should have referred to Xabiachica's post. I hope she doesn't believe that 93% of the UK population are WASPs.


no

I'm referring to all the people who come on various forums who give one reason that they want to leave the UK is that there are too many immigrants living there!!


there are more % wise here in Spain & they'll be one of them!


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> The public sector in most European countries is bloated - takes up far too high a proportion of the economy - and to some extent inefficient so carefully considered cuts will have to be made.
> TOTAL AGREEMENT!
> 
> I actually believe that all important public services including utilities should be in public ownership ...
> I also think banks shoul be nationalised ...
> SEEMS TO CONTRADICT THE EARLIER STATEMENT. NATIONALIZATION WOULD SURELY LEAD TO MORE QUANGOS.


...


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> It never makes sense to cut back on demand during an economic downturn as Cleggaron will find out.
> Any Government that triples the tax on tobacco would be out on its ear.....
> The public sector in most European countries is bloated - takes up far too high a proportion of the economy - and to some extent inefficient so carefully considered cuts will have to be made. Cutting pensions and wages will not help as recovery in Spain as in the UK will only occur when the private sector picks up and spending power is needed for that.The key to it all is getting people into work and the Government will need to pump-prime.
> When I compared the way the school I worked in was run with the way we ran our business......the public sector isn't a business and shouldn't be run for profit but it should be business-like in terms of efficiency and cutting down waste.
> The lax attitude to resources and the number of 'sickies' was quite shocking. If I so much as took a box of paper clips from our business office block for personal use I got an earbashing from my partner.
> Yet teachers took valuable equipment and resources, lost or damaged it, there was no up-to-date inventory of resources., books, sports equipment...
> When I was in charge I tried to change that and put tracking systems in place but it was like King Cnut faced with the tide.
> We should have first-class public services staffed by conscientious professionals but in my experience there's too much waste and lack of accountability.
> I bet it's the same in Spain.
> I actually believe that all important public services including utilities should be in public ownership but I don't think delivery should be left in the hands of the state or local authorities. I think that these services should be franchised out not to the lowest bidder but to any private company who has to deliver to the highest contractual standards. Responsibility for these franchises should be in the hands of the relevant Ministers who should be answerable to Parliament.
> Failure to deliver will incur penalties and loss of contract. Contractors should supply bonds as a guarantee of service delivery. Profits should habve a ceiling and a proportion ploughed back into the enterprise. Shares could be sold to the public on a non-transferrable basis.
> I also think banks shoul be nationalised - they were for a period in the USA and France and Norway took banks into public ownership - but again run by private companies.
> This kind of franchising is nothing unusual in some European countries, I believe.
> Committees can't run businesses and nationalised industries aren't efficient. Productivity in the coal industry actually fell after nationalisation.
> But business should have incentives to efficiency too and a curb on excessive profits.
> All that might sound airy-fairy but the system we're used to hasn't delivered and we badly need to think 'outside the box' as management-speak has it!


:clap2: Please could you stand at the next election - I'll vote for you!

I was just thinking if PSOE are going to lose next time anyway, they could zap up the tobacco tax in the meantime.


----------



## JBODEN

xabiachica said:


> no
> 
> I'm referring to all the people who come on various forums who give one reason that they want to leave the UK is that there are too many immigrants living there!!


... but are they referring just to the 7% shown in the stats or to the sum total of immigrants (from ex-commonwealth Countries??) the majority of whom now have Citizenship?
Surprisingly the 2001 census showed that 8% of the population was non-white. Unfortunately it didn't give a breakdown of the whites by ethnic origin.


----------



## xabiaxica

JBODEN said:


> ... but are they referring just to the 7% shown in the stats or to the sum total of immigrants (from ex-commonwealth Countries??) the majority of whom now have Citizenship?
> Surprisingly the 2001 census showed that 8% of the population was non-white. Unfortunately it didn't give a breakdown of the whites by ethnic origin.


who cares what colour the skin is?\

the definition of 'immigrant' for the purpose of that study was 'not born in that country'


----------



## JBODEN

Alcalaina said:


> If I ruled the world







Just for u!


----------



## Alcalaina

JBODEN said:


> Generally the conqueror incorporates conquered lands into his own, therefore by definition a Ruler of the World (how else would you become RoW unless by conquest (and, since you conquered the lands the last thing you are going to be is benevolent!) ) wouldn't really need borders or boundaries and so it follows, logically there wouldn't be any immigration or emigration.
> Unfortunately we humans are tribal (and we have our own cultures and languages) so eliminating borders would probably lead to friction (example, Basques).


I will become ruler of the world by a mixture of mass hypnosis and my irresistible charm. I will be a benevolent dictator. 

Money will be abolished. Everybody on the planet will work 10 hours a week to provide food, shelter and clothing for the population. The rest of the time will be for leisure and creativity, and learning other tribes' languages and customs. 

Human tribes can wander wherever they like on the borderless planet. My team of genetic scientists will eliminate selfishness and aggressive behaviour from the human genome, via a painless injection. 

Pharmaceutical companies will be merged into one giant collaborative venture and the researchers will work together and quickly put and end to disease. 

The downside is that in order to control the population in a world free of famine and disease, no couple will be able to have more than two children, and we will all be gently put to sleep at the age of 70. Except me of course, but you have to have some perks if you are ruling the world!


----------



## Alcalaina

JBODEN said:


> Just for u!


Cheesy!!! Thanks so much.


----------



## JBODEN

Alcalaina said:


> I will be a benevolent dictator.


They all start like that, then somebody comes along and overthrows then.


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> It never makes sense to cut back on demand during an economic downturn as Cleggaron will find out.
> Any Government that triples the tax on tobacco would be out on its ear.....
> The public sector in most European countries is bloated - takes up far too high a proportion of the economy - and to some extent inefficient so carefully considered cuts will have to be made. Cutting pensions and wages will not help as recovery in Spain as in the UK will only occur when the private sector picks up and spending power is needed for that.The key to it all is getting people into work and the Government will need to pump-prime.


Good article just published in QorreO about all this: Political turmoil threatens to rock Spain?s recovery | QorreO


----------



## mrypg9

I actually believe that all important public services including utilities should be in public ownership ... 
I also think banks shoul be nationalised ...
SEEMS TO CONTRADICT THE EARLIER STATEMENT. NATIONALIZATION WOULD SURELY LEAD TO MORE QUANGOS.


Jerzy...if you read through the rest of my admittedly long and tedious post you will see that would not be the case in my plan.


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> :clap2: Please could you stand at the next election - I'll vote for you!
> 
> .


Thanks.....but I would have other quite authoritarian things in my manifesto that you possibly wouldn't like!
e.g.whenever a young person under the age of 16 commits a crime/anti-social act the parents should automatically be interviewed and have to prove that the child's behaviour wasn't a result of their neglectful upbringing. Unless there are mitigating circumstances parents should be legally responsible for their child's actions.
Whenever I read about some 13-year-old thug committing some atrocity my first reaction is to ask'And where were the parents?'

Besides, I have already fought two general elections in unwinnable seats and one Euro-election that for a couple of days I thought I'd won!!! Panic set in...
That year the Greens unexpectedly took a chunk of the Labour vote in my constituency(thankfully).
I am temperamentally incapable of following any Party Whip, it seems.
Shame it took me so long to realise it.
But for every person the time comes when you say 'Up with this I will not put...enough already'.
That came to me over local government reform, of all things...


----------



## gerrit

mrypg9 said:


> I actually believe that all important public services including utilities should be in public ownership ...
> I also think banks shoul be nationalised ...
> SEEMS TO CONTRADICT THE EARLIER STATEMENT. NATIONALIZATION WOULD SURELY LEAD TO MORE QUANGOS.
> 
> 
> Jerzy...if you read through the rest of my admittedly long and tedious post you will see that would not be the case in my plan.


The more the state runs the economy, the better in my opinion. Privatisation and capitalism are not the solution, even when people like to believe that. Just look at all the multinationals who move away abroad to low cost countries , companies going bankrupt , ... The state is the most secure employer you can have. Public ownership for banks, public services, ... sure, but as far as I'm concerned the state can go a bit further and for example give licenses to people to run a specific business which however remains under government surveillance.


----------



## mrypg9

gerrit said:


> The more the state runs the economy, the better in my opinion. Privatisation and capitalism are not the solution, even when people like to believe that. Just look at all the multinationals who move away abroad to low cost countries , companies going bankrupt , ... The state is the most secure employer you can have. Public ownership for banks, public services, ... sure, but as far as I'm concerned the state can go a bit further and for example give licenses to people to run a specific business which however remains under government surveillance.


The problem is that centrally planned (state controlled) economies don't work. 
After forty years of socialism Czechoslovakia as it was was in a worse state in 1989 than it was in 1939! The state economies of Poland (especially disastrously incompetently run), the Former German Democratic Republic, Hungary etc. were all run into the ground.
As for Romania and Albania......
Present-day Cuba is in a mess economically and very authoritarian socially...although admittedly the U.S.blockade hasn't helped.
Modern economies are too complex and subject to rapid change to be run by Committees.
As for the state being the most secure employer....when the state is your boss, your landlord, your trade union....that's a very dangerous situation.
And don't forget.....all money to run public services comes ultimately from taxation of individuals and businesses. If there is no profitability, public services will be rundown and inadequate. Wages will be low. Consumer choice will be minimal. That's what happened in the former socialist economies - incredibly wretched public services. 
And let it never be forgotten....the availability to most people of consumer goods, a choice of good quality clothing, a range of quality foods....all these things (largely non-existent in socialist countries) contribute to a happy society just as much as democratic freedoms.
The washing machine and vacuum cleaner emancipated women as much as the right to vote.
(That went down like a lead balloon when I said it at a TUC meeting I attended in July)
To me it's all a question of balance...


----------



## gerrit

I'm mainly socialist when it comes to economical issues. Check your PM box, that way I won't bother any other forum member with it.  I'm not supporting the idea of the state being your landlord, trade union etc, but I do support state-run economy. Capitalism means the employer can just move away, fold, reform whenever they want. That's just not right in my opinion. The large gaps in salary between different people and the gaps in pricing of goods should be reduced to smaller gaps to avoid different classes in society. Sadly enough the socialist system as it was supposed to be practised was never practiced as it should be due to several reasons amongst them abuse of power by the dictator in charge. Especially in the former East Bloc this was problematic, as you give Poland as a good example. I do strongly believe it can work if applied correctly. And we've all seen the capitalism bubble is bursting as it is. I do believe in the socialist system, it just has to be reformed a bit to fit in modern day societies, however take the core and then amend where necessary and I do believe it can work. It wouldn't be a democracy no, but I'm not exactly a fan of that neither.


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> Thanks.....but I would have other quite authoritarian things in my manifesto that you possibly wouldn't like!
> e.g.whenever a young person under the age of 16 commits a crime/anti-social act the parents should automatically be interviewed and have to prove that the child's behaviour wasn't a result of their neglectful upbringing. Unless there are mitigating circumstances parents should be legally responsible for their child's actions.
> Whenever I read about some 13-year-old thug committing some atrocity my first reaction is to ask'And where were the parents?'
> 
> Besides, I have already fought two general elections in unwinnable seats and one Euro-election that for a couple of days I thought I'd won!!! Panic set in...
> That year the Greens unexpectedly took a chunk of the Labour vote in my constituency(thankfully).
> I am temperamentally incapable of following any Party Whip, it seems.
> Shame it took me so long to realise it.
> But for every person the time comes when you say 'Up with this I will not put...enough already'.
> That came to me over local government reform, of all things...


I'm completely with you on the legal responsibility of parents. I don't think that's overly authoritarian. But what if they are too dim or pathetic to control their little thugs? (Whoops, we are going off topic again ...)


----------



## mrypg9

gerrit said:


> I'm mainly socialist when it comes to economical issues. Check your PM box, that way I won't bother any other forum member with it.  I'm not supporting the idea of the state being your landlord, trade union etc, but I do support state-run economy. Capitalism means the employer can just move away, fold, reform whenever they want. That's just not right in my opinion. The large gaps in salary between different people and the gaps in pricing of goods should be reduced to smaller gaps to avoid different classes in society. Sadly enough the socialist system as it was supposed to be practised was never practiced as it should be due to several reasons amongst them abuse of power by the dictator in charge. Especially in the former East Bloc this was problematic, as you give Poland as a good example. I do strongly believe it can work if applied correctly. And we've all seen the capitalism bubble is bursting as it is. I do believe in the socialist system, it just has to be reformed a bit to fit in modern day societies, however take the core and then amend where necessary and I do believe it can work. It wouldn't be a democracy no, but I'm not exactly a fan of that neither.


But people always defend their idea of socialism by saying that socialism was never really practised as it should have been dictators take over etc.etc. To me that's just one more proof of its impracticality. And in what way wasn't it applied 'correctly'? Those states had a command economy just as in the Marxism/Leninism textbook.
You could equally apply that argument to capitalism or any philosophy of government...'.ah but it hasn't worked because it wasn't done properly'.
Capitalism has its flaws - of course it does, it's an activity carried out by imperfect humans. But it also has on balance produced the greatest benefit to mankind with the least harm to individuals and the planet they inhabit. It's too often forgotten that Communism ravaged the environments of Eastern Europe and China.
To me, neo-conservatism and communism/socialism are two sides of the same coin: both secular religions based on dogma.
As I said, balance is needed.
Have read your pm, am working on it


----------



## Alcalaina

gerrit said:


> Sadly enough the socialist system as it was supposed to be practised was never practiced as it should be due to several reasons amongst them abuse of power by the dictator in charge.


Absolutely - if Trotsky had taken over from Lenin instead of Stalin, the world would be an entirely different place!


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> Absolutely - if Trotsky had taken over from Lenin instead of Stalin, the world would be an entirely different place!


Yes...I agree. The Soviet Union would have collapsed fifty years earlier.
Trotsky was an incompetent economist and a cruel repressive - albeit successful -military commander. His theory of 'permanent revolution' was impractical and highly undesirable.
The Soviet Union was not only a failed experiment economically it was a ruthless dictatorship where dissent of any kind was brutally suppressed.
Whether led by Trotsky, Lenin ,Stalin or anyone of their ilk it would have been no different. Suppression of dissent and elimination of class or race 'traitors' is inherent in communist and fascist ideologies and societies. 
Stalin was responsible for the deaths and misery of more people than even Hitler.
He was also anti-Semitic and racist (back on topic)


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> I'm completely with you on the legal responsibility of parents. I don't think that's overly authoritarian. But what if they are too dim or pathetic to control their little thugs? (Whoops, we are going off topic again ...)


Carrot and stick. The dimmest most apathetic (otherwise known as anti-social) parent would take responsibility if they were hit in their pocket.
I don't like the idea of social control per se but there are worse evils and the growth of an anti-social underclass totally oblivious to the concept of society is one of them, imo.


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> The problem is that centrally planned (state controlled) economies don't work. ... As for the state being the most secure employer....when the state is your boss, your landlord, your trade union....


In addition, in the Eatern Bloc centrally planned economies the worker realised that irrespective of whether they worked or not they would still be paid. Guess how high productivity was.


----------



## JBODEN

Alcalaina said:


> I'm completely with you on the legal responsibility of parents. I don't think that's overly authoritarian. But what if they are too dim or pathetic to control their little thugs? (Whoops, we are going off topic again ...)


Actually, that was the rule in the Communist Bloc. The parents were responsible for any damage/antisocial behaviour of their offspring (I believe, up to the age of 18) and were made to pay for any damage caused + fined.
Parents obviously had to meet out corporal punishment if their offspring didn't behave themselves.


----------



## gerrit

mrypg9 said:


> But people always defend their idea of socialism by saying that socialism was never really practised as it should have been dictators take over etc.etc. To me that's just one more proof of its impracticality. And in what way wasn't it applied 'correctly'? Those states had a command economy just as in the Marxism/Leninism textbook.
> You could equally apply that argument to capitalism or any philosophy of government...'.ah but it hasn't worked because it wasn't done properly'.
> Capitalism has its flaws - of course it does, it's an activity carried out by imperfect humans. But it also has on balance produced the greatest benefit to mankind with the least harm to individuals and the planet they inhabit. It's too often forgotten that Communism ravaged the environments of Eastern Europe and China.
> To me, neo-conservatism and communism/socialism are two sides of the same coin: both secular religions based on dogma.
> As I said, balance is needed.
> Have read your pm, am working on it


Fact is that socialist states have never existed the way it should have been. The human rights violations etc were products of the leaders in charge, not of the ideology itself. Thus it wasn't a classless society anymore, there was an elite above the working class and that's exactly what socialism should solve: that there is a gap between wealthy and less wealthy people.

I will happily admit that Marxism and Leninism won't work. Definitely not. But I do believe a socialist state can work. The works of Marx and Lenin were written in the context of their timeframe, and would need serious adaptions to the present day. Then I do believe it can work, for sure. 

That said, I don't consider myself a communist but a staunch socialist. And there is still quite a difference between those two. What I would like to see achieved is a maximum gap between salaries, products having a maximum price tag to create a competitive market where quality and not the price counts, and a system where the difference between classes is minimal so that there is no serious gap between the rich elite and the poorer working class. Things like free education and free healthcare should be everyone's basic right, not a privilege for those who can afford it. 

But as said, I'm a socialist, not a strict communist. I'd say communism would need adaptions before it can work. But let's not deny that capitalism is also a bubble ready to burst. Big multinationals have the power in society, sometimes up to a level that politicians are only executing whatever benefits the big corporations. These corporations meanwhile won't hesitate to move their businesses to countries where they shamelessly underpay their staff to keep profit as high as possible, thereby creating a huge gap between the rich elite and the poor labour class. Add to that the attitude within those big corporations. I wouldn't like to be in the board of any of those, seeing the people I'd be surrounded with.

I don't say everyone should earn exactly the same ; I say the gap should be kept at an acceptable level. I don't say the state should control all jobs, labour unions, posession of lands and housing, ... But a more tight regulation is necessary, in addition with nationalising some industries. That way there may still be classes within society, but without the gap being huge. 

In the end my ideal is a society where people are diverse and different, but treated equally. No system can ever achieve that 100% but socialism will come closer than capitalism. (again note distinction between communism and socialism)

Two things I'm more radical in: abolition of democratic elections as the chaos of parties having to form a coalition while the differences in ideology are too big make sure it'll never work, and restrictions on freedom of speech as in the current form it's abused much more than is acceptable.

One more thing that makes socialism the right direction in my opinion is the way human rights are looked at. Right wing politics often have a more conservative side and that reflects in all layers of society. Harsh punishments against criminals, old-fashioned values being reinstated, ... Very often right-wing politics have a connection with nationalist tendencies, and that usually is a recipe for disaster.

Last but not least: like you said yourself, Cuba ... The embargo is rimply ridiculous. I won't deny he did some bad things as well, but I do think Fidel Castro also has realised some very good things. Without the embargo, who knows what Cuba could have become? The US embargo against them is very harsh and in my opinion onjustified. Despite the embargo, Cuba has had free healthcare, free education, etc for ages while in the US it took until Obama got in office that things may evolve in this direction as well. Cuba coped relatively well with that embargo, and I'm quite positive it could have been a very good place if that insane embargo wasn't there.




mrypg9, we need to get some political debate society going, be it online or offline (good excuse to get some forum get-togethers, with rotating between the cities of those interested) ; because clearly we got a few people who have very well thought-off ideas but it is becoming a bit of a dialogue of a 4 or 5 people. There's gotta be a way to get those interested together for some real debating?


----------



## mrypg9

The aim of socialism is to create a 'perfect' society - the same aim as fascism, or any secular religion. Anyone standing in the way of this ideal must be eliminated. They are enemies of 'progress', of the 'racial community', of 'the people'.
There is not one ideology-based society in the history of the modern world which has not enforced its ideology without brutality and repression of dissidents, from the French Revolution on.
It's no use saying..'Ah but it should be different' when history tells us it won't be.
How can it be when human beinggs are flawed?
There is no difference between communism and socialism as regards economic organisation. Both believe in public ownership of the mreans of production and distribution.
The kind of society you would like to see can be achieved in a social democracy with a mixed economy. And democratic elections are flawed but without them where is the right to get rid of unpopular governments?
We already have restrictions on freedom of speech and rightly so.
I am a realist and believe what Marx said: 'You have to start from where you are, not where you would like to be'.
As I see it,**** sapiens is innately flawed and is incapable of producing a 'perfect' society.
The only good thing about religion is that it recognises human fallibility.

BTW, I am considering a public burning of the Bible, the Torah and the Koran in our village square on the grounds that they are all harmful works of fiction and are particularly oppressive to women.
Only me, I don't have a congregation or even a church.
Just me and my dog.


----------



## gerrit

But when one looks back on history and claims things can never change (= such as a system finally being applied correctly) , then idealism is dead basically. I prefer to keep a bit of idealism intact, without ignoring the harsh reality.

I do see a big difference in communism and socialism: both indeed have a state owned economy but communism goes further in also severely restricting personal freedoms such as artistic works, travel liberties, owning an apartment (the Czechoslowakian system where ownership of flats was allowed up to a specific size wasn't that bad IMO) ... Socialism indeed lets the state in control of economy but leaves more liberties to people on non-economical subjects.

A mixed economy is fine but state surveillance should be existing to avoid it evolving in a capitalist system. There should be a maximum difference in salaries, otherwise the classless society will evolve into a society with large distinction between rich and poor. A mixed economy would be great if it avoids that those in charge of privatised companies become the new ruling class ; so some state surveillance to make sure gaps in salaries are not too big would be needed, otherwise I'm afraid we're back in the capitalist swamp. I'd opt for the socialist version with state-controlled economy that can license people to run companies on their behalf, thereby you create a mixed economy de facto but with the state still being legally owning it and being able to come in between when those licensed to lead the companies would abuse their power or status.

As for social democracy. I'd love to say it's an ideal, but when I look around and see that people without the least interest in politics, people who only believe the propaganda from the media and TV screen and don't think any further, people with racist agenda, ... have voting rights and when I see that right-wing nationalist parties make maximum advantage of that ... then I can only say that ideally the people have the power but that maybe they should first learn how to deal with power. Until we're that far, then I can see more flaws than positives in a democratic system. A social democracy would be the utopic thing to strive for, but when people vote for xenophobic parties who survive by naive voters that easily fall for populist agenda, then maybe we're simply not ready for a democracy in its current format.


----------



## mrypg9

gerrit said:


> But when one looks back on history and claims things can never change (= such as a system finally being applied correctly) , then idealism is dead basically. I prefer to keep a bit of idealism intact, without ignoring the harsh reality.
> 
> I do see a big difference in communism and socialism: both indeed have a state owned economy but communism goes further in also severely restricting personal freedoms such as artistic works, travel liberties, owning an apartment (the Czechoslowakian system where ownership of flats was allowed up to a specific size wasn't that bad IMO) ... Socialism indeed lets the state in control of economy but leaves more liberties to people on non-economical subjects.
> 
> A mixed economy is fine but state surveillance should be existing to avoid it evolving in a capitalist system. There should be a maximum difference in salaries, otherwise the classless society will evolve into a society with large distinction between rich and poor. A mixed economy would be great if it avoids that those in charge of privatised companies become the new ruling class ; so some state surveillance to make sure gaps in salaries are not too big would be needed, otherwise I'm afraid we're back in the capitalist swamp. I'd opt for the socialist version with state-controlled economy that can license people to run companies on their behalf, thereby you create a mixed economy de facto but with the state still being legally owning it and being able to come in between when those licensed to lead the companies would abuse their power or status.
> 
> As for social democracy. I'd love to say it's an ideal, but when I look around and see that people without the least interest in politics, people who only believe the propaganda from the media and TV screen and don't think any further, people with racist agenda, ... have voting rights and when I see that right-wing nationalist parties make maximum advantage of that ... then I can only say that ideally the people have the power but that maybe they should first learn how to deal with power. Until we're that far, then I can see more flaws than positives in a democratic system. A social democracy would be the utopic thing to strive for, but when people vote for xenophobic parties who survive by naive voters that easily fall for populist agenda, then maybe we're simply not ready for a democracy in its current format.


