General Election 2015 Page 8

Quote: Aaron @ 20th April 2015, 12:32 PM BST

This.

Personally, I find that - whilst still miles away from where I'd like them to be - the Conservatives are offering the closest to libertarian policies. Both socially and economically.

By contrast, the papers over the weekend were reporting on Miliband's plans to centralise yet more power direct No 10. Reading it reminded me of the consolidation of power Hitler made shortly after he gained office.

View original

I see Hitler in plenty of things these days.

But frankly, when it comes to Theresa May and her desires for increased surveillance and anti-terror legislation, it's hard not to wince.

Let us not forget that she also had police handing out leaflets at London railway stations not too long ago, telling folks if they heard gun fire to run and hide.
Whatever happened to 'keep calm and carry on'?
No, instead one seeks to induce panic. That seems sinister.

Meanwhile, recent years have seen laws on speech, thought and sexual interest.
Introduced initially by Labour, the Tories have not abandoned them, in some cases they have actually expanded on them.

Worst of all, much of the country's prohibitive and punitive position is made on the hop without much principle. Perhaps most of all, the abandonment of principle is what worries me.

One passes law simply to stop some gap without any further consideration to what it may mean down the line. (especially on anti-terrorism)

It is by this that we dig ourselves ever further into the mire.

Quote: Aaron @ 20th April 2015, 12:28 AM BST

I'd probably leave the country if Ed Miliband becomes PM. Dangeous, dangerous politics.

View original

Will that mean all this will be Mark's?

Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 20th April 2015, 12:56 PM BST

I see Hitler in plenty of things these days.

But frankly, when it comes to Theresa May and her desires for increased surveillance and anti-terror legislation, it's hard not to wince.

Let us not forget that she also had police handing out leaflets at London railway stations not too long ago, telling folks if they heard gun fire to run and hide.
Whatever happened to 'keep calm and carry on'?
No, instead one seeks to induce panic. That seems sinister.

Meanwhile, recent years have seen laws on speech, thought and sexual interest.
Introduced initially by Labour, the Tories have not abandoned them, in some cases they have actually expanded on them.

Worst of all, much of the country's prohibitive and punitive position is made on the hop without much principle. Perhaps most of all, the abandonment of principle is what worries me.

One passes law simply to stop some gap without any further consideration to what it may mean down the line. (especially on anti-terrorism)

It is by this that we dig ourselves ever further into the mire.

View original

To be fair, I don't think the coalition have been nearly as bad on knee-jerk law-making as Labour were - but still hardly ideal, you're right.

The internet surveillance and censorship legislation has been particularly of concern I think. That Cameron was stupid enough to buy into that scaremongering was almost jaw-dropping. It's all been downhill since the Dark Lord Mandelson's MPAA-sponsored anti-piracy bill was rushed through a little over 5 years ago.

Quote: Aaron @ 20th April 2015, 1:04 PM BST

To be fair, I don't think the coalition have been nearly as bad on knee-jerk law-making as Labour were - but still hardly ideal, you're right.

The internet surveillance and censorship legislation has been particularly of concern I think. That Cameron was stupid enough to buy into that scaremongering was almost jaw-dropping. It's all been downhill since the Dark Lord Mandelson's MPAA-sponsored anti-piracy bill was rushed through a little over 5 years ago.

View original

Well much seems to rest on the political establishment's firm belief that we mere mortals can all be easily corrupted by what we see.
It has kept the BBFC in business for years.

But now we also have ATVOD (for which the Tories entirely need to take the blame) with whom to contend, as well as God knows what other bodies.

Even in terrorism the powers that be seem to have convinced themselves that it's all happening on the net.
As though if you showed people enough ISIS videos they'll sooner or later all want to head off to Syria.

But whether it's ISIS on YouTube or the Colonel in Fawlty Towers we urgently need protecting from corrupting influence.
Apparently we are defenceless drones, incapable of making up our own minds and holding ourselves free from harm.