So....if you get rid of elections because people vote the 'wrong' way......who is to decide what is the 'right' way?
The problem with intolerance is that it can be used against you.
And you have unintentionally validated my point: repression of anyone who disagrees with you is an inevitable part of socialism/communism/any ideology-based state. At least you only want to deprive them of voting rights, not execute them or send them to a Gulag....
The right not to be interested in politics is a right too.
And I am not an idealist. I do not believe you can impose a 'system' on something as erratic, unpredictable and often absurd as human nature in all its infinite varieties.
We should deal with our own little space before engaging in grand and futile designs to perfect the human race. We have a good chance of making a difference small-scale.


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> Yes...I agree. The Soviet Union would have collapsed fifty years earlier.
> Trotsky was an incompetent economist and a cruel repressive - albeit successful -military commander. His theory of 'permanent revolution' was impractical and highly undesirable.
> The Soviet Union was not only a failed experiment economically it was a ruthless dictatorship where dissent of any kind was brutally suppressed.
> Whether led by Trotsky, Lenin ,Stalin or anyone of their ilk it would have been no different. Suppression of dissent and elimination of class or race 'traitors' is inherent in communist and fascist ideologies and societies.
> Stalin was responsible for the deaths and misery of more people than even Hitler.
> He was also anti-Semitic and racist (back on topic)


I'm sorry but you can´t bracket Stalin and Trotsky in the same "ilk". Why do you think Stalin had him discredited and then assassinated? Trotsky was absolutely appalled by Stalin's actions and spent half his life opposing him. 

The albeit tenuous link to this thread is (a) Trotsky founded the Fourth International and (b) he emigrated to Mexico! (back on topic)


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> BTW, I am considering a public burning of the Bible, the Torah and the Koran in our village square on the grounds that they are all harmful works of fiction and are particularly oppressive to women.
> Only me, I don't have a congregation or even a church.
> Just me and my dog.


:clap2: Brilliant!


----------



## jojo

Alcalaina said:


> :clap2: Brilliant!


Yep, I second/third that!!!

Jo xxx


----------



## JBODEN

gerrit said:


> The large gaps in salary between different people and the gaps in pricing of goods should be reduced to smaller gaps to avoid different classes in society.


Universal socialism! 
If you try to reduce the large gaps in salaries (generally by reducing the obscenely high salaries) then you will have to do it on a worldwide basis otherwise the top earners will move abroad.


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> I'm sorry but you can´t bracket Stalin and Trotsky in the same "ilk". Why do you think Stalin had him discredited and then assassinated? Trotsky was absolutely appalled by Stalin's actions and spent half his life opposing him.
> 
> The albeit tenuous link to this thread is (a) Trotsky founded the Fourth International and (b) he emigrated to Mexico! (back on topic)



Good thinking!!

Stalin got rid of anyone who opposed him - Bukharin, even his secretary's wife (he is alleged to have told him not to be upset as he would get him a replacement....) So that doesn't make Trotsky virtuous. He would have been every bit as much the oppressive tyrant as Stalin was.
Just off to get the holy books, the matches and the can of lighter fuel....
and the dog.


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> Just off to get the holy books, the matches and the can of lighter fuel....
> and the dog.


Be carefull with dogs. When you light them they go 'woof'!


----------



## gerrit

mrypg9 said:


> So....if you get rid of elections because people vote the 'wrong' way......who is to decide what is the 'right' way?
> The problem with intolerance is that it can be used against you.
> And you have unintentionally validated my point: repression of anyone who disagrees with you is an inevitable part of socialism/communism/any ideology-based state. At least you only want to deprive them of voting rights, not execute them or send them to a Gulag....
> The right not to be interested in politics is a right too.
> And I am not an idealist. I do not believe you can impose a 'system' on something as erratic, unpredictable and often absurd as human nature in all its infinite varieties.
> We should deal with our own little space before engaging in grand and futile designs to perfect the human race. We have a good chance of making a difference small-scale.


I am in no position to tell others my way of thinking is the right way. I'm a socialist, some of my best friends are right-wingers. We had numerous debates but none of us has changed his voting pattern. So who is right? Is there a "right" or only different points of view where "right" depends on personal points of view?


I would not try to enforce my socialist system, but rather just try to invite the idealists who believe in it to form our own socialist society. Those who don't like it I'd just let move abroad without any attempt to stop them. I don't think socialism necessarily means you need to violently oppress all other ways of thinking. Sure, you have to ban capitalism from the country, but this can be done not only by arresting those who form opposition and send them to labour camps (this is purely criminal and thus no opion) or you can enforce it in a non-violent way by offering the option: you don't like it here, then you're free to go and we won't stop you by any means. I may sound like a bit naive but I do believe a socialist system can work as long as it's idealists who make it work. Those who don't believe in this ideal are free to leave.


The truth however demands to tell the other side of the coin as well: socialism so far never worked (I'll leave it alone weither it's because of not being practised well or not - that's a different discussion) but the capitalist bubble is bursting as well. Look at the US: the gap between the rich and the poor is huge, the poor layer of the population lives in poverty compared to the third world without access to good healthcare and often resorting to criminality sooner or later. Healthcare, education, etc - which I believes should be rights rather than privileges - are accessible mainly for that rich elite. That can never be the purpose of a system.
Look at Europe: businesses move away to low cost countries in large numbers, leaving a lot of EU countries with an unemployment rate they never had to deal with before. We've jumped on the capitalist bandwagon and now pay the price for it, with a welfare network saving some of the unlucky ones from poverty (and that network is partially thanks to the socialist parties!) but still the capitalist bubble has bursted here as well.

So I agree so far no country managed to enforce communism well. But the truth demands to also say that capitalism clearly doesn't work that well neither. So do we need to search for yet another system? The difference IMO is that capitalism has been tried and didn't solve the issues to the extent people thought it would, while socialism has not been practised the way it should have. So one system still has to be given an honest chance before judging it as non-functioning ...


----------



## jojo

gerrit said:


> I am in no position to tell others my way of thinking is the right way. I'm a socialist, some of my best friends are right-wingers. We had numerous debates but none of us has changed his voting pattern. So who is right? Is there a "right" or only different points of view where "right" depends on personal points of view?
> 
> 
> I would not try to enforce my socialist system, but rather just try to invite the idealists who believe in it to form our own socialist society. Those who don't like it I'd just let move abroad without any attempt to stop them. I don't think socialism necessarily means you need to violently oppress all other ways of thinking. Sure, you have to ban capitalism from the country, but this can be done not only by arresting those who form opposition and send them to labour camps (this is purely criminal and thus no opion) or you can enforce it in a non-violent way by offering the option: you don't like it here, then you're free to go and we won't stop you by any means. I may sound like a bit naive but I do believe a socialist system can work as long as it's idealists who make it work. Those who don't believe in this ideal are free to leave.
> 
> 
> The truth however demands to tell the other side of the coin as well: socialism so far never worked (I'll leave it alone weither it's because of not being practised well or not - that's a different discussion) but the capitalist bubble is bursting as well. Look at the US: the gap between the rich and the poor is huge, the poor layer of the population lives in poverty compared to the third world without access to good healthcare and often resorting to criminality sooner or later. Healthcare, education, etc - which I believes should be rights rather than privileges - are accessible mainly for that rich elite. That can never be the purpose of a system.
> Look at Europe: businesses move away to low cost countries in large numbers, leaving a lot of EU countries with an unemployment rate they never had to deal with before. We've jumped on the capitalist bandwagon and now pay the price for it, with a welfare network saving some of the unlucky ones from poverty (and that network is partially thanks to the socialist parties!) but still the capitalist bubble has bursted here as well.
> 
> So I agree so far no country managed to enforce communism well. But the truth demands to also say that capitalism clearly doesn't work that well neither. So do we need to search for yet another system? The difference IMO is that capitalism has been tried and didn't solve the issues to the extent people thought it would, while socialism has not been practised the way it should have. So one system still has to be given an honest chance before judging it as non-functioning ...


IMO, nowt will work until everyone can agree and can stop being greedy and that wont happen!!!

Jo xxx


----------



## gerrit

Sadly enough there's a lot of truth in that. 

Regardless of the tag or label, what we should try to achieve is an honest society where people are treated equally regardless of their backgrounds, where poor and rich don't exist but where the gap between incomes is too low to talk about social classes, and where everyone has the access to free education, free healthcare, good housing and an honest chance to make something out of their lives. I don't care how the system to achieve this would be named, but a situation as above would assure that every new child born will have an honest chance to make something out of his life, which is far from the case as it is in our capitalist west: the gap between the elite and the poor is simply too big for that. Even here in Europe we have people being homeless, people living of minimum budgets not enough to properly raise their children, people with long waiting queus in public healthcare while the rich can afford special clinics. All of this is just not right, it's not honest. People should all be born with equal rights and equal chances, this is what we should strive for -- regardless how you wish to name this system.


----------



## jojo

gerrit said:


> Sadly enough there's a lot of truth in that.
> 
> Regardless of the tag or label, what we should try to achieve is an honest society where people are treated equally regardless of their backgrounds, where poor and rich don't exist but where the gap between incomes is too low to talk about social classes, and where everyone has the access to free education, free healthcare, good housing and an honest chance to make something out of their lives. I don't care how the system to achieve this would be named, but a situation as above would assure that every new child born will have an honest chance to make something out of his life, which is far from the case as it is in our capitalist west: the gap between the elite and the poor is simply too big for that. Even here in Europe we have people being homeless, people living of minimum budgets not enough to properly raise their children, people with long waiting queus in public healthcare while the rich can afford special clinics. All of this is just not right, it's not honest. People should all be born with equal rights and equal chances, this is what we should strive for -- regardless how you wish to name this system.



As lovely as that sounds Gerrit, quite frankly, if you could earn a good salary by leaving school and being a street cleaner, I wonder how many people would bother spending years and lots of money going thru further education to get a job as a brain sugeon, doctor, pilot..... and all the risks that go with those jobs!!

What needs to be realised and I think in most cases it is (altho chips on shoulders are usually carried around) is that a streetsweeper, painter - so called menial job is something to be proud of. Unfortunately a lot of manual workers have a dislike of what they consider "educated" and highly paid professionals.

My dad was like that. He actually earnt a lot of money altho he was a lowly plasterer. He hated those who he considered "above" him (people who were in a profession, lawyers, accountants, doctors etc) - he called them toffs and was very much against me going to university for that reason. I was a girl, I should get married and have babies and not become a "toff" Eventho he sent me to private school - go figure???!!!

So, if you can get the lower classes to stop their dislike of anyone who they feel are "above" them and have pride in their work, and allow those who have studied, worked at college/uni to earn more to compensate for their greater responsibility and efforts, maybe socialism would stand a chance. 

Jo xxx


----------



## Alcalaina

jojo said:


> As lovely as that sounds Gerrit, quite frankly, if you could earn a good salary by leaving school and being a street cleaner, I wonder how many people would bother spending years and lots of money going thru further education to get a job as a brain sugeon, doctor, pilot..... and all the risks that go with those jobs!!
> 
> What needs to be realised and I think in most cases it is (altho chips on shoulders are usually carried around) is that a streetsweeper, painter - so called menial job is something to be proud of. Unfortunately a lot of manual workers have a dislike of what they consider "educated" and highly paid professionals.
> 
> My dad was like that. He actually earnt a lot of money altho he was a lowly plasterer. He hated those who he considered "above" him (people who were in a profession, lawyers, accountants, doctors etc) - he called them toffs and was very much against me going to university for that reason. I was a girl, I should get married and have babies and not become a "toff" Eventho he sent me to private school - go figure???!!!
> 
> So, if you can get the lower classes to stop their dislike of anyone who they feel are "above" them and have pride in their work, and allow those who have studied, worked at college/uni to earn more to compensate for their greater responsibility and efforts, maybe socialism would stand a chance.
> 
> Jo xxx


Sorry to hear that. Our parents can have an enormous influence on our life for good or bad. My dad was a plumber, though not very well off (being a good socialist he sometimes "forgot" to send the bill to old age pensioners after mending their burst pipes). He treated everybody as equals - be they "toffs" or working class. He was thrilled to bits when I got a place at university, the first person in our family to do so.

I really like the system they had in Cuba (maybe they still do, it's 15 years since I went there). Higher education was free to anybody who wanted it, but students had to spend part of the year doing menial work, in the fields or sweeping the streets. The "professional" jobs didn't pay much more than the "menial" ones; people did the years of training because they genuinely wanted to help the community. Even though there was always a shortage of medical supplies because of the US embargo, they had one of the best doctor/patient ratios and lowest infant mortality rates in the world. I know there are a lot of bad things going on there now, but it's a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater; IMO Cuba is the closest any country ever got to socialism in practice.


----------



## jojo

Alcalaina said:


> Sorry to hear that. Our parents can have an enormous influence on our life for good or bad. My dad was a plumber, though not very well off (being a good socialist he sometimes "forgot" to send the bill to old age pensioners after mending their burst pipes). He treated everybody as equals - be they "toffs" or working class. He was thrilled to bits when I got a place at university, the first person in our family to do so.
> 
> I really like the system they had in Cuba (maybe they still do, it's 15 years since I went there). Higher education was free to anybody who wanted it, but students had to spend part of the year doing menial work, in the fields or sweeping the streets. The "professional" jobs didn't pay much more than the "menial" ones; people did the years of training because they genuinely wanted to help the community. Even though there was always a shortage of medical supplies because of the US embargo, they had one of the best doctor/patient ratios and lowest infant mortality rates in the world. I know there are a lot of bad things going on there now, but it's a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater; IMO Cuba is the closest any country ever got to socialism in practice.


Thats another reason why socialism probably wouldnt work in the UK, there doesnt seem to be any pride in workmanship or indeed self pride anymore, its all about workers rights and money! Not many people have pride in their companies or their work anymore do they.

ooops are we going off topic here??? :focus::focus:

Jo xxx


----------



## Pesky Wesky

jojo said:


> Thats another reason why socialism probably wouldnt work in the UK, there doesnt seem to be any pride in workmanship or indeed self pride anymore, its all about workers rights and money! Not many people have pride in their companies or their work anymore do they.
> 
> ooops are we going off topic here??? :focus::focus:
> 
> Jo xxx


Well, I'm getting vey confused!
Just yesterday we were with some Spanish friends who have spent the last academic year living in Bristol. One of the many comparisons that were made was talking about workmen, and how in the UK they took much more pride in their work! They said that here they just want your money, and that's it. Probably it's more of less the same in both countries, wouldn't you say??
I didn't ask about the education, but will do next time I see them. They have two girls 11 and 14.


----------



## jojo

Pesky Wesky said:


> Well, I'm getting vey confused!
> Just yesterday we were with some Spanish friends who have spent the last academic year living in Bristol. One of the many comparisons that were made was talking about workmen, and how in the UK they took much more pride in their work! They said that here they just want your money, and that's it. Probably it's more of less the same in both countries, wouldn't you say??
> I didn't ask about the education, but will do next time I see them. They have two girls 11 and 14.



Funny isnt it, cos when we moved here, one of the first things we noticed was how nice and clean our town was and how busy and proud the guys were who were cleaning the streets and prettying up the municipal gardens - unlike our experience in the UK! I guess it all depends on the day, who and where!!?

Jo xxx


----------



## Alcalaina

jojo said:


> Funny isnt it, cos when we moved here, one of the first things we noticed was how nice and clean our town was and how busy and proud the guys were who were cleaning the streets and prettying up the municipal gardens - unlike our experience in the UK! I guess it all depends on the day, who and where!!?
> 
> Jo xxx


I guess we all form our opinions on the basis of first impressions!

There are workers who are conscientious and others that aren´t, there are companies that care about their workers and others that don´t. This is the same wherever you live.

In the UK one of the first things that get cut when Council tax gets capped is spending on parks and public gardens. People tend to look after their own gardens, rather than go to the park; but more Spanish families live in flats and don´t have their own gardens, so they use public places much more. Also in Spanish towns where the Council is desperate to attract visitors this spending might have higher priority, and of course they take people off the dole to do this sort of work (see earlier post).


----------



## Guest

Alcalaina said:


> In the UK one of the first things that get cut when Council tax gets capped is spending on parks and public gardens. People tend to look after their own gardens, rather than go to the park; but more Spanish families live in flats and don´t have their own gardens, so they use public places much more. Also in Spanish towns where the Council is desperate to attract visitors this spending might have higher priority, and of course they take people off the dole to do this sort of work (see earlier post).


My first year here, I was *shocked* with Santander's spending on its gardens. Each big roundabout seems to have its own fountain or gorgeous garden. They changed the flowers every few months or so. I would love to know what they spent! I seem to remember reading early this summer that the flowers were cut from the budget. It'll be interesting to see what's happened there.


----------



## gus-lopez

halydia said:


> My first year here, I was *shocked* with Santander's spending on its gardens. Each big roundabout seems to have its own fountain or gorgeous garden. They changed the flowers every few months or so. I would love to know what they spent! I seem to remember reading early this summer that the flowers were cut from the budget. It'll be interesting to see what's happened there.


Exactly the same here with the flowers. Also with the cleaning, 7 days a week as well.


----------



## mrypg9

gus-lopez said:


> Exactly the same here with the flowers. Also with the cleaning, 7 days a week as well.


So not only does the environment look attractive and cared-for, people are in work doing a useful job. Workers get wages, businesses get orders.
Very sensible.


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> Funny isnt it, cos when we moved here, one of the first things we noticed was how nice and clean our town was and how busy and proud the guys were who were cleaning the streets and prettying up the municipal gardens - unlike our experience in the UK! I guess it all depends on the day, who and where!!?
> 
> Jo xxx


And also on the spending priorities of your local Council.
Many Councils in the UK have awarded contracts for environmental maintenance to private companies on the basis of the lowest tender.
These companies will employ workers at the lowest legal wage. Corners will be cut, standards will fall.
And some Councils don't think it necessary to spend Council Tax payers' money at all on these 'fripperies'.
It will be a miracle if any environmental care work will be carried out in future when the Coalition axe falls on public spending.
'Socialist' ruled Spain is quite an attractive place, it seems


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> .
> 
> I really like the system they had in Cuba (maybe they still do, it's 15 years since I went there). Higher education was free to anybody who wanted it, but students had to spend part of the year doing menial work, in the fields or sweeping the streets. The "professional" jobs didn't pay much more than the "menial" ones; people did the years of training because they genuinely wanted to help the community. Even though there was always a shortage of medical supplies because of the US embargo, they had one of the best doctor/patient ratios and lowest infant mortality rates in the world. I know there are a lot of bad things going on there now, but it's a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater; IMO Cuba is the closest any country ever got to socialism in practice.



Much of that is true although dissent was heavily policed and punished.
But if people were so content, why did Castro not allow genuinely free elections?


----------



## gerrit

jojo said:


> As lovely as that sounds Gerrit, quite frankly, if you could earn a good salary by leaving school and being a street cleaner, I wonder how many people would bother spending years and lots of money going thru further education to get a job as a brain sugeon, doctor, pilot..... and all the risks that go with those jobs!!
> 
> What needs to be realised and I think in most cases it is (altho chips on shoulders are usually carried around) is that a streetsweeper, painter - so called menial job is something to be proud of. Unfortunately a lot of manual workers have a dislike of what they consider "educated" and highly paid professionals.
> 
> My dad was like that. He actually earnt a lot of money altho he was a lowly plasterer. He hated those who he considered "above" him (people who were in a profession, lawyers, accountants, doctors etc) - he called them toffs and was very much against me going to university for that reason. I was a girl, I should get married and have babies and not become a "toff" Eventho he sent me to private school - go figure???!!!
> 
> So, if you can get the lower classes to stop their dislike of anyone who they feel are "above" them and have pride in their work, and allow those who have studied, worked at college/uni to earn more to compensate for their greater responsibility and efforts, maybe socialism would stand a chance.
> 
> Jo xxx


Yes, but the moment that that "earning more" becomes "earning a lot more", then it's not socialism anymore. One of the things I mean when saying socialism needs some corrections to adapt to modern era society, is for example leaving the idea of all people earning the same, replacing it by the principle of lower gaps between the higher paid and the lower paid. I wouldn't mind a surgeon or pilot earning more than a cleaner, but the moment the "more" becomes "a lot more" there is an issue as a society of classes is being created again. The difference is Ok to be there, but the difference should be low enough that there is no such thing as an elite anymore.



Alcalaina said:


> Sorry to hear that. Our parents can have an enormous influence on our life for good or bad. My dad was a plumber, though not very well off (being a good socialist he sometimes "forgot" to send the bill to old age pensioners after mending their burst pipes). He treated everybody as equals - be they "toffs" or working class. He was thrilled to bits when I got a place at university, the first person in our family to do so.
> 
> I really like the system they had in Cuba (maybe they still do, it's 15 years since I went there). Higher education was free to anybody who wanted it, but students had to spend part of the year doing menial work, in the fields or sweeping the streets. The "professional" jobs didn't pay much more than the "menial" ones; people did the years of training because they genuinely wanted to help the community. Even though there was always a shortage of medical supplies because of the US embargo, they had one of the best doctor/patient ratios and lowest infant mortality rates in the world. I know there are a lot of bad things going on there now, but it's a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater; IMO Cuba is the closest any country ever got to socialism in practice.


I, despite not closing my eyes on his wrongdoings, have a lot of respect for Fidel Castro and I see Cuba as the proof socialism can work. If they didn't have this ridiculous embargo by the US (who I rate lower as a country than I rate Cuba, but that's just my opinion) they'd be functioning very well ; and even with the embargo their healthcare and education accessible for all is something the States should take an example of. Personally I wouldn't mind spending a while living in Cuba, it's the type of system that I personally like a lot and it functions relatively well despite the injustice of that embargo.




mrypg9 said:


> Much of that is true although dissent was heavily policed and punished.
> But if people were so content, why did Castro not allow genuinely free elections?


I support a one-party state. Like I said before : power to the people is great once people have shown that they can handle that power. The problem is of course: a one party state ---> which party should have the power? Rather than imprisoning dissidents I'd just offer those who disagree with the system to leave (which Cuba has done on several occasions, just letting those leave who didn't want to be there anymore, and not trying to stop them). Socialism and human rights abuses don't go hand in hand, it's not because Stalin and Mao and Kim Il Sung had a terrible human rights record that this was the system, it was their personal way of using that system. 

I know, a one party system is far from perfect. But when I witness elections all over Europe, I just lost my faith in democracy. So, while accepting that no system is without flaws, democracy to me has more flaws than is acceptable. So it's time to try socialism again, and this time apply it correctly. Cuba is a good example to me. As I said, I wouldn't mind being there (the issue is, it seems a hard country to actually get permits for) ; to study the political system alone I'd not mind spending a while residing on the island. I know Castro's no saint, but he did some great things as well which I respect a lot (and yeah, some bad things as well, but compared to the likes of Dubya, Ahmedinejad, Netanyahu, Putin etc ... give me Castro anytime)


----------



## jojo

gerrit said:


> Yes, but the moment that that "earning more" becomes "earning a lot more", then it's not socialism anymore. One of the things I mean when saying socialism needs some corrections to adapt to modern era society, is for example leaving the idea of all people earning the same, replacing it by the principle of lower gaps between the higher paid and the lower paid. I wouldn't mind a surgeon or pilot earning more than a cleaner, but the moment the "more" becomes "a lot more" there is an issue as a society of classes is being created again. The difference is Ok to be there, but the difference should be low enough that there is no such thing as an elite anymore.


Class has nothing to do with money or position, its to do with manners, respect and values! I suspect the "class" that you're referring to is good old jealously! Wealthy people who've worked hard and taken risks to better themselves and life for their families are really not bothered by the class label", but those who havent seem to use the "them and us" class system as derogatory for some reason???? and see those who have a lot more as "elite" 

If people earn lots of money it filters down by their lifestyle choices and way of life! The Beckhams for example ( perhaps not a good choice, but nonetheless...) have just reduced the number of staff they employ by 14. I think so that people wouldnt acuse them of being elitist ( that proves my point about class lol). well IMO, thats simply put 14 people on the dole!

Jo xxx


----------



## gerrit

I mean social classes, layers of society. I don't mean class as in ethics, manners, etc. You know, working class, intellectual elite, political elite, ... My ideal is a society where people are different and diverse but are equal in their social status, where everyone has the comfortable housing, good medical care and good education that should be a basic right. Call it social classes or layers of society if you wish, I rather see just one class: the human class, regarding if they're labourers, intellectuals, CEO's, politicians, ... Equal rights for all people should be the target to strive for, but capitalism is putting solidarity on a lower scale of priority than increasing wealth of that tiny elite. That system should be overthrown IMO.

PS: I was brought up with the ideology of liberalism, which was what my parents supported. I've voted socialist from as soon as I got into politics and started to research actively.


----------



## fourgotospain

> My first year here, I was shocked with Santander's spending on its gardens. Each big roundabout seems to have its own fountain or gorgeous garden. They changed the flowers every few months or so. I would love to know what they spent! I seem to remember reading early this summer that the flowers were cut from the budget. It'll be interesting to see what's happened there.


Gotta say - same in Bristol and a lot of UK cities. Bristol in Bloom (part of Britain in Bloom) is a scheme that encourages communities to make the best of their outside spaces, helping the council employed gardeners and park wardens. The green spaces there are beautiful. The fortnightly refuse collection is not.


----------



## jojo

gerrit said:


> I mean social classes, layers of society. I don't mean class as in ethics, manners, etc. You know, working class, intellectual elite, political elite, ... My ideal is a society where people are different and diverse but are equal in their social status, where everyone has the comfortable housing, good medical care and good education that should be a basic right. Call it social classes or layers of society if you wish, I rather see just one class: the human class, regarding if they're labourers, intellectuals, CEO's, politicians, ... Equal rights for all people should be the target to strive for, but capitalism is putting solidarity on a lower scale of priority than increasing wealth of that tiny elite. That system should be overthrown IMO.
> 
> PS: I was brought up with the ideology of liberalism, which was what my parents supported. I've voted socialist from as soon as I got into politics and started to research actively.


I dont know what you mean Gerrit. People are all different. ie. Give several different people 100,000€ and you'll still have several different living standards and layers of society. After 5 years, some will have increased the investment, others will have wasted it!. Its not about money or elitism. Its about freedom to make your way in life, some do and some dont. Government cant change that, its human nature. People who bang on about class usually have a chip on their shoulders and are jealous of those who seem to have what they havent. But until everyone is a robot and preprogrammed to do exactly the same thing, have the same thoughts and make exactly the same choices, they'll always be those who have, those who havent, those who want cake and those who want paper...... Thankfully, we're not yet born with micro chips in our heads to modify our behaviour to make us all the same!

Jo xxx


----------



## gerrit

But this isn't about behaviour, at least not at the very start. In a socialist system where the gaps between salaries are kept to a minimum, one can also opt to waste his money and live a very expensive lifestyle, while someone else may be very carefully saving and ending up with a nice amount on the bank. However, everyone should start with equal chances, and then indeed it's up to them to choose the lifestyle they wish (and up to the government to help those in need - be it due to bad luck or due to wrong choices they've made)

What I mean with a classless society is that everyone has equal rights when it comes to access to comfortable and safe housing, free healthcare, free education, ... And that those are not privileges for those that can afford it. Sure, if someone saves his money instead of wasting it and he can afford a more comfortable life at the end, kudos to him. Nonetheless the one who chose otherways should still have that access to free healthcare, safe housing (if needed provided by the government, eg social housing)

This has nothing to do with choosing a certain path in life. It's to do with trying to keep the gap between different classes of society small enough that everyone has access to those basic services which now, in the capitalist system, are sometimes inaccessible by those not belonging to the wealthier layer of society.


----------



## JBODEN

gerrit said:


> I, despite not closing my eyes on his wrongdoings, have a lot of respect for Fidel Castro *and I see Cuba as the proof socialism can work*. If they didn't have this ridiculous embargo by the US (who I rate lower as a country than I rate Cuba, but that's just my opinion) they'd be functioning very well ; and even with the embargo their healthcare and education accessible for all is something the States should take an example of. Personally I wouldn't mind spending a while living in Cuba, it's the type of system that I personally like a lot and it functions relatively well despite the injustice of that embargo.
> 
> Cuba is a good example to me. As I said, I wouldn't mind being there (the issue is, it seems a hard country to actually get permits for) ; to study the political system alone I'd not mind spending a *while *residing on the island. I know Castro's no saint, but he did some great things as well which I respect a lot (and yeah, some bad things as well, but compared to the likes of Dubya, Ahmedinejad, Netanyahu, Putin etc ... give me Castro anytime)


When you fly in to Havana just look down and notice the thousands of Cubans risking their lives on makeshift boats fleeing Castros 'Garden of Eden'.
Can you give us some examples of what great things Castro did?

PS. In the closed socialist economic systems health & education were always accessible to all (well to all appart from the dissidents). This is not unique to Cuba. The whole eastern bloc (DDR, Poland, UUSR, etc.) had precisely the same.


----------



## JBODEN

gerrit said:


> (and up to the government to help those in need - be it due to bad luck or due to wrong choices they've made)
> 
> Nonetheless the one who chose otherways should still have that access to free healthcare, safe housing (if needed provided by the government, eg social housing).


So if I choose not to study, spend all my time drinking and being generally antisocial will I be eligible!


----------



## mrypg9

I think the word'socialism' is being bandied about a bit freely here. 
The word when correctly used refers to a system of economic organisation where the means of production and distribution are owned by the state aka 'the people.
Equality of income distribution has nothing to do with socialism. You could have equality of income in a fascist society. It could be brought about by redistributive taxation.
Let's be real here and not go off into some fairy tale dream. I have always been a practical politician. When I was voted into office I was put in a position where I had to take decisions based on real choices. There never has been and never will be a society where you have equality of outcome because the input of each individual is very unequal and always will be....until the day humans are genetically programmed to be uniform, by which time I'll be dead, thankfully. 
If you think Cuba (which because of its failing economy has been obliged to permit more private enterprise) is an equal society you are deluded. The dollar black market has created millionaires ...and that's just for starters. The health annd education systems aren't that marvellous either....Sure they are 'free' to all (although there is a flourishing private sector in Cuba, you know) but they were free to all in other Communist countries...and of a standard lower than the 'free' health care in Western capitalist countries. And of course Cubans paid for their health care through their taxes just as people in capitalist countries do.
Gerrit: you say that it isn't socialism that failed, it's just the bad people who get to run it. 
Try this : 'National Socialism isn't bad: Germany was just run by madmen like Hitler and Goebbels. The theory is just fine.' Same logic applies, no?And if socialism can be so easily perverted it must be a weak way of running a society.
Both Fascism and Communism have their enemies: race and class. During the Spanish Civil War, well-dressed people were killed by anarchists and communists. Their crime: being obviously middle-class. (See 'The Spanish Civil War' by Hugh Thomas).
Socialism, like all ideologies which claim to create a 'perfect' society, can't deal with dissent. 
You can't see that you are admitting this and keep contradicting yourself by saying you support a one-party state.
Of course you would. How otherwise could you keep power when you'd f****d up the economy and put millions to death by starvation (Stalin) or waged war on other nations and races (Hitler). In your one-party state, what are you going to do with people who want out? 
With those who dare to dissent? What would you do with people like me, the awkward squad, who would fight to the last breath for my freedom and for what I believed to be right?
Frankly, Gerrit, all that is dangerous and disingenuous nonsense. Such a view portrays contempt for humanity and human rights. It is arrogant and patronising. Who are you - or I or anyone for that matter - to presume to think we and only we know what is good for people and how they should live?
Do you really want people to be born into slavery and to be kept down by brute force...because that's what one-party states do.
Your arguments aren't about socialism and they are in fact damaging to the real theory of socialism which bears little resemblance to what you seem to think it is....


----------



## mrypg9

*Cuba is a good example to me. As I said, I wouldn't mind being there (the issue is, it seems a hard country to actually get permits for)* 


Really?? Not a very free country then, is it?
Actually, Gerrit, Cuba is quite a popular tourist destination. I know many people who have spent cheap holidays there. The regime is desperate to shore up its ailing economy with foreign hard currency.
But you are right that most 'socialist' countries build bloody great walls around themselves and don't let their people out or foreigners in.
They obviously have something to hide...


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> I think the word'socialism' is being bandied about a bit freely here.
> The word when correctly used refers to a system of economic organisation where the means of production and distribution are owned by the state aka 'the people.
> Equality of income distribution has nothing to do with socialism. You could have equality of income in a fascist society. It could be brought about by redistributive taxation.
> Let's be real here and not go off into some fairy tale dream. I have always been a practical politician. When I was voted into office I was put in a position where I had to take decisions based on real choices. There never has been and never will be a society where you have equality of outcome because the input of each individual is very unequal and always will be....until the day humans are genetically programmed to be uniform, by which time I'll be dead, thankfully.
> If you think Cuba (which because of its failing economy has been obliged to permit more private enterprise) is an equal society you are deluded. The dollar black market has created millionaires ...and that's just for starters. The health annd education systems aren't that marvellous either....Sure they are 'free' to all (although there is a flourishing private sector in Cuba, you know) but they were free to all in other Communist countries...and of a standard lower than the 'free' health care in Western capitalist countries. And of course Cubans paid for their health care through their taxes just as people in capitalist countries do.
> Gerrit: you say that it isn't socialism that failed, it's just the bad people who get to run it.
> Try this : 'National Socialism isn't bad: Germany was just run by madmen like Hitler and Goebbels. The theory is just fine.' Same logic applies, no?And if socialism can be so easily perverted it must be a weak way of running a society.
> Both Fascism and Communism have their enemies: race and class. During the Spanish Civil War, well-dressed people were killed by anarchists and communists. Their crime: being obviously middle-class. (See 'The Spanish Civil War' by Hugh Thomas).
> Socialism, like all ideologies which claim to create a 'perfect' society, can't deal with dissent.
> You can't see that you are admitting this and keep contradicting yourself by saying you support a one-party state.
> Of course you would. How otherwise could you keep power when you'd f****d up the economy and put millions to death by starvation (Stalin) or waged war on other nations and races (Hitler). In your one-party state, what are you going to do with people who want out?
> With those who dare to dissent? What would you do with people like me, the awkward squad, who would fight to the last breath for my freedom and for what I believed to be right?
> Frankly, Gerrit, all that is dangerous and disingenuous nonsense. Such a view portrays contempt for humanity and human rights. It is arrogant and patronising. Who are you - or I or anyone for that matter - to presume to think we and only we know what is good for people and how they should live?
> Do you really want people to be born into slavery and to be kept down by brute force...because that's what one-party states do.
> Your arguments aren't about socialism and they are in fact damaging to the real theory of socialism which bears little resemblance to what you seem to think it is....


:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:
(_remind me not to get into a heated debate with yourself_ )


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> :clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:
> (_remind me not to get into a heated debate with yourself_ )


Aw....I'm a mild little old dear...
Seriously, though, we Brits are so lucky. We can talk so cheerfully about socialism, fascism and one-party states because unless we're really ancient we've never experienced a bomb falling on our heads.
Most people in Europe are not so lucky. Poles, Belgians, Czechs, French, Dutch, many others and of course the millions of Germans who did not support Hitler and the NSDAP or the Stalinist regime half of them had to endure after the war know only too well from experience or living memory what it really means to live under a one-Party state.
Freedom of expression and thought is -or should be -sacred imo. After all, if we are always agreed with and never have to defend our opinions, how do we know if they are true or not???
All my political life I have been told by people who have opposing views that I'm talking rubbish.
And I am grateful to them.


----------



## gerrit

Let's not forget that one can let those who wish to not live in a specific system, just leave. This has happened often enough. During certain periods of time , Cubans who did not support the regime left in large numbers. Nobody tried to stop them, and Castro said they were free to leave. (not saying this was always the case, but there have been times now and then when the borders did go open)

No system will ever be welcomed by all people of a society. But different countries are run by different rules. It's not like there is no other way than violently oppressing everyone who has a different view. What has never been tried yet and what I'm curious to see if it would work, is a state where those who really are idealist get together and try to make the system work ; whereas those not having faith in the system would just opt out. 

Also, you said a few pages earlier that freedom of speech is restricted as it is, adding "rightfully so". Ideally freedom of speech would be sacred. All over Europe I see mainly how people who have a propaganda of intolerance abuse that freedom of speech and hide behind it. The moment a privilege is abused, restrictions are necessary. I don't exactly like the current shifting to the far right that we see in many countries ; most of those parties thrive on populist propaganda and don't shun to get some facts out of context if it suits their agenda. Those are generally the first ones who'll hide behind freedom of speech but wishing to restrict that freedom of speech onto people with different views. Just like democracy: it'd be extremely nice if it would all work but as long as people keep abusing there have to be some restrictions, some lines drawn.


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> *Cuba is a good example to me. As I said, I wouldn't mind being there (the issue is, it seems a hard country to actually get permits for)*
> 
> 
> Really?? Not a very free country then, is it?
> Actually, Gerrit, Cuba is quite a popular tourist destination. I know many people who have spent cheap holidays there. The regime is desperate to shore up its ailing economy with foreign hard currency.
> But you are right that most 'socialist' countries build bloody great walls around themselves and don't let their people out or foreigners in.
> They obviously have something to hide...


My daughters often fly to Cuba as part of their jobs as air hostesses and they say its terrible. They love the bit they're "kept" in cos its secure, luxurious and gated. But if they go out into the town its frightening, the poverty, filth and cruelty is everywhere and their movements are heavily restricted!!!!

It seems that socialism keeps everyone in the same class alright - at the bottom!! Apart of course, from the elite (usually the government and leaders) who are heavily protected. Probably cos they're better than the workers!!!

Jo xxx


----------



## JBODEN

gerrit said:


> Let's not forget that one can let those who wish to not live in a specific system, just leave.


In the last UK general election the 'coalition' secured 59% of the vote.
29.7 mm people voted out of a possible 45.7 mm (turnout 65.1%) so the people in power secured 17.5 mm votes between them. 
Your proposition is that 28.2 mm people who don't like this coalition (&/or didn't vote for the ruling parties) should be allowed to leave (I'm not taking into account the 14 mm+ people that aren't on the electoral roll).
This raises a few questions:
1. can they afford to pull up roots and leave?
2. will they be able to sell their assets at market rates (No! because 2 out of 3 will be leaving)?
3. who will accept them? 
4. what if they don't have language skills? 
5. what about job prospects?
6. what if one partner is for the 'system' and the other is against? Are you suggestion a breakup of the family unit? Who decides whether the kids can leave?
7. (fill in at your lesiure)

Saying that ''one can let those who wish to not live in a specific system can just leave'' is total nonsense.


----------



## jojo

JBODEN said:


> :clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:
> (_remind me not to get into a heated debate with yourself_ )


She's terrifying when she gets going isnt she LOL! Luckily I usually agree with her 

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> She's terrifying when she gets going isnt she LOL! Luckily I usually agree with her
> 
> Jo xxx


Aw Jo......you know I'm a big softy
Going out to dinner with my dil....I'm going to eat liver and drink red wine
Not babies and blood
I will spare everyone from my diatribes until tomorrow!!


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> Aw Jo......you know I'm a big softy
> Going out to dinner with my dil....I'm going to eat liver and drink red wine
> Not babies and blood
> I will spare everyone from my diatribes until tomorrow!!


Enjoy 

Jo xxx


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> And also on the spending priorities of your local Council.
> Many Councils in the UK have awarded contracts for environmental maintenance to private companies on the basis of the lowest tender.
> These companies will employ workers at the lowest legal wage. Corners will be cut, standards will fall.
> And some Councils don't think it necessary to spend Council Tax payers' money at all on these 'fripperies'.
> It will be a miracle if any environmental care work will be carried out in future when the Coalition axe falls on public spending.
> 'Socialist' ruled Spain is quite an attractive place, it seems


In Oxford the roundabouts are all sponsored by local companies and enter the "Oxford in Bloom" competition each year. Quite a neat way of passing the maintenance cost to the private sector!


----------



## Alcalaina

jojo said:


> My daughters often fly to Cuba as part of their jobs as air hostesses and they say its terrible. They love the bit they're "kept" in cos its secure, luxurious and gated. But if they go out into the town its frightening, the poverty, filth and cruelty is everywhere and their movements are heavily restricted!!!!
> 
> It seems that socialism keeps everyone in the same class alright - at the bottom!! Apart of course, from the elite (usually the government and leaders) who are heavily protected. Probably cos they're better than the workers!!!
> 
> Jo xxx


We spent two weeks there in 1997 - a long time ago and I don't know what it's like now. We were in a small group of schoolteachers and toured the eastern part of the island in a minibus, visiting schools, health centres, farms, villages and the inevitable cigar factory. We also went to some incredible music venues, which the tourists would never find! 

We had a wonderful guide, informative but frank and honest about the situation. Going from a luxury hotel in Santiago de Cuba into an area where Cubans live is certainly a culture shock, but nothing like as bad as downtown Los Angeles where people are living in cardboard boxes and look like they will stab you for a dollar. We were followed around by groups of children asking for ballpoint pens and soap! Nothing threatening at all. People's homes were shabby but spotless, and they all keep chickens and grow their own food.

Pros: No homelessness, no unemployment, subsidised food, comprehensive free healthcare, free education, no obesity, one-third of the population play musical instruments, highest literacy rate in the Caribbean, extremely low crime rate outside of Havana and the big tourist areas.

Cons: Regular hurricanes that blow your roof off, harsh treatment of dissidents, lack of democracy (though as Gerritt says, that doesn't necessarily make things better).

I would pine away and die in a secure gated community I'm afraid!


----------



## gerrit

Democracy as it is is a fairytale anyway. The influence of big corporations, lobbying groups and media on political ongoings is huge, but it's easier to keep people quiet when portraying an illusion of democracy. In the end a real democracy is not realistic unless you maybe live in Pitcairn or Ascension Island with less than 1000 people to keep satisfied. In a larger society it's just not applicable in its pure form, if 30% vote for a specific party it still means you have 70% of people disagreeing with what that party does (or at least not specifically agreeing) ; if you form a coalition there's always gonna be some party sidelined despite having gained a 15 or 20% of votes, in countries with a large population this means that the voice of a few hundred thousands people is being ignored and not represented in parliament. And very often when coalitions are formed, all parties have to compromise to make the forced marriage aka coalition work, leaving the voters of all parties somewhat down to a certain extent. It's easy to say that socialism doesn't work but meanwhile let's not ignore the shortcomings of democracy neither. And if I look what type of parties and ideologies are represented in parliament in some countries in Europe nowadays, then it gets quite scary ...


Cuba is doing quite well and I agree with Alcalaina that it is showing socialism is not impossible to realise. Let's not forget that for very doubtful reasons they've been embargoed for decades but still cope relatively well, in some fields doing even better than the country that embargoed them in the first place. It's impossible to say where they'd be without the embargo but the fact that they are coping relatively well with the situation is saying something in itself already.


In the end I don't care that much how one wishes to label a specific political system. What I care for is that everybody in society is looked after and has an honest chance to make something out of his/her life. I don't like to see people sleeping in the streets or living in extremely poor housing ; I don't like to see sick people facing long waiting lists to get treated while a small elite skips that queue and goes to private clinics ; I don't like to see people with a good will to study but facing barriers to get access to the education that would entitle them to realise their dreams. I don't care that much which system can resolve these issues, as long as it's a system that assures everyone is looked after without some people being prioritised upon, and that everyone has an honest chance to make it in life (for whatever that means for the specific person). That's the type of society I would like to aim for, regardless how one wishes to call the system that accomplishes that. I can only look around and see that right now, a lot of people are in need and not looked after, which means that the current system is failing on showing solidarity and caring for its people.


----------



## mrypg9

gerrit said:


> Democracy as it is is a fairytale anyway. The influence of big corporations, lobbying groups and media on political ongoings is huge, but it's easier to keep people quiet when portraying an illusion of democracy. In the end a real democracy is not realistic unless you maybe live in Pitcairn or Ascension Island with less than 1000 people to keep satisfied. In a larger society it's just not applicable in its pure form, if 30% vote for a specific party it still means you have 70% of people disagreeing with what that party does (or at least not specifically agreeing) ; if you form a coalition there's always gonna be some party sidelined despite having gained a 15 or 20% of votes, in countries with a large population this means that the voice of a few hundred thousands people is being ignored and not represented in parliament. And very often when coalitions are formed, all parties have to compromise to make the forced marriage aka coalition work, leaving the voters of all parties somewhat down to a certain extent. It's easy to say that socialism doesn't work but meanwhile let's not ignore the shortcomings of democracy neither. And if I look what type of parties and ideologies are represented in parliament in some countries in Europe nowadays, then it gets quite scary ...
> 
> 
> Cuba is doing quite well and I agree with Alcalaina that it is showing socialism is not impossible to realise. Let's not forget that for very doubtful reasons they've been embargoed for decades but still cope relatively well, in some fields doing even better than the country that embargoed them in the first place. It's impossible to say where they'd be without the embargo but the fact that they are coping relatively well with the situation is saying something in itself already.
> 
> 
> In the end I don't care that much how one wishes to label a specific political system. What I care for is that everybody in society is looked after and has an honest chance to make something out of his/her life. I don't like to see people sleeping in the streets or living in extremely poor housing ; I don't like to see sick people facing long waiting lists to get treated while a small elite skips that queue and goes to private clinics ; I don't like to see people with a good will to study but facing barriers to get access to the education that would entitle them to realise their dreams. I don't care that much which system can resolve these issues, as long as it's a system that assures everyone is looked after without some people being prioritised upon, and that everyone has an honest chance to make it in life (for whatever that means for the specific person). That's the type of society I would like to aim for, regardless how one wishes to call the system that accomplishes that. I can only look around and see that right now, a lot of people are in need and not looked after, which means that the current system is failing on showing solidarity and caring for its people.


I agree with 90% of that No system can bring about perfection which is why I'm suspicious of ideologies that promise they can.
Cuba...well, As Alcalaina says has in many respects improved the lives of its citizens. But Cuba isn't a socialist country...it has a mixed economy. Reforms were introduced allowing for private ownership of businesses over fifteen years ago!
It's the private sector that has kept the economy afloat!
But with this measure of sensible economic liberalisation goes a draconian system of social repression. Until recently Cubans were not allowed to own computers, mobile phones,DVD players and for some odd reason microwave ovens.
It's true that the U.S. embargo had a dire effect on the economy but to blance that Cuba's exports were taken almost 100% by the former Soviet bloc countries.
Even without the U.S. blockade it is highly unlikely that left to its own devices the economy would have been productive had it relied solely on state ownership and control.
Another example of 'socialism in practice' is of course Zimbabwe. Yet another disastrous economic initiative has been announced by Zimbabwe's Government: all foreign-owned companies have to sell 51% of their shares to black Zimbabweans. As most Zimbabweans live on or under the poverty line this can benefit only the already rich corrupt Mugabe's cronies class. Future investors, so badly needed in that benighted country, are of course highly unlikely to wish to risk putting money into that system.
Self-proclaimed Marxist Mugabe is of course a much worse despot than Castro.
And you can separate corrupt rulers from the economic system of socialist states .
The fact is that whenever state ownership and control has been attempted the result has been failure. That has nothing to do with the rulers and everything to do with an inherently flawed system. In the complex technologically controlled world of today central planning of a command economy simply can't work. The absence of a pricing mechanism leaves a vacuum in the production process.
It's the theory that's flawed, like most theories that aim to simplify human nature into a set of 'rules'.
And as a corollary: the flaws inherent in the socialist system also lead to corruption, dictatorship and brutal repression of any dissent.
The evidence is there in history for us all to see.


----------



## Pesky Wesky

Are any of you aware of what Fidel himself said a few days ago??



> Fidel Castro last week caused a stir when he told a US journalist: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us any more."


Read this
Cuba to axe one million state jobs - Yahoo! News


----------



## mrypg9

Pesky Wesky said:


> Are any of you aware of what Fidel himself said a few days ago??
> 
> [/url]


Yes, it was in The Economist. But he also said something similar years ago when the sugar harvest failed spectacularly. It sinks in slowly with some people
In 1986 I went to Moscow with a group from our local Labour Party. The trip was organised by my partner but everything had to be done through Intourist the official agency and the moment our train crossed the border of the USSR a guide appeared and stayed with us for the remainder of our trip, 24/7.
Everything was controlled and highly organised. We were taken to various showpiece sites (including the Park of Science and Technology which I remember chiefly for having the most disgusting and primitive loos I have ever been obliged by necessity to use).
We were not supposed to go anywhere independently but being Bolshy Brits a few of us 'escaped' and did our own sightseeing. (This reduced our guide to tears....she seemed fearful of the consequences of her poor supervision).
We saw a country that aptly fitted the description 'Upper Volta with rockets'.
Supermarkets with empty shelves or shelves filled with one item. Poorly dressed people who pestered us to change money or to sell our shoes, jeans etc. A poorly functioning public transport system and neglected public parks and open spaces. Drunks everywhere.
The following year we went to Leningrad/St.Petersburg. Same picture. And same drunks, inspite of Gorbachev's alcohol ban.
Visiting countries like the USSR and its satellites and Cuba as part of an organised group is a Potemkin experience.
I lived in Poland under Communism. I remember getting up at 5 a.m. to buy black market meat and eggs from countrywomen. I remember the 'no meat' days. Almost the first phrases I learnt were 'juz nie ma ale utery bendi
e' (apologies for spelling, Jerzy) which basically means 'We're out of ...whatever...but we'll have some tomorrow'. They never did.
Everywhere you went people wanted to buy your clothesw or change money on the black market - zlotys for £ or $ at well above the official rate.
A sad country with sad, dispirited citizens.
I'm not saying Cuba is as bad but it sure ain't the socialist paradise some people think it is.


----------



## mrypg9

Pesky Wesky said:


> Are any of you aware of what Fidel himself said a few days ago??
> 
> [/url]


Yes, it was in The Economist. But he also said something similar years ago when the sugar harvest failed spectacularly. It sinks in slowly with some people
In 1986 I went to Moscow with a group from our local Labour Party. The trip was organised by my partner but everything had to be done through Intourist the official agency and the moment our train crossed the border of the USSR a guide appeared and stayed with us for the remainder of our trip, 24/7.
Everything was controlled and highly organised. We were taken to various showpiece sites (including the Park of Science and Technology which I remember chiefly for having the most disgusting and primitive loos I have ever been obliged by necessity to use).
We were not supposed to go anywhere independently but being Bolshy Brits a few of us 'escaped' and did our own sightseeing. (This reduced our guide to tears....she seemed fearful of the consequences of her poor supervision).
We saw a country that aptly fitted the description 'Upper Volta with rockets'.
Supermarkets with empty shelves or shelves filled with one item. Poorly dressed people who pestered us to change money or to sell our shoes, jeans etc. A poorly functioning public transport system and neglected public parks and open spaces. Drunks everywhere.
The following year we went to Leningrad/St.Petersburg. Same picture. And same drunks, inspite of Gorbachev's alcohol ban.
Visiting countries like the USSR and its satellites and Cuba as part of a group is a Potemkin experience.
I lived in Poland under Communism. I remember getting up at 5 a.m. to buy black market meat and eggs from countrywomen. I remember the 'no meat' days. Almost the first phrases I learnt were 'juz nie ma ale utery bendie'
(apologies for spelling, Jerzy) which basically means 'We're out of ...whatever...but we'll have some tomorrow'. They never did.
Everywhere you went people wanted to buy your clothes or change money on the black market - zlotys for £ or $ at well above the official rate.
A sad country with sad, dispirited citizens.
I'm not saying Cuba is as bad but it sure ain't the socialist paradise some people think it is.


----------



## JBODEN

gerrit said:


> I don't like to see sick people facing long waiting lists to get treated while a small elite skips that queue and goes to private clinics ...


... and I assume that you believe that if leading members of the Castro clic fall ill they stand in line with the rest of the population. B***sh**, they get priority, top of the list, sod the prolateriat !!!


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> 'juz nie ma ale utery bendie'.


The Polish version of man(i)ana


----------



## gerrit

mrypg9 said:


> Yes, it was in The Economist. But he also said something similar years ago when the sugar harvest failed spectacularly. It sinks in slowly with some people
> In 1986 I went to Moscow with a group from our local Labour Party. The trip was organised by my partner but everything had to be done through Intourist the official agency and the moment our train crossed the border of the USSR a guide appeared and stayed with us for the remainder of our trip, 24/7.
> Everything was controlled and highly organised. We were taken to various showpiece sites (including the Park of Science and Technology which I remember chiefly for having the most disgusting and primitive loos I have ever been obliged by necessity to use).
> We were not supposed to go anywhere independently but being Bolshy Brits a few of us 'escaped' and did our own sightseeing. (This reduced our guide to tears....she seemed fearful of the consequences of her poor supervision).
> We saw a country that aptly fitted the description 'Upper Volta with rockets'.
> Supermarkets with empty shelves or shelves filled with one item. Poorly dressed people who pestered us to change money or to sell our shoes, jeans etc. A poorly functioning public transport system and neglected public parks and open spaces. Drunks everywhere.
> The following year we went to Leningrad/St.Petersburg. Same picture. And same drunks, inspite of Gorbachev's alcohol ban.
> Visiting countries like the USSR and its satellites and Cuba as part of a group is a Potemkin experience.
> I lived in Poland under Communism. I remember getting up at 5 a.m. to buy black market meat and eggs from countrywomen. I remember the 'no meat' days. Almost the first phrases I learnt were 'juz nie ma ale utery bendie'
> (apologies for spelling, Jerzy) which basically means 'We're out of ...whatever...but we'll have some tomorrow'. They never did.
> Everywhere you went people wanted to buy your clothes or change money on the black market - zlotys for £ or $ at well above the official rate.
> A sad country with sad, dispirited citizens.
> I'm not saying Cuba is as bad but it sure ain't the socialist paradise some people think it is.


Must have been extremely interesting to live in Poland before the fall of the Iron Curtain. Did you have a placement by a foreign investor? Because like you said in an earlier post, it wasn't that easy to get into the countries of the East Bloc (probably easier than to get out again, but anyways)

The thing you describe about visiting the USSR with surveillance 24/7 sounds exactly like visiting North Korea where the guide is almost like your shadow, the hotel room being the only place without surveillance.

That said, what system would you say can offer caretaking for all citizens? As I said, that should be the aim of any good government: to make sure their citizens live in honest conditions and in an atmosphere where everyone has equal rights. Socialist states failed to provide that so far, but capitalist states also haven't proven to work. Look at the US for example ; the gap between rich and poor is devastating. The number of people both in America and western Europe who live below the poverty line and live in houses that are not allowing comfortable living at all, is still way too high. Unemployment benefits are too low for those who need them to survive, and social housing is generally provided with a long waiting list. Healthcare is only free to certain extent, and the free services are usually very basic and with a queue as well. Education is unaffordable for the poorer layer of the population unless the youngster gets a study budget from the government but even that usually doesn't cover all costs included with university or post-secondary education.

Rather than looking at the flaws of systems used in the past, the aim should be to work out a system that does take care for all and allows at least a minimum of comfort for everybody. I still believe more in the socialist system to accomplish that than in the capitalist system ; without denying that the socialist system needs adaptions to fit in the current society, it cannot be applied like Marx or Lenin wrote it down. An adapted version more in line with this era's society and probably a bit weakened (eg the government outsourcing some work to license holders, which would create a state-owned economy de jure but a mixed economy with government surveillance de facto) is what I believe can come closest to that society where everyone has equal rights and the state can take care for all. Maybe I'm too naive or idealistic or whatever ; fact is capitalism failed as much as socialism has failed so far, look at the amount of people living below the poverty line or not having access to good healthcare, education, housing...

Conclusion is that no system executed so far has worked. Why not aiming at trying to improve or adapt the existing systems to try to make it work? That would make more sense than looking behind without trying to leap forward.

As I said before, I'm not about trying to apply a communist system per se ; my ideal is a society of equal rights for all (without privileges for the upper class) and the state looking after all its people without a large number ending up with surviving on minimum budgets, in bad living conditions and without the means to afford decent healthcare and education to themselves and their familiies.




PS: you need to look at the context of what Fidel Castro said. After all he's no longer in charge, his brother is. By stating the current system doesn't work that well anymore, he opens the door wide for Raul Castro to make the changes to the system that he wishes. His quote was mainly paving the path for his brother Raul to make the reforms he considers necessary (without indicating at what those reforms would include)


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> I'm not saying Cuba is as bad but it sure ain't the socialist paradise some people think it is.


Is the finger pointing at me? I did say quite clearly that I was there in 1997 and things have changed since then, and I also said there were/are lots of things wrong with Cuba. 

Most people's views of Cuba and Castro are (mis)informed by the propaganda issued by the USA, who in the 1960s tried desperately but unsuccessfully to bump him off! They are playing the same propaganda game now with Hugo Chavez, who has succeeded Fidel as America's favourite hate figure but who has done a huge amount to redistribute resources to the poor in Venezuela.


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> Is the finger pointing at me? I did say quite clearly that I was there in 1997 and things have changed since then, and I also said there were/are lots of things wrong with Cuba.
> 
> Most people's views of Cuba and Castro are (mis)informed by the propaganda issued by the USA, who in the 1960s tried desperately but unsuccessfully to bump him off! They are playing the same propaganda game now with Hugo Chavez, who has succeeded Fidel as America's favourite hate figure but who has done a huge amount to redistribute resources to the poor in Venezuela.


No, you have a balanced view. I have a Scottish friend who thinks Cuba is a workers' paradise. He thinks you can solve the problems of the twenty-first century with the programme of the nineteenth!
I have the same problems with Chavez as with Castro. Yes improvements have been made - they probably would have been anyway -but he has seriously weakened the economy and pays scant regard to democracy. Middle-class people and dissenting proles have a right to voice their opinions after all.
I don't think most people's views were affected by US propaganda, tbh. Anyone with half a brain can see America's foreign policy for what it is....a doomed attempt to control the world's resources and export the failed Washington Consensus model to people who don't want it, by soft power if possible and by force when that fails
Tin pot dictators like Chavez, drunk on their own power, end up ruining their countries' economies and impoverishing the population .even further.
Eventuially they are either overthrown (usually with the aid of the CIA) or like Castro they realise their experiment in 'socialism' has failed and adopt capitalist measures to rescue the economy.


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> ... they realise their experiment in 'socialism' has failed and adopt capitalist measures to rescue the economy.


... in the meantime they live high on the hog to the detriment of the rest of the population.


----------



## gerrit

But then replacing socialism by capitalism is like replacing one disease by another. Capitalism has failed so far as well, I won't repeat my previous posts about waiting lists for healthcare and housing and people below the poverty line, but who thinks capitalism is the solution lives in a dream world. I would prefer that the countries try to improve the existing systems with the sole aim of improving the life quality for all citizens and make sure no citizen is left alone without access to badly needed help. Socialism failed (I still claim that it's not practised correctly yet, but yes, attempts to do so did fail) but so did capitalism. Is there another system, an alternative to the ones tried before? Maybe we should try to adapt the existing systems and try to make them work before choosing to try another system alltogether. Because all systems tried so far have had their flaws either due to the nature of the system itself or due to human nature not capable to make it work. 

PS: I do hope the CIA won't be involved in Venezuela ... I know Chavez is not an angel, he actually is pretty bad (and this comes from a leftist). But fact is CIA is American, Chavez is Venezuelan. The USA has no business with Venezuela's internal affairs so it's not up to the CIA to start policing there. I met Venezuelan citizens on both sides of the fence: some who hated Chavez to large extent, some who actually supported him. History will soon enough show if he can become a saviour or a villain, but it's not up to the CIA to decide that. 

PS II: I agree all people have the right to make their voice heard. As long as politicians are the ones making the decisions, ignoring those voices when necessary. Part of politics is knowing when to take unpopular measurements when necessary (eg tax increases to name just one example). It's good that politicians listen to the people, but in the end they need to be the decision-makers. A non-binding referendum should be used more often to indicate politicians what is keeping people worried, then try to find a solution on political level.


----------



## JBODEN

gerrit said:


> PS II: I agree all people have the right to make their voice heard. As long as politicians are the ones making the decisions, ignoring those voices when necessary. Part of politics is knowing when to take unpopular measurements when necessary (eg tax increases to name just one example). It's good that politicians listen to the people, but in the end they need to be the decision-makers. A non-binding referendum should be used more often to indicate politicians what is keeping people worried, then try to find a solution on political level.


Abe Lincon : ''... government of the people, by the people, for the people''
Unfortunately once our civil servants are voted in (Local Authority/Parliament) they seem to forget who is paying their wages and start implementing legislation that wasn't in their manifestos and thus not agreed with the populace.
Referendums would be fine if it wasn't for the costs involved in organizing them (and of course if one went down that slippery slope we would end up with thousands of referendums and, eventually people would just turn off).


----------



## jojo

Back to Cuba, I've just spoken to my daughter who was in Cuba last week. She says, that altho their hotel was lovely, they had a couple of trips into Havana! She says "Its a dirty, filthy ****hole and its, poverty stricken, dangerous and crime ridden" My daughter and the rest of the "crew" simply went there to buy some cigars?? But went in a crowd as they were too scared to go there alone. Their trip was also restricted and they were only allowed in certain areas. Its most definitely not a nice place to be. So if thats your idea of socialism at its best Gerrit and since Cuba has had it for so long, it must be as good as it gets??? 

Sadly, IMO socialism can only work when everyone, EVERYONE not only pulls their weight and behaves in an honest and unselfish fashion, but when they also relinquish their greed!

Jo xxx


----------



## uffington15

Venezuela is already suffering the consequences of Hugo, Isla Margarita now suffers with food shortages, blackouts and falling tourism. Venezuelans with money are finding ways to get it out the country if they can. Corruption is rife as always was but there is no hope of change. A nice country with nice people is now on a steady down slide.
We were hoping Hugo would not get his way regards terms of office and then we could have lived in our house there happily.


----------



## Pesky Wesky

Alcalaina said:


> Most people's views of Cuba and Castro are (mis)informed by the propaganda issued by the USA, who in the 1960s tried desperately but unsuccessfully to bump him off! They are playing the same propaganda game now with Hugo Chavez, who has succeeded Fidel as America's favourite hate figure but who has done a huge amount to redistribute resources to the poor in Venezuela.


There is no doubt that the USA spends huge amounts of money trying to make the world believe what it wants us to believe, but don't be under any illusions - Chavez is not a nice person. If the poor are better cared for you can be sure it's because he's getting smth out of it somewhere. It's not out of the goodness of his heart.
This article in the Economist talks about how there are more deaths in Caracas than in the infamous Cuidad Juárez in Mexico!!
Crime in Venezuela: Shooting gallery | The Economist
Quote from the article


> In 1998, before Mr Chávez became president, there were 4,550 murders nationwide, ... and in 2009, says Mr Briceño-León, the total was 19,113.


The government has to take some responsibility (if not all) for these numbers!!


----------



## mrypg9

Gerrit, you are missing the point: sensible people don't believe that either socialism or capitalism or any -ism can ever be a 'solution' to the world's problems.
Human life in all its variations isn't a mathematical theorem with a neat 'QED' solution. It's messy, unpredictable and certainly not amenable to being 'corrected' by a set of rules.
The evidence of history shows that with all its imperfections, capitalism in the variation known as social democracy has best served the interests of the vast majority of humanity.
Socialism, communism, fascism have succeeded only in impoverishing and inflicting misery on millions of innocent people. 
Social democracy aka a mixed economy with parliamentary democracy has the best track record for improving the lot of the majority. The availability of consumer goods (and we should never forget that so-called materialism has hugely liberated women), the social wage (pensions, health care, sick pay , paid holidays etc.) and freedom to express one's political preferences via the ballot box are characteristic of social democratic states.
If you spend your life looking for perfection in the organisation of human affairs then you are, to put it bluntly, not living in the real world and you are politically irrelevant and impotent. 
Looking at the world as it is and not as you would like it to be, making improvements when and where you can, never losing sight of your basic commitment to the value of each individual, discarding grand theories and abstract conceptions ....that to me is the least -and at the same time the most- that can be expected from anyone with political aspirations.


----------



## mrypg9

Pesky Wesky said:


> There is no doubt that the USA spends huge amounts of money trying to make the world believe what it wants us to believe, but don't be under any illusions - Chavez is not a nice person. If the poor are better cared for you can be sure it's because he's getting smth out of it somewhere. It's not out of the goodness of his heart.
> This article in the Economist talks about how there are more deaths in Caracas than in the infamous Cuidad Juárez in Mexico!!
> Crime in Venezuela: Shooting gallery | The Economist
> Quote from the article
> 
> The government has to take some responsibility (if not all) for these numbers!!



The poor would have been better cared for whichever regime was in power. 
When we praise left-wing regimes for improving the lot of the poor, we ignore the fact that the same occurs under right-wing regimes. Just look at the improved standards in the countries of South -East Asia.
It's not in the interest of any regime to oppress the poor. What usually happens in corrupt dictatorships of the left and right is that the rich get significantly richer.


----------



## gerrit

I think a good politician should also be idealistic enough to, without losing grip on reality, strive constantly for improving the systems applied as long as the used system is not flawless. Capitalism has made a lot of victims, and sticking to the system as it is now sounds to me like opting for the better of several evils instead of searching for a "non-evil" alternative. 

A mixed economy is fine with state surveillance on the privately run businesses (for example through licensing, where the business is de jure under control of the government but de facto run by private individuals - the role of the government being mainly restricted to assuring no large salary gaps exist and no abuse of power is made) but the democracy ... I've just seen too often how much harm it does in a world where propaganda is everywhere even when we don't realise it. I consider democracy as a failure, as much as I hate to say it because in theory it is the most honest and noble system. But it just leads to a lot of bad situations.




Jo, I'm sorry to hear your daughters had a bad experience in Cuba. However, I also have friends who have been to Cuba and travelled independently all over the island. They don't claim it is a socialist paradise and indeed described the poverty and fear to express political opinions. But they also did not dislike it because they found the island a beautiful place with extremely friendly people. Recently Havana was nominated as an unexplored gem by a travel magazine that is independently of any regime and that comes from a western publisher. They are full of praise of the city, and they explicitly cover the non-touristic islands as well. Nobody describes it as paradise, but apparently a lot of people disagree with the idea that it's close to a hell on earth. I guess it depends what you expect from a holiday. Those who want mainly luxury and relaxing probably indeed need to look elsewhere ; that's however not an indication that it's one giant slum.


----------



## Alcalaina

Pesky Wesky said:


> There is no doubt that the USA spends huge amounts of money trying to make the world believe what it wants us to believe, but don't be under any illusions - Chavez is not a nice person. If the poor are better cared for you can be sure it's because he's getting smth out of it somewhere. It's not out of the goodness of his heart.
> This article in the Economist talks about how there are more deaths in Caracas than in the infamous Cuidad Juárez in Mexico!!
> Crime in Venezuela: Shooting gallery | The Economist
> Quote from the article
> 
> The government has to take some responsibility (if not all) for these numbers!!


I don't accept that Chavez went into politics to for what he could get out of it personally. His political career opposing the previous regime, which had introduced drastic cuts in social spending and increased fuel prices, seems to go counter to that. Sadly as is so often the case what starts off as well-intentioned and genuine effort to improve the lives of the poor ends up with repression.

Even so, does that cancel out all the good things he's done? Making access to state health care a right; reduced the stranglehold of the US on the Venezuelan economy which drained all the wealth out of the country; drastically improving the legal rights of women, homosexuals and the indigenous population.

And don't forget he is democratically elected, by a huge majority - not just once but three times!

On crime, you might be interested to read this:

"In 2008, Chavez passed a decree [to reform and professionalise the national police force] and Experimental Security University began operations in 2009. [Since then] murder has been reduced by 60%, robberies by nearly 59%, and gender-based violence has diminished by 66% in the pilot areas where the PNB has been active in and around Caracas. According to the publications El Espectador and Le Monde diplomatique, rising crime in rural and urban areas is partly due to increased cross-border activity by Colombian right-wing paramilitary groups like Águilas Negras."
Source: Hugo Chávez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## mrypg9

[B said:


> gerrit;368975*]I think a good politician should also be idealistic enough to, without losing grip on reality, strive constantly for improving the systems applied as long as the used system is not flawless. Capitalism has made a lot of victims, and sticking to the system as it is now sounds to me like opting for the better of several evils instead of searching for a "non-evil" alternative. *[/B
> 
> 
> 
> ]Yes. That's what politicians do. They opt for the least evil of the imperfect 'solutions' that are actually available to them. No system is flawless.
> I think you should look up the definition of 'idealism' in the dictionary.
> You talk about 'sticking to the system', 'replacing systems' 'used systems' as if life were a dead set of algebraic problems. Real politicians don't spend their time 'searching for so-called non-evil alternatives' and you know why??? Because there aren't any. What on earth makes you think that future history will turn out to be any different from the thousands of years of recorded history? Was such arrogance - because that's what it is -a feature of past times, I wonder?
> This discussion would be pointless and silly to anyone in office who has to deal with the real problems that being in office brings. s/he would see us as a bunch of high-school debaters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A mixed economy is fine with state surveillance on the privately run businesses (for example through licensing, where the business is de jure under control of the government but de facto run by private individuals - the role of the government being mainly restricted to assuring no large salary gaps exist and no abuse of power is made) but the democracy ... I've just seen too often how much harm it does in a world where propaganda is everywhere even when we don't realise it. I consider democracy as a failure, as much as I hate to say it because in theory it is the most honest and noble system. But it just leads to a lot of bad situations.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I think a mixed economy under state supervision is the best way forward. But why do you think 'government' or the 'state' has superior moral qualities? I certainly don't. Governments are made up of PEOPLE with all their vices and virtues....and so are private companies and institutions.
> What keeps them all in check?? People power...the very democracy you consider to be a failure.
> What you have written about democracy - *in theory it is the most honest and noble system. But it just leads to a lot of bad situations*- is true and those words are equally true of socialism.
> Life leads to a lot of bad situations, Gerrit. We all know that. Accepting that and coping with it in all sp[heres of life is part of being a functioning adult member of the human race..
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Jo, I'm sorry to hear your daughters had a bad experience in Cuba. However, I also have friends who have been to Cuba and travelled independently all over the island. They don't claim it is a socialist paradise and indeed described the poverty and fear to express political opinions. But they also did not dislike it because they found the island a beautiful place with extremely friendly people. Recently Havana was nominated as an unexplored gem by a travel magazine that is independently of any regime and that comes from a western publisher. They are full of praise of the city, and they explicitly cover the non-touristic islands as well. Nobody describes it as paradise, but apparently a lot of people disagree with the idea that it's close to a hell on earth. I guess it depends what you expect from a holiday. Those who want mainly luxury and relaxing probably indeed need to look elsewhere ; that's however not an indication that it's one giant slum*.


No one said Cuba was a hell on earth. We merely pointed out it wasn't a workers' paradise. Many people have luxurious holidays in Cuba, they don't need to look elsewhere. It all comes down to money.

_You asked earlier how I was able to spend so much time in Eastern European Communist states....well, chiefly because I didn't work at a 'proper' job until I was thirty, I was a student. I was at that time a card-carrying member of the Communist Party of Great Britain. I had friends with relatives in Poland and Czechoslovakian friends who I had got to know when they were visiting the UK under the Dubcek 'Prague Spring' liberal period. To enter the country you needed a visa which you could only get with an 'invitation' from someone in that country. You had to agree to change $5 a day at the rip-off 'official' rate (usually about one-hundredth of the black market rate) and frequently report to the foreign police. The friends who sent you the invitation did so at the risk of bringing close attention from the security police upon themselves and their families. My Czech and Polish friends were prepared to take the risk to be able to get uncensored 'news' from the West.
It was during an attempted visit to Prague from Poland that I tore up my Communist Party card, having been thrown off the train by armed soldiers because the border had been closed to 'western' visitors. I learned on many occasions what life is like under 'actually existing socialism'. 
Before that my experience had been largely one big intellectual exercise with no harsh contact with reality._


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> The poor would have been better cared for whichever regime was in power.
> When we praise left-wing regimes for improving the lot of the poor, we ignore the fact that the same occurs under right-wing regimes. Just look at the improved standards in the countries of South -East Asia.


You mean the women and children working 14 hours a day in sweatshops, making designer gear for N I K E and Gap that they would need a year's wages to buy?
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Boycotts/****Third_facts.html
Or the prohibition of unions and murder of labour activists? Killings and repression hit world workers: union report | Reuters


----------



## gerrit

mrypg9 said:


> No one said Cuba was a hell on earth. We merely pointed out it wasn't a workers' paradise. Many people have luxurious holidays in Cuba, they don't need to look elsewhere. It all comes down to money.


Nobody here called it a worker's "paradise". A true paradise on earth per definition doesn't exist. But some said that it was a dirty dangerous place with huge criminality. That may be the experience of some visitors but certainly no common fact. I know several people having visited Cuba and none of them described it as a dangerous or filthy place, some even really liked Havana. They did all say that they saw poverty outside of the touristic spots and that you had to get invited into the houses of locals to discuss politics because people were wary of speaking out in public (eg cafes, restaurants etc). But dangerous and dirty? It wasn't like that at all when my friend visited who travelled all over the island. More recently Havana was praised in a travel guide which was written and published in the western world ... Nobody will deny that people fear to talk about politics and that some live in poverty, but none of the people I know who visited Cuba disliked the country overall.

I'm surprised to hear about restrictions where to go or not to go, because the people I know who visited Cuba were basically free to go outside of the tourist areas (and have obviously done so)


Interesting to hear you were in the UK Communist Party. I considered affiliating with a socialist party here in Spain in order to be able to join debate groups (and when joining a party it wouldn't make sense not to pick one that to some extent suits your own believes) ; I'm still hoping to avoid bypassing the hassle of that by finding debate groups linked to for example political study groups at university.


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> You mean the women and children working 14 hours a day in sweatshops, making designer gear for N I K E and Gap that they would need a year's wages to buy?
> http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Boycotts/****Third_facts.html
> Or the prohibition of unions and murder of labour activists? Killings and repression hit world workers: union report | Reuters


Those practices are not widespread across Asia and take place mainly in the 'free port ' enclaves set up by governments to benefit multi-nationals. There is actually competition among the poor to get these jobs.
I'm not defending right-wing regimes. Yes, I know all about the murder of trade unionists. I was a member of an Equalities Steering Group of Education International and one of EI's tasks is to go to countries such as Columbia and acxt as an observer when trades unionists were arrested on flimsy pretexts.
I am even-handed in this. I don't ignore the shortcomings of leftist regimes and I certainly don't draw a veil over those of right-wing regimes. To me they are equally odious.
Improvement of the conditions of the poor doesn't have to go hand in hand with oppression and lack of civil liberties. Dictators whether of left or right are to be deplored not excused.
An interesting report (authors Lustig and Lopez-Calva) has found that in Latin America social-democratic governments such as Lula's in Brazil are more redistributive than centre-right or populist/leftist governments such as that of Chavez.
Argentina and Venezuela were once the richest countries in Latin America but have fallen back, unable to break the downward spiral of commodity dependence and populist politics.
Interestingly for self-proclaimed socialists, both Chavez and Castro have their favourite big-business cronies whom they favour with state contracts leading to huge profits. Yet they reject integration with the world economy in favour of outmoded inefficient state socialism and their economies suffer. Venezuela's economy is in decline despite the upturn in oil price.
Left or right, inefficiency, exploitation and oppression are evil and inexcusable.


----------



## mrypg9

gerrit said:


> Interesting to hear you were in the UK Communist Party. I considered affiliating with a socialist party here in Spain in order to be able to join debate groups (and when joining a party it wouldn't make sense not to pick one that to some extent suits your own believes) ; I'm still hoping to avoid bypassing the hassle of that by finding debate groups linked to for example political study groups at university.


Don't join a political party or group if you want free exchanges of ideas and debate.
You will meet far too many people who are true believers in their political religion. Faith can't be argued with.
J.S. Mill wrote that it is important for even those things that are true to be constantly exposed to criticism as it is important for those who believe in them to be able to defend them.
Sadly, far too many true believers of both right and left can't cope with that....


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> *Sadly as is so often the case what starts off as well-intentioned and genuine effort to improve the lives of the poor ends up with repression.*
> 
> Yes, sadly that is the case with leftist/populist regimes. I would say that the reason for that lies in the socialist ideology, as I've said before.
> Hitler's regime hugely improved the living standards of the German working-classes - chiefly by employing Keynesian economic policies.
> But hand-in-hand with that improvement went persecution of political opponents and racial persecution.
> There are other ways of improving society.
> 
> 
> *And don't forget he is democratically elected, by a huge majority - not just once but three times!*
> 
> Do you think jailing opponents and closing down hostile media might have contributed just a little to his success?
> 
> I read the link you gave in your post and out of the three countries cited two, China and Vietnam, would describe themselves as socialist and the third, Indonesia, has suffered hard-left regimes.
> 
> :


----------



## gerrit

mrypg9 said:


> Don't join a political party or group if you want free exchanges of ideas and debate.
> You will meet far too many people who are true believers in their political religion. Faith can't be argued with.
> J.S. Mill wrote that it is important for even those things that are true to be constantly exposed to criticism as it is important for those who believe in them to be able to defend them.
> Sadly, far too many true believers of both right and left can't cope with that....


Yes, that's true, that's why I quite like this topic even though it seems few agree with my views. But in a way, it is more interesting to have different opinions, that way you learn to better structure your opinions and exposing yourself to other ways of thinking is always educative, regardless if you agree or not. You always learn from other people in some way.

For now I just hope the university may have a faculty of political science that organised debates. I thought of announcing on Loquo or so, but the nr of people reacting to such announces who aren't serious about it, is too large. I'd love to organise debate nights but only if everyone comes with a genuine intention to debate, not just an excuse to hang out in a pub.

I'd consider joining a political party more seriously if it'd be a sort of pan-European one. It's OK to have a specific point of view politically and to know your place in the political spectrum, but joining a party specific to one country or area means you deal with a lot of local issues on top of the more general picture. For example here, regardless if you're left, right or whatever, you'll need to form an opinion on Catalan sovereignity as every local party here will have the subject on the agenda (some in favor of it, some objecting it, but this being just 1 example of local issues that don't come into play when discussing general political systems without focussing on a specific geographical area)


----------



## gerrit

mrypg9 said:


> *And don't forget he is democratically elected, by a huge majority - not just once but three times!*
> 
> Do you think jailing opponents and closing down hostile media might have contributed just a little to his success?
> 
> I read the link you gave in your post and out of the three countries cited two, China and Vietnam, would describe themselves as socialist and the third, Indonesia, has suffered hard-left regimes.
> 
> :


A while ago I met a Venezuelan guy in the local poetry bar. We ended up discussing politics once it appeared he was Jewish and because of my obsessive interest in Israel, and we somehow ended up sharing our dislike for Benyamin Netanhayu.

At some point the politics of our respective native countries came into play. The guy was in the company of his girlfriend, also from Venezuela, who until that point kept quiet. As soon as Chavez came into the conversation she joined the debate and it appeared they were very opposite when it came to this subject. She absolutely hated him and considered him a dictator, while he actually supported Chavez and his policies. An odd couple, but I guess opposites attract ... 

Some travel guides advise to not discuss politics in Venezuela unless you know the people you're with very well. That advise comes apparently from the strongly divided opinion amongst Venezuelans when it comes to their president. He does seem to have a strong connection with Bolivia, the ties between Bolivia and Venezuela for sure strengthened a lot the last few years.



Another country I've obsessively researched (due to having a friend living in Minsk) is Belarus. I learnt not to mention the name Lukashenko when writing her because she clearly tries to avoid the issue and doesn't dare to really speak out on him. It seems she even tries to abbreviate his name because of surveillance on email traffic. Nonetheless, it seems support for Lukashenko is strong in the majority of Belarussian society. He surely simplified modern politics a lot: instead of making promises that are hard to realise, just let your opponent vanish, easy 

Belarus is an interesting example as it's the last dictatorship in Europe and somehow has always avoided being isolated politically from the rest of Europe. There is also no law that forbids criticism on the government or government policies, however it is forbidden to out the same criticism addressed to Lukashenko himself. The last dictator in Europe, the last one of a dying breed ...


----------



## mrypg9

*Capitalist storm clouds loom over Havana after state cuts 1m jobs .Cuban workers told to become entrepreneurs in bid to boost island's private sector.*


That's a headline in today's 'Guardian'.

That was an interesting post, Gerrit. 
I can't stand Netanhayu either. 
But criticise the policies of the Government of Israel and you will be labelled an anti-Semite....


----------



## Cees

When I am in Holland or read Dutch news I notice much more discussion and strong opinions about this issue. Although living in Spain as a foreigner and other experiences has shown me that Spanish are not always used to foreigners , it seems here more a matter of just not knowing. The whole issue does seem such a hot item here in Spain as in the northern countries. You could expect much more radical opinion with the high unemployment here in Spain right now. I am sure in Holland that would happen.


----------



## JBODEN

gerrit said:


> Another country I've obsessively researched (due to having a friend living in Minsk) is Belarus. I learnt not to mention the name Lukashenko when writing her because she clearly tries to avoid the issue and doesn't dare to really speak out on him. It seems she even tries to abbreviate his name because of surveillance on email traffic. Nonetheless, it seems support for Lukashenko is strong in the majority of Belarussian society. He surely simplified modern politics a lot: instead of making promises that are hard to realise, just let your opponent vanish, easy
> 
> Belarus is an interesting example as it's the last dictatorship in Europe and somehow *has always avoided being isolated politically from the rest of Europe*. There is also no law that forbids criticism on the government or government policies, however it is forbidden to out the same criticism addressed to Lukashenko himself. The last dictator in Europe, the last one of a dying breed ...


Oh really!! Lukaszeko and his band of thugs have been banned from visiting other EU Countries by the EU!
I suggest that you 'obsessively research' a little more.


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> No one said Cuba was a hell on earth. We merely pointed out it wasn't a workers' paradise. Many people have luxurious holidays in Cuba, they don't need to look elsewhere. It all comes down to money.


ppppssssst, my daughter would describe Cuba as just that!!! The holiday destinations are in secure enclosures to prevent entry or exit! But the main town of Havana, according to my daughters is "hell on earth", poverty, cruelty, smelly, dirty and dangerous!

Jo xxx


----------



## gerrit

Your daughters are obviouslty disagreed upon by many people, including some I know personally who went and really liked it. They've been to the poverty-struck smaller towns as well, no restrictions on movement whatsoever. I am not saying your daughter is exagerating things, but it's her own personal impression. Other persons who went clearly are divided on the issue as some people called Havana a really pleasant place and, despite the poverty, they quite liked the less visited places away from the tourist areas as well.

Again, not saying that your daughters are exagerating or so whatsoever, they've given their personal opinions and I won't even question that they were sincerely responding. I'm just saying that different people have different opinions. I know people who also went to Cuba (and not only to the touristic places) who actually really liked it.




JBODEN said:


> Oh really!! Lukaszeko and his band of thugs have been banned from visiting other EU Countries by the EU!
> I suggest that you 'obsessively research' a little more.



I know, but what I mean is that Belarus has far from being economically or diplomatically cut off from Europe. Tourism to Belarus is ongoing as usual, countries have official diplomatic ties with Belarus, and some other governments (for example the Czech one) were trying to improve relationships with the Lukashenko government. Belarus, despite the dictatorship tag, is far from being isolated like it happened to other dictatorships facing diplomatic isolation.


----------



## gerrit

mrypg9 said:


> *Capitalist storm clouds loom over Havana after state cuts 1m jobs .Cuban workers told to become entrepreneurs in bid to boost island's private sector.*
> 
> 
> That's a headline in today's 'Guardian'.
> 
> That was an interesting post, Gerrit.
> I can't stand Netanhayu either.
> But criticise the policies of the Government of Israel and you will be labelled an anti-Semite....


I'm pro-Israel. The country fascinates me more than any other place and if you read through my posts on this forum you'll find out it's my dream to settle in Israel for several years (unfortunately there is the "Law of Return" aka "Aliyah" which grants Israeli citizenship to every person of jewish ancestry, whereas non-jews need a working permit -- a lot of employers won't appoint a non-jew because that means they'll need to pay the working permit, while a jewish applicant won't cost them a penny because he can become an Israeli national the instant he arrives in the country. I still hope to emigrate to Israel nonetheless some day, I refuse to give up)

Anyways, I support Israel AND Palestine, in other words I support the two state solution. I am far from anti-Israel, on the contrary I heavily support the country... but not its government. You have to sometimes separate those two. It's like the US: I despise its political system but I got nothing against the US as a whole or against their citizens. It's similar with Israel, I only have a political dislike of it whereas in other fields I support the country.

The issue is incredibly complex though. The divide of the area in two separate countries (one Jewish, one Arab) was rejected by the Palestinians, even the UN supported proposal was rejected despite the Arabs having 2/3 of the land. Israel then declared independence on its own based on an existing plan of dividing the land. They occupied the Gaza and the West Bank in self defense actions when they were attacked by neighbouring countries (they also captured the Sinai but returned that to Egypt in return for normalised diplomatic ties).

So the issue is complex: both sides have some reasonable claims (the Arabs refusing the initial plan of divide in two states, but that can be contradicted by the annexation of East Jerusalem and the occupation of Palestinian lands outside of the internationally accepted Israeli borders). The problem I have with Netanyahu is that he continues refusing to divide Jerusalem and return East Jerusalem to the Arabs, and that he continues to support further enlargement of Jewish villages in the West Bank (which will make it very hard to let go of the West Bank because meanwhile the jewish presence there is already quite big) ; Netanyahu therefor blocks the peace process by imposing measurements that will make the two state solution in practice very hard to realise. The Israeli left generally opposes these actions as well as the international community. And I, despite my positive bias towards Israel, very much the Netanyahu government as well. He's certainly controversial within Israel as well.



PS on Cuba: several reports (from western publications) state the country is exceptionally save compared to most touristic places. The people I know who went there did say the poverty and fear for opposition was present everywhere, but not that it was dirty or dangerous at all. I guess it depends on personal experiences, but for sure not every visitor to Cuba dislikes it, some even really like it.


----------



## Alcalaina

jojo said:


> ppppssssst, my daughter would describe Cuba as just that!!! The holiday destinations are in secure enclosures to prevent entry or exit! But the main town of Havana, according to my daughters is "hell on earth", poverty, cruelty, smelly, dirty and dangerous!
> 
> Jo xxx


Sounds like Los Angeles, or Las Vegas!

My OH was at a conference in LA and the conference centre was just 3 blocks from the hotel so he decided to walk. He was told on no account should he do this as it was far too dangerous. He did it anyway (he's like that) and was appalled at the squalor and poverty hidden from view, people living in cardboard boxes and rummaging through hotel bins for food. Certainly not something they want the tourists to see, so they try and force you to take a cab!

So you see it's not just Cuba ... the good ol' US of A has its dirty secrets too.


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> Do you think jailing opponents and closing down hostile media might have contributed just a little to his success?


Not really, since he was elected before he started doing those things! And he still has huge popular support.



mrypg9 said:


> I read the link you gave in your post and out of the three countries cited two, China and Vietnam, would describe themselves as socialist and the third, Indonesia, has suffered hard-left regimes.


However they describe themselves, they are embracing capitalism with open arms. The workers there don't own the means of production, do they!?


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> Don't join a political party or group if you want free exchanges of ideas and debate.
> You will meet far too many people who are true believers in their political religion. Faith can't be argued with.
> J.S. Mill wrote that it is important for even those things that are true to be constantly exposed to criticism as it is important for those who believe in them to be able to defend them.
> Sadly, far too many true believers of both right and left can't cope with that....


Wise words indeed - and now I have a sneaking suspicion that in some of your posts you may be playing devil's advocate ?!?

Incidentally I don't like my political beliefs being labelled as a religion (though I do know where you're coming from). I prefer the term ideology. Religion implies dogma, ritual and social control by unelected leaders, with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Ideology implies openness, social awareness and vision, with aspirations for change.


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> Sounds like Los Angeles, or Las Vegas!
> 
> My OH was at a conference in LA and the conference centre was just 3 blocks from the hotel so he decided to walk. He was told on no account should he do this as it was far too dangerous. He did it anyway (he's like that) and was appalled at the squalor and poverty hidden from view, people living in cardboard boxes and rummaging through hotel bins for food. Certainly not something they want the tourists to see, so they try and force you to take a cab!
> 
> So you see it's not just Cuba ... the good ol' US of A has its dirty secrets too.


And pockets of 'third world' poverty. And literacy levels at such a poor standard that instruction manuals for ground crew at our local USAAF base were in pictorial form - hardly any words in any language....
I remember looking out of our hotel window in Lower Manhattan each morning and seeing the old homeless guy sleeping in the doorway of a luxury goods shop.
Every country has its poor and destitute. Even Sweden and Denmark, held up as models of social democracy and redistribution, has its comparatively well-dressed homeless. Parts of London are so run-down they could be in a developing country. The appalling neglect of public services during the Tory decades still shows in many of our cities and rural areas.
The problem in most social democracies though isn't poverty as such, its income inequality. This is particularly true of the UK where the gap between rich and less rich is the widest in Europe.
As an immigrant in the Czech Republic (back on topic) I lived in the country with Europe's narrowest gap between the well-off and the less so. Although the CR is a developing capitalist/mixed economy integrated into the world trade and financial systems it hasn't gone for globalisation as we in the UK and elsewhere in the West have done. And it shows!There is of course a number of extremely wealthy individuals and those at the bottom live very precariously. The bulk of the population though are a sort of middle-income class living at around the standard of a semi-skilled UK worker. Professionals aren't paid anything like the differentials you would expect in most countries. There is virtually no class feeling or distinction although money talks (where doesn't it?) and there is a great deal of petty jealousy.
The downsides are that corruption is pervasive and petty crime -pickpocketing, theft from cars, shop-lifting - is a real every-day nuisance.
Now.....many people would like living in such an egalitarian state and in many ways I liked very much the undoubted feeling of a one-class society.
But there is a dullness and lack of what for a better word I'll call 'elegance' that after I while I found depressing. I found a resistance to change and any kind of risk-taking and an attitude of 'We've always done it like this, why meddle with things?' Children often live with and are supported by their parents well into their thirties. Iniatiative, openness to new ideas and flexibility are not characteristics of Czech society. 
Comparing the UK and the CR I would say that for all its inequalities and unfairnesses, the UK is in many ways a better place to live. The overall standard of living including the social wage...healthcare, education, care of public spaces, quality of social services etc. is significantly higher in the UK.
I haven't yet decided whether its the legacy of four decades of socialism or something in the Czech national psyche that's responsible for this timid approach to life but I know from talking to my Czech friends who were born and educated under socialism that mindsets formed in youth are hard to change as you get older even when experience should jolt you out of your thought habits.
One important point we've not mentioned is that whenever people living in socialist states have been given the chance, they vote with their feet. Cuba tries to keep its citizens from any close contact with the 'free' world. Why, if life is so good?
To me the answer is obvious: the lure of consumer goods which up to now only capitalist societies have been able to produce and make available to the masses at prices they can afford.
As the Communist playwright Berthold Brecht wrote: Eats first, morals after wards'. But I would change this to 'Car, tv and domestic appliances first...'


----------



## jojo

Alcalaina said:


> Sounds like Los Angeles, or Las Vegas!
> 
> My OH was at a conference in LA and the conference centre was just 3 blocks from the hotel so he decided to walk. He was told on no account should he do this as it was far too dangerous. He did it anyway (he's like that) and was appalled at the squalor and poverty hidden from view, people living in cardboard boxes and rummaging through hotel bins for food. Certainly not something they want the tourists to see, so they try and force you to take a cab!
> 
> So you see it's not just Cuba ... the good ol' US of A has its dirty secrets too.


I've no doubt! Altho I think theres too much of it in Cuba for it to be kept a hidden dirty secret!!

Maybe the answer is the law of the jungle - let the strongest survive and the weak perish????? Thats what other animals on the planet do and it does mean that the gene pool gets stronger and moves forward!

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> Wise words indeed - and now I have a sneaking suspicion that in some of your posts you may be playing devil's advocate ?!?
> 
> Incidentally I don't like my political beliefs being labelled as a religion (though I do know where you're coming from). I prefer the term ideology. Religion implies dogma, ritual and social control by unelected leaders, with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Ideology implies openness, social awareness and vision, with aspirations for change.


No, what I write I sincerely think is right (tho' always open to correction).
Whether your political beliefs can be described as a religion or not depend on your willingness to accept they may be wrong (I don't like the word' wrong' but can't think of a better one).
Most people I met in my 'Party' days held political beliefs in such a way that they could accurately be described as a religion. Religion, ideology...all are the same, aren't they?
Marxist, Trotskyite and fascist Parties have dogma, social control, ritual, hymns, sacred sites and secular saints. Some members of the Labour Party could be included in that group. To me whether ideology or religion, it's all about faith in a set of principles that cannot be objectively tested.
Funny but the word 'ideology' implies all those things to me. 
Incidentally, some religions elect their leaders.
The only thing I believe in passionately is what I can only describe as 'decency'. 
And I don't mean that in the usual sense it's employed but in the sense of the way each individual should be treated unless there are good grounds for not doing so.
Vietnam, Indonesia, China.....state control but not ownership is now their favoured mode.
Like Cuba, they found that 'socialist' economic policies didn't work.
But they still refer to themselves as socialist, don't they?
Just goes to show that a word can have the meaning you want it to have....didn't Lewis Carroll say something about that in 'Alice'?


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> I've no doubt! Altho I think theres too much of it in Cuba for it to be kept a hidden dirty secret!!
> 
> Maybe the answer is the law of the jungle - let the strongest survive and the weak perish????? Thats what other animals on the planet do and it does mean that the gene pool gets stronger and moves forward!
> 
> Jo xxx


That's going to happen but not in the traditional Darwinian way.. Humans won't destroy the earth, the earth will destroy humans.
And before then the West will decline and China, Brazil, India and maybe Russia if it can sort out its mafia capitalism will be the leading world powers.
And we'll all be dead.


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> That's going to happen but not in the traditional Darwinian way.. Humans won't destroy the earth, the earth will destroy humans.
> And before then the West will decline and China, Brazil, India and maybe Russia if it can sort out its mafia capitalism will be the leading world powers.
> And we'll all be dead.



Thats a cheery little prophecy and you're probably right!!

Jo xxx


----------



## Alcalaina

jojo said:


> I've no doubt! Altho I think theres too much of it in Cuba for it to be kept a hidden dirty secret!!
> 
> Maybe the answer is the law of the jungle - let the strongest survive and the weak perish????? Thats what other animals on the planet do and it does mean that the gene pool gets stronger and moves forward!
> 
> Jo xxx


Well, thankfully we aren´t animals and don´t eat our young if they are born deformed, or leave our grandparents out on the hills to die.


----------



## gerrit

Alcalaina said:


> Sounds like Los Angeles, or Las Vegas!
> 
> My OH was at a conference in LA and the conference centre was just 3 blocks from the hotel so he decided to walk. He was told on no account should he do this as it was far too dangerous. He did it anyway (he's like that) and was appalled at the squalor and poverty hidden from view, people living in cardboard boxes and rummaging through hotel bins for food. Certainly not something they want the tourists to see, so they try and force you to take a cab!
> 
> So you see it's not just Cuba ... the good ol' US of A has its dirty secrets too.


USA is the type of society I would never ever want to live in. Mass manipulation and propaganda in the media, human right record which is very doubtful, and due to their system of capitalism the poor layer of society lives in worse conditions than in some third world countries. The American Dream is long dead for many people that in the past dreamt of moving to America. I would not mind a visit (bar the states that actively execute frequently) but living there? No damn way. It's a good example of how democracy is an illusion and how capitalism is not the solution.




mrypg9 said:


> And pockets of 'third world' poverty. And literacy levels at such a poor standard that instruction manuals for ground crew at our local USAAF base were in pictorial form - hardly any words in any language....
> I remember looking out of our hotel window in Lower Manhattan each morning and seeing the old homeless guy sleeping in the doorway of a luxury goods shop.
> Every country has its poor and destitute. Even Sweden and Denmark, held up as models of social democracy and redistribution, has its comparatively well-dressed homeless. Parts of London are so run-down they could be in a developing country. The appalling neglect of public services during the Tory decades still shows in many of our cities and rural areas.
> The problem in most social democracies though isn't poverty as such, its income inequality. This is particularly true of the UK where the gap between rich and less rich is the widest in Europe.
> As an immigrant in the Czech Republic (back on topic) I lived in the country with Europe's narrowest gap between the well-off and the less so. Although the CR is a developing capitalist/mixed economy integrated into the world trade and financial systems it hasn't gone for globalisation as we in the UK and elsewhere in the West have done. And it shows!There is of course a number of extremely wealthy individuals and those at the bottom live very precariously. The bulk of the population though are a sort of middle-income class living at around the standard of a semi-skilled UK worker. Professionals aren't paid anything like the differentials you would expect in most countries. There is virtually no class feeling or distinction although money talks (where doesn't it?) and there is a great deal of petty jealousy.
> The downsides are that corruption is pervasive and petty crime -pickpocketing, theft from cars, shop-lifting - is a real every-day nuisance.
> Now.....many people would like living in such an egalitarian state and in many ways I liked very much the undoubted feeling of a one-class society.
> But there is a dullness and lack of what for a better word I'll call 'elegance' that after I while I found depressing. I found a resistance to change and any kind of risk-taking and an attitude of 'We've always done it like this, why meddle with things?' Children often live with and are supported by their parents well into their thirties. Iniatiative, openness to new ideas and flexibility are not characteristics of Czech society.
> Comparing the UK and the CR I would say that for all its inequalities and unfairnesses, the UK is in many ways a better place to live. The overall standard of living including the social wage...healthcare, education, care of public spaces, quality of social services etc. is significantly higher in the UK.
> I haven't yet decided whether its the legacy of four decades of socialism or something in the Czech national psyche that's responsible for this timid approach to life but I know from talking to my Czech friends who were born and educated under socialism that mindsets formed in youth are hard to change as you get older even when experience should jolt you out of your thought habits.
> One important point we've not mentioned is that whenever people living in socialist states have been given the chance, they vote with their feet. Cuba tries to keep its citizens from any close contact with the 'free' world. Why, if life is so good?
> To me the answer is obvious: the lure of consumer goods which up to now only capitalist societies have been able to produce and make available to the masses at prices they can afford.
> As the Communist playwright Berthold Brecht wrote: Eats first, morals after wards'. But I would change this to 'Car, tv and domestic appliances first...'


Cuba isn't exactly cut off from the world. People can access the internet without censorship (admittedly, the cost of that is more than the average Cuban is prepared to spend, but they can if they wish so), tourists often prefer staying with Cuban families instead of hotels, and interaction between tourists and locals is common. So it's not like Cuban people are kept under an oppressive propaganda like it happens in North Korea and like it used to happen in some former East Bloc states.



When it comes to Eastern Europe... Me and several other foreigners were constantly irritated by the huge difference in incomes between the foreign investors in the country and the very underpaid local people doing the hard work. I was better paid than colleagues who were not expats but doing the same jobs, which I thought was very unfair but when I mentioned that to the bosses the guys I was trying to defend (my underpaid co-workers) hardly seemed to care. It was one of the many things I disliked about the place: capitalist decadency, as I call it. The upper class included foreign investors who often got paid more in one month than the locals did in 5 months. Several people I knew found it odd that I was living on my own and wondered how I could (narrowly) afford it. 

People in the former East Bloc are constantly abused by big corporations opening offices in Czech R., Poland, Slowakia, Hungary, Romania, ... where the ones at upper level tend to be all expats living in wealth while employing locals at scandalously low wages. Like you describe, they often either stay with their parents until mid thirties, or they share a small flat sometimes with 3 or 4 people. Meanwhile foreign investors, mainly from the anglosaxon world, were having salaries that they even would consider high if they'd be in London or Paris. That is what is my issue with capitalism ; I don't say everyone should earn exactly the same, I do say there should be a maximum gap to avoid such decadencies. 

In all enterprises, the locals were usually underpaid compared to the superiors who almost all were expats. This is what I call exploiting people. In Poland I talked to a few locals who --when converted from zloty to euro-- made below 500 euro a month. Meanwhile their superiors made salaries that would be considered high even in the average western European country. Surprise surprise that these were all foreigners. Outsourcing is explotation in many cases, sadly enough. Asia is a new target area for this type of business, needless to say why. These multinationals would rather put anyone in their UK or US offices on the dole if they can save a bit by moving the office to India, than to even consider the consequences for their staff. 

And whilst obviously younger people grew up with capitalism and never knew any other system, ... I lived in Germany, in Berlin, but that is an enclave in former DDR territory. There is the phenomenon of "Ostalgia" , a wordplay on Nostalgia and Ost-Deutschland (DDR). Surprising poll results indicated that the people who are nostalgic for the communist DDR times were not low in numbers. This is a well hidden secret as it doesn't fit in reunited Germany's image, but meanwhile East German memorabilia and merch are big business in the former DDR, Dresden and Berlin being exceptions to some extent. I talked to several people who missed communism because they found life so easy with the government arranging their jobs, no difficult choices to make in life, ... 



And to answer your question why people are not voluntarely moving into socialist states: I would like to do it for at least an extended period of time, but unfortunately I am without special degrees or skills that could arrange working permits. Especially Cuba is on my list of countries I'd like to spend some extended time in (by that I mean, not as a tourist but as an expat)


----------



## gerrit

mrypg9 said:


> Vietnam, Indonesia, China.....state control but not ownership is now their favoured mode.


This is exactly what I'm advocating: the state having a strong surveillance on privately owned businesses (or, which would come down to the same thing, the state owning business but giving licenses to private persons to run them) while nationalising certain industries such as banking, public transport, ...

This system is a good in-between between socialist and non-socialist thinking, but with a shift towards the left. There's no socialism in the purest sense of the word, but with state surveillance you can control the salary gaps between several workers and try to limit them, thereby creating a classless society more or less (a truly classless society won't ever work, but you can limit the differences between the classes)

A mixed economy is what I would support under the condition that there is strong state surveillance on the privately owned businesses. You are right that socialism in the strictest sense of the world doesn't work, but the free market capitalism also failed. An economy where the state does not employ all but does have surveillance on all, is what I mean with "socialism adapted to the present era".

Not sure what label you would put on this way of thinking, but the label isn't what matters. Call it socialist, call it communist, call it whatever-ist, ... That is irrelevant. The functioning is what matters.




PS Jo: nobody is keeping poverty in Cuba a secret. I guess it matters who you talk to. The friends I have who went to Cuba did not have any restriction of movement and went outside of the touristic areas as well, in order to see the real Cuban life. They too were surprised by the poverty, but at the same time they said it is not as bad as some media make it look like, and they praised the low level of crime and the friendliness of the Cuban people. They were not enthousiast about the system, but they did like the country and its people overall.


----------



## JBODEN

gerrit said:


> When it comes to Eastern Europe... Me and several other foreigners were constantly irritated by the huge difference in incomes between the foreign investors in the country and the very underpaid local people doing the hard work. I was better paid than colleagues who were not expats but doing the same jobs, which I thought was very unfair but when I mentioned that to the bosses the guys I was trying to defend (my underpaid co-workers) hardly seemed to care. It was one of the many things I disliked about the place: capitalist decadency, as I call it. The upper class included foreign investors who often got paid more in one month than the locals did in 5 months. Several people I knew found it odd that I was living on my own and wondered how I could (narrowly) afford it. People in the former East Bloc are constantly abused by big corporations opening offices in Czech R., Poland, Slowakia, Hungary, Romania, ... where the ones at upper level tend to be all expats living in wealth while employing locals at scandalously low wages. Like you describe, they often either stay with their parents until mid thirties, or they share a small flat sometimes with 3 or 4 people. Meanwhile foreign investors, mainly from the anglosaxon world, were having salaries that they even would consider high if they'd be in London or Paris. That is what is my issue with capitalism ; In all enterprises, the locals were usually underpaid compared to the superiors who almost all were expats. This is what I call exploiting people. In Poland I talked to a few locals who --when converted from zloty to euro-- made below 500 euro a month. Meanwhile their superiors made salaries that would be considered high even in the average western European country. Surprise surprise that these were all foreigners.


I spent 20 years in Poland working for a multinational vehicle manufacturer. Although the ‘locals’ were paid less than their counterparts in western Europe their salaries were at least 4 times the national average. On the other hand the vehicle dealers (all Polish) were paying their staff generally the national average and only in key positions were salaries up to double that. Unfortunately I don’t have data relating to the salary policies of other big foreign corporations but as with this multinational I think that they paid over the national average to get the best.
I, too, benefited from earning a relatively high wage which I estimate was 20 times the average when I started and only 5 times the average when I left. 
When I went to Poland they had just ‘overthrown’ Communism and were embracing Capitalism (although I knew a few friends of my parents who were US$ millionaires in the early 60’s and had private enterprises). Companies were prepared to pay what seemed like ‘over-the-odds’ salaries because they needed our expertise. 
I was charged with teaching the dealer network business management techniques because absolutely none of the owners nor their accountants had a clue about planning, budgeting, reading balance sheets, reading profit & loss data. As mentioned before in a State controlled enterprise the ‘employer’ pretended it was paying whilst employees pretended they were working. There was absolutely no incentive to increase profitability (through increased productivity) because the State employer took those profits for itself.
It took a generation for the ‘local’ youth to get up to speed.

As to investors being paid more than the workers'; They invest their money, they take the risks and they create jobs so they are entitled to a significant reward.


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> As to investors being paid more than the workers'; They invest their money, they take the risks and they create jobs so they are entitled to a significant reward.


And of course if foreign investors were not prepared to buy Czech, Polish etc. bonds and invest in setting up operations in these countries then where would the capital have come from in order to kick start a market economy?
The last few Polish Communist Governments, incredibly incompetent even by Soviet bloc standards,managed to put the country hugely in hock to foreign lenders. There wasn't enough money to open a fish and chip shop, let alone start up a company employing hundreds of workers.


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> The last few Polish Communist Governments, incredibly incompetent even by Soviet bloc standards,managed to put the country hugely in hock to foreign lenders. There wasn't enough money to open a fish and chip shop, let alone start up a company employing hundreds of workers.


Not surprising! Just one example:- The USSR required Gdansk to build them merchant ships (state of the art). The Poles had to borrow euro dollars to buy FF&F from the west whilst the USSR paid them in roubles or seconda watches.
The USSR was financially 'raping' its satellites!
PS I was close to the Polish debt restructuring negotiations, called the London Round, in 1981.


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> Not surprising! Just one example:- The USSR required Gdansk to build them merchant ships (state of the art). The Poles had to borrow euro dollars to buy FF&F from the west whilst the USSR paid them in roubles or seconda watches.
> The USSR was financially 'raping' its satellites!
> PS I was close to the Polish debt restructuring negotiations, called the London Round, in 1981.


Have you read 'The Polish Revolution' by Timothy Garton-Ash? It's basically the story of the rise...and later fall...of Solidarity. Garton-Ash writes well on the former Soviet-bloc states.
Regarding salaries paid to foreign professionals/managers in those countries...tbh I wouldn't work there for a local salary. Crafty landlords raise rents to take advantage of the extra purchasing power.Our Czech friends nearly fainted when we told them what we were paying to rent our house in Prague - it was at least four times more than a Czech would expect to pay. It's hard getting used to the often inferior quality of foodstuffs, clothing etc. so you tend to buy in 'specialist' shops which import from the UK.
I was lucky in that I flew back to the UK every week for most of the first year and about twice a month for the rest of the time so I could bring back decent ground coffee, cheese, sausages, bacon etc. But if we needed to buy anything in the specialist import shops the prices were eye-watering.
Of course we ate local produce most of the time but the quality of meat, fruit and vegetables was poor and there was no fresh fish or seafood.
In spite of the salary differentials, Czechs were very keen to work for foreign firms.


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> Well, thankfully we aren´t animals and don´t eat our young if they are born deformed, or leave our grandparents out on the hills to die.


But we are animals. Just another species. Thinking we aren't animals sharing the earth with other animal species is imo part of our problem.
We annihilate people we think inferior (Hitler)or obstructive (Stalin, Pol Pot etc.)
and use our advanced technological knowledge to invent even more effective ways of destroying each other.
**** sapiens isn't too kind in its treatment of other animals either as hunting with dogs, bullfighting, cock and dog fighting and the abandoned dogs at ADANA testify.
The chief distinction between **** sapiens (or rapiens as we should more accurately be described) is our capacity to believe we have a destiny, a kind of progress, that our history is one of development. 
For some its a religious belief in an afterlife, for others its a secular faith in progress towards a better society.
But there is nothing in human history to support this view....sadly.


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> Have you read 'The Polish Revolution' by Timothy Garton-Ash? It's basically the story of the rise...and later fall...of Solidarity. Garton-Ash writes well on the former Soviet-bloc states.
> Regarding salaries paid to foreign professionals/managers in those countries...tbh I wouldn't work there for a local salary. Crafty landlords raise rents to take advantage of the extra purchasing power.Our Czech friends nearly fainted when we told them what we were paying to rent our house in Prague - it was at least four times more than a Czech would expect to pay. It's hard getting used to the often inferior quality of foodstuffs, clothing etc. so you tend to buy in 'specialist' shops which import from the UK.
> I was lucky in that I flew back to the UK every week for most of the first year and about twice a month for the rest of the time so I could bring back decent ground coffee, cheese, sausages, bacon etc. But if we needed to buy anything in the specialist import shops the prices were eye-watering.
> Of course we ate local produce most of the time but the quality of meat, fruit and vegetables was poor and there was no fresh fish or seafood.
> In spite of the salary differentials, Czechs were very keen to work for foreign firms.


Solidarity was hijacked by the Kaczinsky brothers (the twins). Because they gave Walensa some advice (he dismissed them shortly afterward because he realized that they were trying to use Solidarity as a springboard for their personal political ambitions) they have managed to convince (maybe through better PR) some sections of the population that it was in fact they that overturned Communism. 
As to rents, yes landlords thought that since you were from the west you must be loaded.
When I went to Poland for the second time (1960, there were no problems with visas as long as you paid the right amount of US$ per person per day) and met some of our distant relatives (most of our closest were annihilated by the Nazis & Commies) one of my cousins (obviously a few years older than I) asked for a car as a present and couldn’t be convinced that we were relatively poor and that we couldn’t afford it! What a cheek – can you imagine a distant member of your family asking for such an expensive present even in these times?
As to food, I was pleasantly surprised by the high quality. The funny thing was that in 1990 pork was the most expensive and beef and venison were the cheapest (still they were one tenth of the UK price). By 1995 they got in to the Danish method of mass production (enzymes) and of course quality dropped to zero, similarly with vodka production. Coffee was good, whilst cheese was very similar to plastic unless you liked curd or cottage cheese (yummy!). Vegies – mostly organic so very good. Fish – mostly deep frozen so tasteless.


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> Solidarity was hijacked by the Kaczinsky brothers (the twins). Because they gave Walensa some advice (he dismissed them shortly afterward because he realized that they were trying to use Solidarity as a springboard for their personal political ambitions) they have managed to convince (maybe through better PR) some sections of the population that it was in fact they that overturned Communism.
> As to rents, yes landlords thought that since you were from the west you must be loaded.
> When I went to Poland for the second time (1960, there were no problems with visas as long as you paid the right amount of US$ per person per day) and met some of our distant relatives (most of our closest were annihilated by the Nazis & Commies) one of my cousins (obviously a few years older than I) asked for a car as a present and couldn’t be convinced that we were relatively poor and that we couldn’t afford it! What a cheek – can you imagine a distant member of your family asking for such an expensive present even in these times?
> As to food, I was pleasantly surprised by the high quality. The funny thing was that in 1990 pork was the most expensive and beef and venison were the cheapest (still they were one tenth of the UK price). By 1995 they got in to the Danish method of mass production (enzymes) and of course quality dropped to zero, similarly with vodka production. Coffee was good, whilst cheese was very similar to plastic unless you liked curd or cottage cheese (yummy!). Vegies – mostly organic so very good. Fish – mostly deep frozen so tasteless.


I found the quality of most things much better in Poland than in the CR. Maybe Poles are less inclined to accept rubbish than Czechs.


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> I found the quality of most things much better in Poland than in the CR. Maybe Poles are less inclined to accept rubbish than Czechs.


Fortunately the Peoples Party were unable to collectivize the peasant farmers so meat & veg production continued much the same as pre-war. The only regions that were collectivized were the lands reclaimed from the germans (Pomerania/Prussia/Silesia).


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> But we are animals. Just another species. Thinking we aren't animals sharing the earth with other animal species is imo part of our problem.
> We annihilate people we think inferior (Hitler)or obstructive (Stalin, Pol Pot etc.)
> and use our advanced technological knowledge to invent even more effective ways of destroying each other.
> **** sapiens isn't too kind in its treatment of other animals either as hunting with dogs, bullfighting, cock and dog fighting and the abandoned dogs at ADANA testify.
> The chief distinction between **** sapiens (or rapiens as we should more accurately be described) is our capacity to believe we have a destiny, a kind of progress, that our history is one of development.
> For some its a religious belief in an afterlife, for others its a secular faith in progress towards a better society.
> But there is nothing in human history to support this view....sadly.


Well, when I meet a cockroach who can reduce me to tears playing the violin, or a goat who runs a rehab centre for down-and-outs, I might agree with you.

As top of the food chain (whether by evolution or creation) man has a responsibility to other creatures, but we aren't all equal. There are some animal species I would rather not share the planet with, like malaria-carrying mosquitos.

Most of us don't go round annihilating people we think are inferior. Most of us are kind and caring to our fellow humans, and our animals. Most technology is not about weapons (though too much of it is, of course); without it, you and I would not be communicating now (though you might think that would be quite a relief )


----------



## gerrit

JBODEN said:


> As to investors being paid more than the workers'; They invest their money, they take the risks and they create jobs so they are entitled to a significant reward.


Agree to some extent, the gap should be restricted. The thing I dislike about capitalism and the free market economy is that the gaps between salaries are very significant. That is how a society of layers/classes is coming into existance. The mixed economy with government surveillance as was mentioned in another post, should keep an eye on making sure the salary gaps are too low to create such situations.


I won't comment on your experiences in Poland, I can only speak for the industry I've worked in for 6 years now (and in 7 different countries): the customer service industry. Whereas in the UK and Ireland I found the work quite honest and rewards were justified when compared to the work done, in Eastern Europe it was borderlining slavery... for the locals. We, the expats, got a low salary but still a reasonable one. The locals were paid very poorly to do jobs that were previously done in Ireland and the UK and other western European countries. Those corporations had often shut down their offices there, leaving their staff unemployed (another problem I have with capitalism - staff are seen as easily replacable and not valued as they should be) and moving offices to either Eastern Europe or Asia where they could pay lot less salaries and find people prepared to just accept that. I was always amazed on how badly the locals were paid, and whenever I asked a Czech, Slowak or Polish person if they didn't find it unhonest that expats were paid more for the same work, they hardly seemed to find it unnormal, drilled to kneel for the employer and swallow whatever poor salary they were paid despite working hard. I can only imagine that in Asia it must be even worse because the longer I've been in this business the more I see offices more to India, the Philippines or neighbouring countries who are probably even cheaper than Eastern Europe. 

On top of the fact that the locals in Eastern Europe found it very normal that foreigners got paid more for exactly the same work, the superiors were paid unacceptably high salaries which were often 4 or 5x what the local workforces earned (the expat colleagues being somewhere in the middle) despite those locals often being more competent than the foreigners who were given supervising positions. Locals promoting to a superior level existed but was an exception rather than a rule. Because their salaries were so low, they lived with their parents until their thirties or shared flats with sometimes up to 3 people. And worst of all: none of them even thought of complaining.

I consider this very abusive, and the fact that I -purely for being an expat- was paid a bit more didn't stop me from being the one actually complaining about how poorly the locals were paid. They on the other hand didn't seem to bother while I, the one paid more than them, was amazed about the abuse of cheap workforces.

On top of that, the number of alcoholics, gambling addicts and such were countless. There were a lot of people with a mentality of finding it normal they were paid very poor salaries for hard work and ignoring the foreigners above them earning much more, they seemed to find it all totally normal to share their room with their sister and live with their parents even when they were over 30 years old, and the average activity after a working week was spending friday nights with lots of alcohol. In Poland, that has to be said, I enjoyed the cultural scene, but the poor salaries and the abuse by western investors was all over Eastern Europe (and probably in Romania and Hungary the conditions will be even worse than in the former Czechoslowakia and Poland)

To me it all came across as a society modernising too rapidly but at the same time being victim of foreign investors treating the people as throw-away objects. At the same time they closed their British offices and left many Irish and Britons unemployed as well.

That is capitalism for you, or at least part of it. Obviously it's not all bad, but the abuse is there undeniably. I like mrypg9's idea of a mixed economy but there should be strict surveillance from the government on the privately run businesses, and salary caps to avoid a large gap between the layers of society.

In Germany I was surprised to hear that the number of people with melancholy for communism was higher than any media or politician would ever admit. That was when I first arrived in Germany (Eastern Germany / Berlin). Two years later I am more surprised that not more people share their thoughts. Capitalism in the former East Bloc is borderline slavery and grotesque abuse of cheap local workforces by foreign investors for whom the only thing that matters in life is the dollar or euro sign.


----------



## JBODEN

gerrit said:


> The locals were paid very poorly to do jobs that were previously done in Ireland and the UK and other western European countries. Those corporations had often shut down their offices there, leaving their staff unemployed (another problem I have with capitalism - staff are seen as easily replacable and not valued as they should be) and moving offices to either Eastern Europe or Asia where they could pay lot less salaries and find people prepared to just accept that.
> 
> It is a fact that Corporations are moving certain parts of their operations to countries where the cost of labour is cheaper. One has to ask why.
> Firstly it is a fact that investors (risk takers) want a better return (dividends) on their investments and since wages/salaries represent, on average 50% of total expenses then reducing the wage cost has a significant effect on the bottom line.
> Secondly maybe there is pressure to increase wages way above what would be deemed to be economical.
> 
> 
> I was always amazed on how badly the locals were paid, and whenever I asked a Czech, Slowak or Polish person if they didn't find it unhonest that expats were paid more for the same work, they hardly seemed to find it unnormal, drilled to kneel for the employer and swallow whatever poor salary they were paid despite working hard.
> 
> A Corporation will go to a country where there are sufficient surplus people to fill their requirements, generally to regions of high unemployment. They don’t press-gang the locals into the job and the applicants know what they are being offered in terms of salary etc. Accepting the job would imply that they are happy with the offer.
> 
> On top of the fact that the locals in Eastern Europe found it very normal that foreigners got paid more for exactly the same work, the superiors were paid unacceptably high salaries which were often 4 or 5x what the local workforces earned (the expat colleagues being somewhere in the middle) despite those locals often being more competent than the foreigners who were given supervising positions.
> 
> The fact that expats are paid more is due to the fact that they are seconded to another Country. I can’t imagine that an expat would agree to a secondment AND a reduction in income especially since he probably has a family/house to maintain back home. Whether a local is more competent is very subjective. Early in my career a friend, walking past a manager’s office made a derogatory comment that he could do the managers job better. Unfortunately over the following 5 years he couldn’t prove it. His comments were ‘sour grapes’.
> 
> Locals promoting to a superior level existed but was an exception rather than a rule. Because their salaries were so low, they lived with their parents until their thirties or shared flats with sometimes up to 3 people. And worst of all: none of them even thought of complaining.
> 
> To whom should they complain? They knew what their reward would be when they took the job. I assume that prior to taking the job they lived with their parents so why do you think that suddenly things should change after taking the job?
> 
> On top of that, the number of alcoholics, gambling addicts and such were countless. There were a lot of people with a mentality of finding it normal they were paid very poor salaries for hard work and ignoring the foreigners above them earning much more, they seemed to find it all totally normal to share their room with their sister and live with their parents even when they were over 30 years old, and the average activity after a working week was spending friday nights with lots of alcohol.
> 
> I don’t understand this. Do you think that if they got more money they would suddenly stop drinking and gambling?
> 
> In Germany I was surprised to hear that the number of people with melancholy for communism was higher than any media or politician would ever admit. That was when I first arrived in Germany (Eastern Germany / Berlin). Two years later I am more surprised that not more people share their thoughts.
> 
> My father & mother -in-law had the same view. They saw their standard of living drop after Communism and hankered for its return. Unfortunately the State was bankrupt and it is more than likely that if things hadn’t changed we would have had a situation such as in Cuba or North Korea.
> 
> Capitalism in the former East Bloc is borderline slavery and grotesque abuse of cheap local workforces by foreign investors for whom the only thing that matters in life is the dollar or euro sign.
> 
> Slavery? Rubbish! What % of foreign investors are their in each of the ex-communist bloc? I suggest that they are a small minority.


...


----------



## gerrit

I didn't claim they were a majority of employers, I was talking only on this specific business which is outsourcing and customer service. That said, there's quite a lot of them, so it's not exactly a very tiny minority neither (but I never claimed it was a majority)

I also don't say an office worker should earn the same as a manager (although, as I said, I do believe the government should apply salary caps to reduce the difference in salary without totally taking the differences away and applying a fixed wage for everyone equal) but 
a) some of these managers are incompetent and only got the job because they came from the western European/American countries that are exploiting the cheap labour forces
b) the locals tend to earn less than expats as well if the expat is doing exactly the same job. Now that's already less logical than in the situation where the expat has a special skill or experience not present on the local market. If two people do exactly the same work, they should get the same wage IMO and I am not going to change that opinion because I was the lucky one with the higher salary than the local. I found it quite frightening that I was campaigning for a salary increase for the local co-workers while they couldn't even care ; they swallowed everything the company asked them to, as if they were machines, that is exactly what every employer wants but it's a very dangerous situation. The fact these people were perfectly fine with the below-honest salary is probably the very reason why the companies moved to these countries in the first place: low salaries and people that don't even complain about it...



And obviously the number of drunks and gambling addicts is not parallel with the number of underpaid people. However, it shows a deeper underlying problem: the fact that even when they hardly make enough money to pay the rent and the bills, a quite frighteningly high number of people prefered spending it on booze and casino's. The attraction of the sudden rise of nightclubs, casinos, discos etc that came with the mass tourism.

Capitalism turned many of these countries into places that only on the surface seem to be any better than before the influx of foreign investments and mass tourism. Below that surface, there's quite a lot of ugly things to be seen. And I know, back in communist days the situation was bleak as well, I'm not argueing with that, I'm only adding that right now it isn't exactly a pretty picture neither. Communism failed in the former East Bloc, but capitalism didn't exactly solve things all of a sudden neither.

mrypg9's mixed economy proposal seems to be the best option available to me, under the condition that state surveillance is omnipresent in the privately owned businesses to avoid any abuses.


----------



## dunmovin

gerrit said:


> I didn't claim they were a majority of employers, I was talking only on this specific business which is outsourcing and customer service. That said, there's quite a lot of them, so it's not exactly a very tiny minority neither (but I never claimed it was a majority)
> 
> I also don't say an office worker should earn the same as a manager (although, as I said, I do believe the government should apply salary caps to reduce the difference in salary without totally taking the differences away and applying a fixed wage for everyone equal) but
> a) some of these managers are incompetent and only got the job because they came from the western European/American countries that are exploiting the cheap labour forces
> b) the locals tend to earn less than expats as well if the expat is doing exactly the same job. Now that's already less logical than in the situation where the expat has a special skill or experience not present on the local market. If two people do exactly the same work, they should get the same wage IMO and I am not going to change that opinion because I was the lucky one with the higher salary than the local. I found it quite frightening that I was campaigning for a salary increase for the local co-workers while they couldn't even care ; they swallowed everything the company asked them to, as if they were machines, that is exactly what every employer wants but it's a very dangerous situation. The fact these people were perfectly fine with the below-honest salary is probably the very reason why the companies moved to these countries in the first place: low salaries and people that don't even complain about it...
> 
> 
> 
> And obviously the number of drunks and gambling addicts is not parallel with the number of underpaid people. However, it shows a deeper underlying problem: the fact that even when they hardly make enough money to pay the rent and the bills, a quite frighteningly high number of people prefered spending it on booze and casino's. The attraction of the sudden rise of nightclubs, casinos, discos etc that came with the mass tourism.
> 
> Capitalism turned many of these countries into places that only on the surface seem to be any better than before the influx of foreign investments and mass tourism. Below that surface, there's quite a lot of ugly things to be seen. And I know, back in communist days the situation was bleak as well, I'm not argueing with that, I'm only adding that right now it isn't exactly a pretty picture neither. Communism failed in the former East Bloc, but capitalism didn't exactly solve things all of a sudden neither.
> 
> mrypg9's mixed economy proposal seems to be the best option available to me, under the condition that state surveillance is omnipresent in the privately owned businesses to avoid any abuses.


gerrit....I find your agendas quite confusing, as they swing from right to left extremist views,so from this post, it seems your favorur communism, pacifism...both of which are at opposites. (yes the idealistic communism would equalize all of us, but can you trust the commrade above you[there always has to be one] to do the right thing?) Did you really want Stalin to liberate Belgium? Exchange one meglomaniac for anthother? Perhaps you would have invited Simon Wiesenthal to the liberation celebrations,or Ann Frank?.... they might have had a different view of what the cccp had planned for europe


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> Well, when I meet a cockroach who can reduce me to tears playing the violin, or a goat who runs a rehab centre for down-and-outs, I might agree with you.
> 
> As top of the food chain (whether by evolution or creation) man has a responsibility to other creatures, but we aren't all equal. There are some animal species I would rather not share the planet with, like malaria-carrying mosquitos.
> 
> Most of us don't go round annihilating people we think are inferior. Most of us are kind and caring to our fellow humans, and our animals. Most technology is not about weapons (though too much of it is, of course); without it, you and I would not be communicating now (though you might think that would be quite a relief )


Playing the violin and running centres for down and outs are skills that humans can accomplish....but the value we put on these skills is purely subjective. Whilst you and I might consider them valuable, many people would think them of scant importance in the overall scheme of things.
Other animals have skills we don't have. 
And of course there are some people we would both rather not share the planet with.
I didn't say that all humans are vicious....but looking back at the history of the human animal it's undeniable that our record is a bloody one.
As for technology....most inventions are indeed neutral. But our innate instinct as a species is to find some base use for them.
**** sapiens is the only animal to imagine it has some higher purpose in life.
This desire to see some kind of desirable 'end point', a kind of land of milk and honey, is also a neutral objective - it can lead to good or evil.
Instead of wasting time on grand but ultimately futile schemes of improvement I believe we could accomplish more by focusing on the here and now and looking at practical ways of working with achievable outcomes.
A good example of this imo is Ian Duncan Smith's proposals to get people off welfare and into work. In the short term it will actually involve more in terms of public spending but if it works as intended it will be a start to dealing with the gross inequality that blights our societies.
The usual outrage from the left has obscured the fact that being on welfare is itself the major factor in keeping people at the lower end of the income scale.
There is a very interesting - and readable -report by Professor Peter Saunders entitled Poverty of Ambition: a New Approach to Tackling Child Poverty which can be accessed at www,policyexchange.org.uk. Well worth a scan.


----------



## mrypg9

*mrypg9's mixed economy proposal seems to be the best option available to me, under the condition that state surveillance is omnipresent in the privately owned businesses to avoid any abuses*. 
__________________


And that's the kind of economy that has proved reasonably successful in Europe and elsewhere since the end of WW2. It's nothing new, nothing I invented! It's generally known as social democracy and to my mind it's the best deal we've yet managed to come up with.
In these free societies the balance swings one way or another: sometimes to the right as in the Thatcher era when the private sector was favoured over the public, sometimes to the left when people see the need for public spending and investment in essential services which the private sector would ignore as insufficiently profitable.
My problem with the policies of Thatcher and Blair was that they led to a market society not a social market economy.
I prefer the pragmatic European model as practised in Germany and France which on balance has proved successful both economically and socially over the long-term.
And since I no longer adhere to any political ideology, preferring to focus on what achieves the desired outcome, it bothers me little whether Governments of the Right or Left deliver these desired outcomes.


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> I believe we could accomplish more by focusing on the here and now and looking at practical ways of working with achievable outcomes.
> A good example of this imo is Ian Duncan Smith's proposals to get people off welfare and into work. In the short term it will actually involve more in terms of public spending but if it works as intended it will be a start to dealing with the gross inequality that blights our societies.
> The usual outrage from the left has obscured the fact that being on welfare is itself the major factor in keeping people at the lower end of the income scale.
> There is a very interesting - and readable -report by Professor Peter Saunders entitled Poverty of Ambition: a New Approach to Tackling Child Poverty which can be accessed at www,policyexchange.org.uk. Well worth a scan.


I read Saunders' paper and I've been following IDS's proposals with interest. Very laudable, but as you say, getting people off welfare and back to work will involve a lot of expenditure; on retraining, childcare facilities, even public transport. With £4 billion cuts in social spending imminent, and thousands of public sector workers losing their jobs, I can't see how it's going to work, and I couldn't find anything in the report to indicate how they are planning to handle this.


----------



## dunmovin

Alcalaina said:


> I read Saunders' paper and I've been following IDS's proposals with interest. Very laudable, but as you say, getting people off welfare and back to work will involve a lot of expenditure; on retraining, childcare facilities, even public transport. With £4 billion cuts in social spending imminent, and thousands of public sector workers losing their jobs, I can't see how it's going to work, and I couldn't find anything in the report to indicate how they are planning to handle this.


Question: if the 4 billion quid cuts in spending are required and PART of that is public sector workers getting out of work (Not a seperate issue) , should we not be asking why did this happen?

Why did we allow the people running the country to let the bankers ruin the economy, send our solidiers to wars that had nothing to do with us,turn the welfare state into a way of life for some people, let street crime go through the roof, let corporate crime go into orbit. Why has it got to the stage where NHS trusts can spend 300 million on business consultants and yet some poor ****** who has cancer, is told the course of drugs that might save him/prolong his life/improve his quality of life for the time he has left, is too expensive.

This coalition, might be as stable as an inverted pyramid, but it just might be what is needed For it to continue,it means keeping the "hardliners"on both sides in check, putting differences aside and actually working for the good of the people.

The very fact their instabilty might just be what allows it to do some good


----------



## mrypg9

Alcalaina said:


> I read Saunders' paper and I've been following IDS's proposals with interest. Very laudable, but as you say, getting people off welfare and back to work will involve a lot of expenditure; on retraining, childcare facilities, even public transport. With £4 billion cuts in social spending imminent, and thousands of public sector workers losing their jobs, I can't see how it's going to work, and I couldn't find anything in the report to indicate how they are planning to handle this.


It's going to be tough but I really do think it's vital to make a start on this. Clinton did something similar in the USA, expensive to set up but it paid for itself within a few years.*
How could it be paid for? Well, for a start I wouldn't put an extra 100000 workers a year on the dole until I was certain the private sector could supply the requisite number of jobs. Then I would be ruthless with the Defence Review. No renewal of Trident. Cut all the pageantry and unnecessary showing-off. Decide what we need for our national defence not what we think gives us status.
And I am disgusted at the £millions spent on the Pope's visit and sick of the fawning media coverage of a former member of the Hitler Jugend, a man who thinks its Christian to cover up the rape of children, a man who would rather close down children's homes than allow respectable gay couples to adopt, a man who forbids the use of condoms to combat AIDS and reduce family size in the poorest countries....and a man who dares lecture us on our failings.......have we gone mad????? Last night the news covered a service from Westminster Abbey that went on for ages. Did nothing else of real importance happen yesterday?
As my old Dorset gran would say, we're all going to hell in a handcart.
* It seems that IDS has defeated Osborne over the issue of cash for his project - hopefully that's the case.


----------



## mrypg9

dunmovin said:


> Question: if the 4 billion quid cuts in spending are required and PART of that is public sector workers getting out of work (Not a seperate issue) , should we not be asking why did this happen?
> 
> Why did we allow the people running the country to let the bankers ruin the economy, send our solidiers to wars that had nothing to do with us,turn the welfare state into a way of life for some people, let street crime go through the roof, let corporate crime go into orbit. Why has it got to the stage where NHS trusts can spend 300 million on business consultants and yet some poor ****** who has cancer, is told the course of drugs that might save him/prolong his life/improve his quality of life for the time he has left, is too expensive.
> 
> This coalition, might be as stable as an inverted pyramid, but it just might be what is needed For it to continue,it means keeping the "hardliners"on both sides in check, putting differences aside and actually working for the good of the people.
> 
> The very fact their instabilty might just be what allows it to do some good


Why did it happen? 
Because Tony Blair and New Labour essentially followed a neo-conservative agenda.
For all her mistakes with the British economy (wasting North Sea oil revenues in dole money instead of investing in training and new technology-based industries to replace the outdated ones) I do not believe that Margaret Thatcher would have taken us into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Thatcher was imo not a neo-conservative. When asked if she had read Fukiyama's triumphalist 'End of History' which proclaimed that with the end of Communism, American values would now be the dominant form of society she allegedly replied that she had and when she had finished it she thought 'an end of nonsense!'.
Sometimes you have to -albeit grudgingly - love the old trout


----------



## Alcalaina

dunmovin said:


> Question: if the 4 billion quid cuts in spending are required and PART of that is public sector workers getting out of work (Not a seperate issue) , should we not be asking why did this happen?


 No, the cuts in welfare payments are _in addition_ to staffing cuts being made across the board. And the £4 bn cut comes on top of £11 bn already announced. So a total of* £15 billion* to be cut from welfare benefits payments.



dunmovin said:


> Why did we allow the people running the country to let the bankers ruin the economy, send our solidiers to wars that had nothing to do with us,turn the welfare state into a way of life for some people, let street crime go through the roof, let corporate crime go into orbit. Why has it got to the stage where NHS trusts can spend 300 million on business consultants and yet some poor ****** who has cancer, is told the course of drugs that might save him/prolong his life/improve his quality of life for the time he has left, is too expensive.


IMO its the banks and big business that run the country, not the government - they are just puppets. In this respect there is virtually no difference between New Labour and the Conservatives.

I and a million others demonstrated against the Iraq war in 2001. The public was lied to and public opinion ignored. Sucking up to GWB was more important to Bliar than the wishes of the electorate.

Bliar was obsessed by targets and statistics. Much of the money thrown at the public sector to meet targets in education, healthcare, reducing poverty etc went, as you say, on monitoring and administration. He ignored the views of the professionals - teachers, doctors etc - in favour of his policy advisers.



dunmovin said:


> This coalition, might be as stable as an inverted pyramid, but it just might be what is needed For it to continue,it means keeping the "hardliners"on both sides in check, putting differences aside and actually working for the good of the people.
> 
> The very fact their instabilty might just be what allows it to do some good


IMO the Coalition won't last long. Clegg and some other opportunist LibDems will join the Tory party, others will slink off with some of the centre-left Labourites and form a new party.

There hasn't been a government in Britain working for the good of "the people" since Attlee's in 1945-51. Unless you define bankers and CEOs of multinational corporations as people! But we have to live in hope I suppose.


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> Sometimes you have to -albeit grudgingly - love the old trout


No no NO NO!!!!


----------



## Alcalaina

mrypg9 said:


> And I am disgusted at the £millions spent on the Pope's visit and sick of the fawning media coverage of a former member of the Hitler Jugend, a man who thinks its Christian to cover up the rape of children, a man who would rather close down children's homes than allow respectable gay couples to adopt, a man who forbids the use of condoms to combat AIDS and reduce family size in the poorest countries....and a man who dares lecture us on our failings.......have we gone mad?????



Absolutely.

Got yourself a Benedictaphone yet?
Ship of Fools: Gadgets for God


----------



## dunmovin

Alcalaina said:


> No, the cuts in welfare payments are _in addition_ to staffing cuts being made across the board. And the £4 bn cut comes on top of £11 bn already announced. So a total of* £15 billion* to be cut from welfare benefits payments.
> 
> 
> IMO its the banks and big business that run the country, not the government - they are just puppets. In this respect there is virtually no difference between New Labour and the Conservatives.
> (interesting thought... call it POINT1)
> 
> I and a million others demonstrated against the Iraq war in 2001. The public was lied to and public opinion ignored. Sucking up to GWB was more important to Bliar than the wishes of the electorate.
> 
> POINT2
> 
> Bliar was obsessed by targets and statistics. Much of the money thrown at the public sector to meet targets in education, healthcare, reducing poverty etc went, as you say, on monitoring and . He ignored the views of the professionals - teachers, doctors etc - in favour of his policy advisers.
> 
> POINT3
> IMO the Coalition won't last long. Clegg and some other opportunist LibDems will join the Tory party, others will slink off with some of the centre-left Labourites and form a new party.
> POINT4
> 
> There hasn't been a government in Britain working for the good of "the people" since Attlee's in 1945-51. Unless you define bankers and CEOs of multinational corporations as people! But we have to live in hope I suppose.


POINT 1....what you are saying is that voting is worthless...unless you have a vote on a board of directors of a bank or multinational

POINT 2 Blair was no more than charismatic con artist.He needed to suck up to GWB (who had no charisma... and even less working braincells than you would find on what grows on 10 day old bread)..Blair's succesor, ( a Scottish[I'm ashamed to admit he is Scottish] lawyer) had no right to ever be the PM.No one voted him in as PM and he should have(had he had the interests of his constituant at heart) stood for election in the Scottish parliment, against that rampaging lunatic Salmond, who, given a chance will take Scotland out of the Union, close Faslane(throwing people out of work) Hunterson nuclear power staion(again throwing people out of jobs) and expect the people of Scotland to come up with the cash.... duhhh how stupid is that?
POINT 3 is not time to hand back control to people who KNOW what they aredoing. Yes it will push up the unemployed figures, but their inflated salaries go back into the public domain and the cash can go where it's needed

POINT 4 The coalition may or may not work.Time will tell. And it will be a new way of thinking, but do we want to descend back into the days where people like Arthur Scargill and Mick Macghee could hold a whole nation to ransom?


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> ... a former member of the Hitler Jugend ...


Shame on you! As a 14 year old he didn't have much choice about the matter.


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> Shame on you! As a 14 year old he didn't have much choice about the matter.


Err...actually he did. Membership was not compulsory.


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> Err...actually he did. Membership was not compulsory.


... actually membership WAS compulsory!


----------



## jojo

I suppose its waaaaay too late to question just how far off topic this thread has gone ????? 

Jo xxx


----------



## nigele2

jojo said:


> I suppose its waaaaay too late to question just how far off topic this thread has gone ?????
> 
> Jo xxx


I'd of thought that it is very much on topic. Very informative. A lot of quality debate. 

Keep up the good work one and all


----------



## JBODEN

The HJ was organized into corps under adult leaders, and the general membership comprised boys aged fourteen to eighteen. From 1936, membership of the HJ was compulsory for all young German men.


----------



## jojo

nigele2 said:


> I'd of thought that it is very much on topic. Very informative. A lot of quality debate.
> 
> Keep up the good work one and all


If you say so, but I dont know what membership. compulsory or otherwise of the Hitler Youth movement has to do with immigration in Europe, altho I suppose at a stretch it could be seen as the birth of europe as we know it and people moving to and fro........... maybe????????????????

But yes, its a good debate as long as we dont start squabbling too much 

Jo xxx


----------



## nigele2

jojo said:


> If you say so, but I dont know what membership. compulsory or otherwise of the Hitler Youth movement has to do with immigration in Europe, altho I suppose at a stretch it could be seen as the birth of europe as we know it and people moving to and fro........... maybe????????????????
> 
> But yes, its a good debate as long as we dont start squabbling too much
> 
> Jo xxx


Jo you know full well that with the likes of you and Xabia prowling the streets after dark they wouldn't dare 

But they have crossed dangerous boundaries and still kept it sweet. If only there was more debate of this level the world might be a better place. 

Note: I'm just lurking cos my views on the pope would get me banned


----------



## Alcalaina

Just to please Jo and swing us back towards immigration in Europe - I am deeply disappointed that Zapatero expressed his backing for Sarkozy over the legality of the expulsion of the Roma people from France. 

I thought Viviane Reding's speech was superb. the Roma are EU citizens as much as the rest of us and the sort of discrimination shown by Sarkozy and Berlusconi just smacks of ethnic cleansing as exercised by the Nazis.


----------



## jojo

Alcalaina said:


> Just to please Jo and swing us back towards immigration in Europe


I'm such a nag arent I 

Jo xxx


----------



## Alcalaina

dunmovin said:


> POINT 1....what you are saying is that voting is worthless...unless you have a vote on a board of directors of a bank or multinational


No, I would never say people should not vote, otherwise the monster raving loonies like UKIP and the BNP will get in. But there is very little difference between the two main parties these days, you might as well toss a coin.



dunmovin said:


> POINT 3 is not time to hand back control to _people who KNOW what they are doing_. Yes it will push up the unemployed figures, but their inflated salaries go back into the public domain and the _cash can go where it's needed_.


  Who are these people who know what they are doing?? and where exactly is the cash needed ??


----------



## JBODEN

Alcalaina said:


> Just to please Jo and swing us back towards immigration in Europe - I am deeply disappointed that Zapatero expressed his backing for Sarkozy over the legality of the expulsion of the Roma people from France.
> 
> I thought Viviane Reding's speech was superb. the Roma are EU citizens as much as the rest of us and the sort of discrimination shown by Sarkozy and Berlusconi just smacks of ethnic cleansing as exercised by the Nazis.



Here is an article on the subject of 'illegal' Roma:
BBC News - Q&A: France Roma expulsions
Is a Country entitled to defend its immigration laws?


----------



## Alcalaina

JBODEN said:


> Here is an article on the subject of 'illegal' Roma:
> BBC News - Q&A: France Roma expulsions
> Is a Country entitled to defend its immigration laws?


France has signed up to the EU laws on freedom of movement. 

Racism is racism. This isn't about immigration, its about ethnic cleansing.
Roma Expulsions in France: Racism in Action | Eurocritics Magazine


----------



## JBODEN

Alcalaina said:


> France has signed up to the EU laws on freedom of movement.
> 
> Racism is racism. This isn't about immigration, *its about ethnic cleansing*.


Wow! ethnic cleansing?????? Emotive!
1230 Romas out of 400,000 isn't ethnic cleansing. Mind you if France continues with its expulsions they themselves might be expelled from the EU. This would benefit the EU in terms of the Common Agricultural Policy.
Apparently 10,000 Romas were expelled last year and no one seemed to have commented.
I wonder how many people of other EU nationals have been expelled from EU Countries(maybe someone can find the info).
Do you think the Roma followed the Schengen directive or have I misunderstood the situation?
Schengen Visa


----------



## mrypg9

Yes, there is a very nasty racist tinge to the whole question of Roma, certainly in the Czech Republic, which has been singled out by various human rights groups for its treatment of Roma, especially children in schools. I have been horrified to hear casual racist comments from highly educated people.
However the situation in the CR at least is not as clear cut as some would prefer. Both Roma and non-Roma Czechs need to adjust attitudes and practices if any headway towards integration and acceptance is to be made.


----------



## dunmovin

mrypg9 said:


> Yes, there is a very nasty racist tinge to the whole question of Roma, certainly in the Czech Republic, which has been singled out by various human rights groups for its treatment of Roma, especially children in schools. I have been horrified to hear casual racist comments from highly educated people.
> However the situation in the CR at least is not as clear cut as some would prefer. Both Roma and non-Roma Czechs need to adjust attitudes and practices if any headway towards *integration and acceptance *is to be made.


is that not a double edged blade? integration...acceptance of the counrty's laws and culture. Acceptance of another culture. In the UK, the policy of acceptance has now led to positive discrimination and no, I'm not being racist or have a relgious bias, but is it wrong where minority can dictate to the majority?

This is happening within France's borders and if the French feel that their government is wrong, surely it's up to the French people to decide if that government is wrong they will change it . The rest of us have no say in the matter.


----------



## dunmovin

Alcalaina said:


> No, I would never say people should not vote, otherwise the monster raving loonies like UKIP and the BNP will get in. But there is very little difference between the two main parties these days, you might as well toss a coin.
> 
> 
> 
> Who are these people who know what they are doing?? and where exactly is the cash needed ??


NOT in top heavy management. get rid of these "consultants" and free up cash for medical use, Start helping people who need it, stop paying gaudy salaries to layers of beaurocrates. Who are these people? the doctors, the teachers, the police, and a host of others


----------



## Alcalaina

dunmovin said:


> NOT in top heavy management. get rid of these "consultants" and free up cash for medical use, Start helping people who need it, stop paying gaudy salaries to layers of beaurocrates. Who are these people? the doctors, the teachers, the police, and a host of others


Right, I'm with you! Sorry, I hadn't quite understood what you were saying before.


----------



## Alcalaina

dunmovin said:


> is that not a double edged blade? integration...acceptance of the counrty's laws and culture. Acceptance of another culture. In the UK, the policy of acceptance has now led to positive discrimination and no, I'm not being racist or have a relgious bias, but is it wrong where minority can dictate to the majority?
> 
> This is happening within France's borders and if the French feel that their government is wrong, surely it's up to the French people to decide if that government is wrong they will change it . The rest of us have no say in the matter.


Friends who live in France tell me that public opinion is largely against the expulsion policy. There is however a significant minority of extreme right-wingers (Jean-Marie le Pen supporters) and Sarkozy is pandering to them as he will need their vote in 2012.

France was one of the leading proponents of the EU policy of allowing free movement of citizens within the member states. Not just to make it easy for people like us to come and live in Spain, but because the free movement of labour is vital for business and industry. They also attended both of the EU Roma Summits and agreed to support the social and economic integration of the Roma people. Positive discrimination is only needed to bring about the removal of _negative_ discrimination that they have suffered for centuries.

And the Roma aren't really "dictating to the majority" are they? Their traditional nomadic way of life is now illegal, through no fault of their own. We have a responsibility to help them, not treat them as criminals and burn down their homes as they are doing in Italy. If individuals commit criminal acts, then France or any other country has the right to deport them, but not whole communities including women and children.


----------



## mrypg9

dunmovin said:


> . In the UK, the policy of acceptance has now led to positive discrimination and no, I'm not being racist or have a relgious bias, but is it wrong where minority can dictate to the majority?
> 
> .


That is simply not true. Discrimination of any kind, so-called positive or otherwise, in employment, training or the provision of goods and services is illegal on the grounds of gender, race, religion, disability, age and sexual orientation. The same legislation applies in all EU member states and came about in its present form as a result of an EU Directive.
There is no law on the Statute Book which enshrines positive discrimination.
Apart from nonsense in the Daily Mail and from the likes of Melanie Phillips...could you please give a true instance of where a minority has dictated to a majority?
Incidentally, you should read J.S. Mill's classic liberal text 'On Liberty' written in 1854 (?) where he speaks of the danger of majorities trampling on minority rights!


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> That is simply not true. Discrimination of any kind, so-called positive or otherwise, in employment, training or the provision of goods and services is illegal on the grounds of gender, race, religion, disability, age and sexual orientation. The same legislation applies in all EU member states and came about in its present form as a result of an EU Directive.
> There is no law on the Statute Book which enshrines positive discrimination.
> Apart from nonsense in the Daily Mail and from the likes of Melanie Phillips...could you please give a true instance of where a minority has dictated to a majority?
> Incidentally, you should read J.S. Mill's classic liberal text 'On Liberty' written in 1854 (?) where he speaks of the danger of majorities trampling on minority rights!


My husband had issues which I've discussed with you before Mary. But I remember when I was working for a company in the UK a few years ago, who were subcontracted by the NHS. We were visited by some "big wigs" from the NHS who passed comment on several factors - all good!! However, they noticed that we had no black or foreign people working for us and suggested we put this right!? The problem was that we hadnt had any applicants that were black or foreign at all - ever!!? So short of advertising for specifics, we couldnt do anything about it. However, shortly afterwards a phillipino girl applied and we immediately employed her. The job involved talking to people on the phone and her ability to speak English was poor. Not only could people not understand her, but she had trouble writing down what they had said - which was pivotal to the job. It wasnt easy to ask her to leave either due to the various laws in place, but it was very important that she was accurate. as the job involved taking calls from sick patients who required an emergency doctor

Jo xxx


----------



## nigele2

mrypg9 said:


> ..could you please give a true instance of where a minority has dictated to a majority?


Many relating to religion. Being religious in a recent poll reported by the BBC showed that over 50% were not. Of the RC given the choice of 'do you visit church weekly, monthly, yearly or less than that: 'as least annually' was the most popular. 

Yet laws are broken, blind eyes turned, things are influenced, etc.

More people went to Man Utd than to see the pope in birmingham. Odd when he only visits once every 25 years or so 
Oh and jojo's point. Seen that several times.


----------



## mrypg9

The Roma question is complex and shouldn't be the subject of kneejerk reactions one way or another. 
Communist regimes in Eastern and Central Europe were hostile to the traditional Roma way of life and channelled them into concrete high-rises in horrible towns like Usti or Ostrava where they had unskilled work in factories that have now almost entirely closed down.
As a result, unemployment among male Roma is at an unbelievable level approaching 90%.
A vicious circle results from this: resentment at the high take-up of welfare payments leads to discrimination which in turn leads to crime fuelling the prejudice and discrimination. Roma parents tend to show little interest in their children's education which is regrettable but understandable as they know their children will be discriminated against in the job market. 
Because Roma children have no pre-school education and usually speak Roma dialect they are ill-prepared for formal education and are disproportionately allocated to 'special schools' where the curriculum is often inadequate.
It is a sad fact that Roma people tend to live in ghettos which are often unsalubrious, to put it mildly. a very large percentage of petty crime is committed by Roma - in our three years in Prague we fended off five attempts at mugging. Alcoholism and drug abuse are endemic amongst Roma.
The key to it all is education, imo. Roma people in Europe are a distinct racial grouping - they are not like the travellers with their illegal sites we often encounter in the UK. They look different, have a different culture and speak a separate language. The indigenous people has to accommodate them and respect them but in turn the Roma have to show their willingness to engage with the mainstream.
I read of one country -Hungary? - which is mkaking the receipt of welfare benefits conditional upon a Roma family sending its children to school. But then the 'host' society has to change its attitudes and provide proper education and job opportunities.
One thing I would mention is this: Roma ghettos are often in poor, rundown working-class areas of Czech towns. Middle-class people in their more pleasant ghettos rarely if ever experience the difficulties that can arise when two different cultures clash. It is easy to talk of tolerance and respect when your neighbour excretes on the pavement in front of your house (I have seen this).
I don't think this happens often in Hampstead....


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> My husband had issues which I've discussed with you before Mary. But I remember when I was working for a company in the UK a few years ago, who were subcontracted by the NHS. We were visited by some "big wigs" from the NHS who passed comment on several factors - all good!! However, they noticed that we had no black or foreign people working for us and suggested we put this right!? The problem was that we hadnt had any applicants that were black or foreign at all - ever!!? So short of advertising for specifics, we couldnt do anything about it. However, shortly afterwards a phillipino girl applied and we immediately employed her. The job involved talking to people on the phone and her ability to speak English was poor. Not only could people not understand her, but she had trouble writing down what they had said - which was pivotal to the job. It wasnt easy to ask her to leave either due to the various laws in place, but it was very important that she was accurate. as the job involved taking calls from sick patients who required an emergency doctor
> 
> Jo xxx


Then I wouldn't have employed her. We had a similar situation where the local Job Centre sent us a Portuguese man with poor command of English. We didn't hire him.
But my point still stands...there is no law requiring positive discrimination.
Silly people like those NHS bigwigs often point out things like you mention without understanding the situation -I'd agree with that. But that's what it comes down to - silly, poorly trained individuals. 
There was a well-publicised case recently where a Job Centre employee in Norfolk told a woman who wanted to advertise a vacancy that she couldn't stipulate that the person must be 'punctual and hardworking' because, she said, it discriminated against the tardy and idle.
This was of course nonsense but the Daily Mail ran with the story.
And it always comes down to that: silly people who don't understand the law and people who misinterpret the law.


----------



## mrypg9

nigele2 said:


> Many relating to religion. Being religious in a recent poll reported by the BBC showed that over 50% were not. Of the RC given the choice of 'do you visit church weekly, monthly, yearly or less than that: 'as least annually' was the most popular.
> 
> Yet laws are broken, blind eyes turned, things are influenced, etc.
> 
> More people went to Man Utd than to see the pope in birmingham. Odd when he only visits once every 25 years or so
> Oh and jojo's point. Seen that several times.


Oh come on Nigel...where's the 'dictating' there? What laws are broken, blind eyes turned etc.? Anecdotal evidence won't do.
But if you are saying that the Government shouldn't have spent so much money on the Pope's visit or the media shouldn't have banged on about it, I'd agree 100%. 
But that's a bad decision not the act of a dictatorship.


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> ... actually membership WAS compulsory!


From 1939 it was all but compulsory...but parents with strong religious views were able to keep their children away from both the HJ and the BDM.
Many were sent to concentration camps for their opposition. 
I am surprised Herr und Frau Ratzinger did not have such strong Catholic convictions, seeing how the Nazis persecuted the Catholic Church in Germany.


----------



## nigele2

mrypg9 said:


> Oh come on Nigel...where's the 'dictating' there? What laws are broken, blind eyes turned etc.? Anecdotal evidence won't do.
> But if you are saying that the Government shouldn't have spent so much money on the Pope's visit or the media shouldn't have banged on about it, I'd agree 100%.
> But that's a bad decision not the act of a dictatorship.


Mary the most obvious law broken is inciting violence. Then there is indoctrination/cruelty of the young. And harbouring criminals. If I did it I'd be arrested. 

There so much I would like to say but sadly while the majority laugh and joke about it the powers that be still feel a need to pamper to these minorities. You can't even openly debate about it because you might offend the poor sensitive souls. 

I have no problem with protecting minorities, even barmy ones, but they should obey the law and expect to be treated fairly, not given the right to take the preverbial.


----------



## JBODEN

Mary is on a high !:clap2::clap2::clap2::boxing::boxing::boxing:

S11 of the Employment Act 1989 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from any requirements to wear safety helmets on a construction site. Where a turban-wearing Sikh is injured on a construction site liability for injuries is restricted to the injuries that would have been sustained if the Sikh had been wearing a safety helmet. 

Sikhs who wear Turbans need not wear crash helmets when they ride Motor Cycles or Scooters. They have been allowed to wear Turban as their only headgear. In accordance with the Motor-Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976 passed by the British Parliament in 1976, Section 2A "exempts any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban" from having to wear a crash helmet. 

When the Act came in to being Sikhs refused to wear helmets and forced the law to be changed. Is this positive discrimination?
At that time I wondered why immigrants had so much power to force the law to be changed to their requirements. When I go to a foreign country I am expected to abide by the laws of that Country and not which laws suit me and which don't.


----------



## Alcalaina

JBODEN said:


> Mary is on a high !:clap2::clap2::clap2::boxing::boxing::boxing:
> 
> S11 of the Employment Act 1989 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from any requirements to wear safety helmets on a construction site. Where a turban-wearing Sikh is injured on a construction site liability for injuries is restricted to the injuries that would have been sustained if the Sikh had been wearing a safety helmet.
> 
> Sikhs who wear Turbans need not wear crash helmets when they ride Motor Cycles or Scooters. They have been allowed to wear Turban as their only headgear. In accordance with the Motor-Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976 passed by the British Parliament in 1976, Section 2A "exempts any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban" from having to wear a crash helmet.
> 
> When the Act came in to being Sikhs refused to wear helmets and forced the law to be changed. Is this positive discrimination?
> At that time I wondered why immigrants had so much power to force the law to be changed to their requirements. When I go to a foreign country I am expected to abide by the laws of that Country and not which laws suit me and which don't.


I´m not sure why this is such a big deal for you. It´s not affecting _your_ rights, or your safety, and it isn´t costing you anything! Seems an odd example to pick. This is an example where the majority can accommodate the will of the minority without any adverse effects (going back to J.S. Mill).


----------



## nigele2

Alcalaina said:


> I´m not sure why this is such a big deal for you. It´s not affecting _your_ rights, or your safety, and it isn´t costing you anything! Seems an odd example to pick. This is an example where the majority can accommodate the will of the minority without any adverse effects (going back to J.S. Mill).


But there are adverse effects. Very serious adverse effects. 

The law regarding crash helmets was passed for good reason. 


Why is it good for the majority but not Sikhs? Do they have harder heads than us? 
If it isn't necessary for them why should I not have free choice? 
If they fall off and damage their skulls will I as a tax payer be paying for their treatment? 
If I kill one of them am I meant to feel better about it because they didn't take due precautions?
 What would happen if I put a turban on my head and rode my motorbike? [Would I be done for breaking the law or taking the preverbial, I wonder ]

If a young tearaway goes along the road without a crash helmet he gets fined.
If a sikh does it are we meant to say "what a clever righteous man he must be" 

A fair society is fair to all and once you start down the slippery slope ................................................you'll get minorities wanting to enforse their own laws.


----------



## mrypg9

nigele2 said:


> Mary the most obvious law broken is inciting violence. Then there is indoctrination/cruelty of the young. And harbouring criminals. If I did it I'd be arrested.
> 
> There so much I would like to say but sadly while the majority laugh and joke about it the powers that be still feel a need to pamper to these minorities. You can't even openly debate about it because you might offend the poor sensitive souls.
> 
> I have no problem with protecting minorities, even barmy ones, but they should obey the law and expect to be treated fairly, not given the right to take the preverbial.



Sorry, Nigel, but you are sounding like Melanie Philips on a bad day.
More hard evidence needed. You have to cite specific cases to be taken seriously.
Inciting to violence? If you mean prosecutions of Muslim extremists ....they take place as in the Danish cartoon instances to name just one. Members of the English Defence League and BNP have been prosecuted too.
Indoctrination of the young: well, that's a grey area. All parents with firm beliefs, whether religious or political, coud be accused of indoctrinating their children. My grandmother 'indoctrinated' me into Catholicism.
As for 'no open debate'...that, frankly, is nonsense. I have myself taken part in many public and televised debates with Muslim leaders (because your unspoken subtext is about Islam, isn't it?) my bookshelves contain two virulently anti-Islam books warning of the loss of our culture and so on, newspapers print opinion pieces on this topic, ranging from the hysterical to the reasoned, and you obviously don't watch programmes such as Newsnight, Panorama, Channel Four Dispatches and many other similar.
I wonder why it is that some white so-called Christian people are so perturbed when they hear of cases of minority groups exercising the rights that we have taken for granted for ages. Men in particular seem to feel threatened by feminism, the gay rights lobby, religious minorities daring to express themselves intemperately and so on. For centuries white men ruled -well, upperclass white men -and were able to ignore the suppressed rights of women - who by the way are not a minority group - and others not like them.
Now these minorities have a voice and sometimes use it intemperately (which of course these men never did) 
I can understand the fears and frustrations of some poorly educated and economically depressed white men. People like that swell the ranks of the BNP and other racist organisations.
What is more worrying is that people who ought to know better fall for the misinformation, manufactured panic and false hysteria peddled in the gutter press. 
No-one has yet provided one instance supported by evidence of this alleged pandering to minorities by which you mean Muslims, I'm guessing. There is no law requiring positive discrimination - fact. Yes there are silly untrained officials who make silly comments and decent unprejudiced people who misinterpret badly-worded missives. But that's all. We should remember we are all members of minorities in our own way.
We should also remember that while extremists exist -they always have throughout history -they are a very small minority. Falling for the Daily Mail-type propaganda is giving them an importance they don't deserve.


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> Mary is on a high !:clap2::clap2::clap2::boxing::boxing::boxing:
> 
> S11 of the Employment Act 1989 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from any requirements to wear safety helmets on a construction site. Where a turban-wearing Sikh is injured on a construction site liability for injuries is restricted to the injuries that would have been sustained if the Sikh had been wearing a safety helmet.
> 
> Sikhs who wear Turbans need not wear crash helmets when they ride Motor Cycles or Scooters. They have been allowed to wear Turban as their only headgear. In accordance with the Motor-Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976 passed by the British Parliament in 1976, Section 2A "exempts any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban" from having to wear a crash helmet.
> 
> When the Act came in to being Sikhs refused to wear helmets and forced the law to be changed. Is this positive discrimination?
> At that time I wondered why immigrants had so much power to force the law to be changed to their requirements. When I go to a foreign country I am expected to abide by the laws of that Country and not which laws suit me and which don't.


Does this really bother you that much
It seems to me that this is a fine example of British tolerance and respect for the rights of minorities. Do you think 'Oh my God...society as we know it is crumbling!' when you see a turbanned Sikh riding a motorbike???? Thanks for this example....it shows how flimsy the argument is if it's based on such examples.
I don't judge my country's values by comparing it to those of undemocratic regimes of the sort you allude to. I think we're better than that.
Saudi Arabia and similar despotic regimes may well impose their dress codes on visitors. They also operate Sharia law. Do you really think such regimes are examples for us to emulate?
I don't think you do..


----------



## mrypg9

nigele2 said:


> But there are adverse effects. Very serious adverse effects.
> 
> The law regarding crash helmets was passed for good reason.
> 
> 
> Why is it good for the majority but not Sikhs? Do they have harder heads than us?
> If it isn't necessary for them why should I not have free choice?
> If they fall off and damage their skulls will I as a tax payer be paying for their treatment?
> If I kill one of them am I meant to feel better about it because they didn't take due precautions?
> What would happen if I put a turban on my head and rode my motorbike? [Would I be done for breaking the law or taking the preverbial, I wonder ]
> 
> If a young tearaway goes along the road without a crash helmet he gets fined.
> If a sikh does it are we meant to say "what a clever righteous man he must be"
> 
> A fair society is fair to all and once you start down the slippery slope ................................................you'll get minorities wanting to enforse their own laws.



No, they are not enforcing their own laws. They have successfully argued for exemptions to a law because they think they are vital for them to practise their faith. And because we are a democracy we allow these exemptions and I am proud of that .
There are exemptions to the anti-discrimination laws favouring the majority...the Genuine Occupational Requirement exemption for example.
What you are arguing for is dictatorship of the majority. That is not and never has been a feature of our British way of life, thankfully.
It is a feature of authoritarian governments - Hitler on acquiring power immediately banned all opposition groups, great or small, probabbly with the approval of most of the German population.
As you say, a fair society is fair to all and that includes turban wearing Sikhs. 
British democracy has never sought to takew away the legitimate rights of minorities and never should.
Your argument is actually profoundly unBritish as you are suggesting that we abandon our traditional tolerance and adopt the practices of intolerant regimes where minorities have no rights and only the 'majority' view prevails.
Such a society would be a very unpleasant one for most people. We are all minority group members in one way or another.


----------



## nigele2

Mary, I am not a hitler supporter. My argument is not profoundly un-British.
My opinion is that society needs a framework of commonsense based on democracy. There have to be priorities. Difficult decisions have to be made. It is not and never will be easy.

We have now moved to a new era where religion does not dominate society. Religion is becoming a personal choice, (for most). It is now acceptable to have private faith, be part of an organised religion (no matter how barmy the basis for that religion may be seen by others – the Star Wars Jesuit religion??), to be atheist, to be agnostic, to be an agnostic atheist (that’s me), and also not to give a monkeys. And people should be tolerant, and in the UK we are in general, of all these things. I'm proud of that 

However when an individual, small group, or large group (but still a minority) want to inflict pain on others or even themselves we draw the line, just as we do for the majority. 

We do not allow human sacrifice no matter how keen the participants are. You might say “don’t be silly Nigel that is an extreme”. But once you say that you realise the line has to be drawn.

Unfortunately in your world you would never draw the line. The slippery slope approach to life. And based on your background Mary that surprises me (I also know it isn’t the real you just as you know I am not a Nazi ).

Love your debates Mary, most are well thought out


----------



## nigele2

Fotgot to say I think this is closely related to imigration. The type of society you invite someone to join should be clarified. On a sad note I remember when my favourite blond opened up Britain to the Kurkas (personally I have the greatest respect for those guys). 

Unfortunately time and money was not invested in explaining how British society worked. A fair number of these old soldiers arrived in the promised land only to face poverty and a language barrier. Yes immigrants have a responsibility but also the hosts.

Now where's my bacon sarny ?


----------



## mrypg9

nigele2 said:


> Mary, I am not a hitler supporter. My argument is not profoundly un-British.
> My opinion is that society needs a framework of commonsense based on democracy. There have to be priorities. Difficult decisions have to be made. It is not and never will be easy.
> 
> We have now moved to a new era where religion does not dominate society. Religion is becoming a personal choice, (for most). It is now acceptable to have private faith, be part of an organised religion (no matter how barmy the basis for that religion may be seen by others – the Star Wars Jesuit religion??), to be atheist, to be agnostic, to be an agnostic atheist (that’s me), and also not to give a monkeys. And people should be tolerant, and in the UK we are in general, of all these things. I'm proud of that
> 
> However when an individual, small group, or large group (but still a minority) want to inflict pain on others or even themselves we draw the line.
> 
> We do not allow human sacrifice no matter how keen the participants are. You might say “don’t be silly Nigel that is an extreme”. But once you say that you realise the line has to be drawn.
> 
> Unfortunately in your world you would never draw the line. The slippery slope approach to life. And based on your background Mary that surprises me (I also know it isn’t the real you just as you know I am not a Nazi ).
> 
> Love your debates Mary, most are well thought out


Of course I don't think you're a Nazi, Nigel.....don't ever imagine that I think you are anything other than a decent human being with views that in some issues aren't quite the same as mine although not that far apart.
You are wrong about 'drawing a line' I am very much in favour of drawing lines - in fact that is an issue over which some of my colleagues violently disagree with me. I am not a cultural relativist.
To take your points: on the first about religion,I can't see how we disagree here.
Your second point: 'inflicting pain'...who ever introduced that into our previous debates? The only specific example you gave to support your opinion is Sikhs and motorbikes. (BTW I have never seen a Sikh riding a Kawasaki, turbanned or otherwise). Of course we draw the line when individuals or groups want to inflict pain and violence on others, whoever they may be, whether of left or right, Christian or Muslim. That's why we have laws , including laws against hate speech and incitement to racial violence which punish those who seek to incite violence against religious, racial or sexual minorities. No-one -certainly not me -would disagree with that - in fact it is one of the principles underlying my argument.
It is you who are on a slippery slope - consider this. You say we should be like other countries and follow their laws-you must be referring to Muslim countries' dress codes and way of life. Really? Do you want us to accept the laws and principles of countries whose code and values you find threatening when imported to the UK? Are you saying we should be like them? Where do* you* draw the line? If you accept that women should cover up when visiting some Muslim countries (which I don't and is why I would never visit them) then where down that slippery slope do you draw a line? You don't like the idea of minority rights. Neither do the Saudis and other such Muslim states who flog women (not a minority) for alleged adultery, stone homosexuals to death, ban Christian worship? Do you want us to import these practices?: Of course you don't. But that is where your argument slithers down that slope.
My line is firmly drawn and always has been. I suppose you could call it a kind of old high-tory one-nation -conservatism which imo is the view of most British people and which used to be the base principle of both main political parties.. My political philosophy is based on the ideals of Mill, Locke, Burke and other philosophers of the 'British way'. I believe in democracy but not in the tyranny of the majority. Our British way has always been to respect the legitimate rights of minorities. That's why our unwritten Constitution has a system of checks and balances. I do not want us to be panicked by a malevolent media into adopting the mindset of those who do not share our democratic principles. If we do that, the anti-democrats and extremists have won.
You've introduced matter into your last post, such as human sacrifice, which is irrelevant to the main argument and with which no reasonable person disagrees.
But you have skilfully avoided dealing with the points I made in refutation of yours.
I look forward to your next post but I'm off to do some shopping and then write a lengthy comp-laint against LloydsTSB Offshore...the swine.:boxing:


----------



## mrypg9

nigele2 said:


> Fotgot to say I think this is closely related to imigration. The type of society you invite someone to join should be clarified. On a sad note I remember when my favourite blond opened up Britain to the Kurkas (personally I have the greatest respect for those guys).
> 
> Unfortunately time and money was not invested in explaining how British society worked. A fair number of these old soldiers arrived in the promised land only to face poverty and a language barrier. Yes immigrants have a responsibility but also the hosts.
> 
> Now where's my bacon sarny ?


Our type of society is clarified, as far as that can be done, by our laws and customs. But society, at least democratic society, is organic and changes and so our laws and customs change to accommodate this.
Immigration...well, Maggie T. opened the UK to immigrants from all other EU states when she signed the Single European Act. We and the ROI were the only two EU states not to put caps on EU migrants. Why? Because, like now, employers were keen to have a huge pool of non-UK labour. For one obvious fact, it keeps down wage costs. It is also said that immigrants work harder than UK workers. I have no opinion on this.
As for other non -EU immigration: there has to be a limit, obviously. The current Coalition policy is, frankly, daft. Employers have pointed out that we have a serious skills shortage. We need professional people from all over the world. Like many professional Brits in Spain, they are job creators and add to the national economy.
With a large number of incomers of different nationalities,religions and customs we must continue our British tradition of extending a welcome, guaranteeing freedom of religious and cultural expression within the framework of our laws and generally working to abolish prejudice, bigotry and misunderstandings of all kinds.
I say 'misunderstandings' because I believe British people to be accepting of diversity and welcoming to strangers.
I have no real opinion on the Gurkhas...except that the Daily Mail campaign was partial and distorted the facts.


----------