Someone needs to do the thinking for us.

Mandelson should be dressed as a woman and put into a holdall in a flat in Pimlico. I'm even prepared to do it.

Quote: Aaron @ 20th April 2015, 12:32 PM BST

This.

Personally, I find that - whilst still miles away from where I'd like them to be - the Conservatives are offering the closest to libertarian policies. Both socially and economically.

By contrast, the papers over the weekend were reporting on Miliband's plans to centralise yet more power direct No 10. Reading it reminded me of the consolidation of power Hitler made shortly after he gained office.

View original

You need to address time frame here. You could theoretically say that people can smoke what they like, take whatever drugs they like, eat what fatty foods they like and pick up as many sexual diseases as they like and that it will be up to them to pay and provide for their future health care requirements.

But then you have to ask yourself what you would do for all of the generations who have been permitted/actively encouraged to indulge by Chancellors of the Exchequeur and other policy makers.

All parties appear to be introducing retrospective blame on individuals to save the NHS money and that to my mind is wholly unacceptable, especially when every one of the above apart from smoking is economically pushed more today than it has ever been. The governing state is almost schizophrenic.

So what is it to be for the existing generations excluding the under 18s - personal attack and a washing of hands when individuals are in difficulty or the acceptance that the state is 80% plus responsible for ill health and needs to provide care to them to honour its part of the contract?

Quote: A Horseradish @ 20th April 2015, 1:52 PM BST

All parties appear to be introducing retrospective blame on individuals

View original

How so?

Quote: Godot Taxis @ 20th April 2015, 1:29 PM BST

Mandelson should be dressed as a woman and put into a holdall in a flat in Pimlico. I'm even prepared to do it.

View original

Quote: Aaron @ 20th April 2015, 12:08 PM BST

Last time, a party of hope and positive progress got into government.

View original

I meant the last time labour got in not the last time there was a general election.

Hope and progress are both relative terms. Tax policies of the Tories benefit me, but they're such c**ts I could never support them. They're not even a political party as such because they don't have any solutions for managing society. Turning every state asset into a global equity is not a political policy, it's a closing down sale.

'Positive progress' is a tautology by the way as any state educated oik will tell you.

Quote: Godot Taxis @ 20th April 2015, 2:17 PM BST

'Positive progress' is a tautology by the way as any state educated oik will tell you.

View original

I dunno, you can make negative progress, such as the changes made by Gordon Brown to banking regulation. And indeed everything else he ever touched. Well, except keeping us out of the Euro, thank God. 'Progress' is simply forward movement to a destination; said destination in this case being the political aims of each party.

Quote: Godot Taxis @ 20th April 2015, 2:17 PM BST

They're not even a political party as such because they don't have any solutions for managing society.

View original

To paraphrase Mrs Thatcher, society cannot be 'managed' because it is only a theoretical construction of the human mind, to describe the actual bonds of individuals into groups of families, friends, colleagues and neighbours.

To try to mass-manage individuals is to implement vile statist control.

Quote: Godot Taxis @ 20th April 2015, 1:29 PM BST

Mandelson should be dressed as a woman and put into a holdall in a flat in Pimlico. I'm even prepared to do it.

View original

And drop that joke in the wrong place on twitter and you'll have the rozzers round, knocking on your door.

That's about the flavour of where we reside these days in terms of civil liberties.

One question I like to ask people is what civil liberty has actually improved in the last twenty years, other than the law on homosexuals?
In what area have we become more free, empowered by our leaders?
In that regard gay rights have been used quite consciously by the politicos as a figleaf to support their claim that they are still western liberal leaders, while they have engaged in nigh endless curtailment of civil liberties on every other front.

Now you even need to think twice before you post a joke online.

Quote: Aaron @ 20th April 2015, 2:23 PM BST

To paraphrase Mrs Thatcher, society cannot be 'managed' because it is only a theoretical construction of the human mind, to describe the actual bonds of individuals into groups of families, friends, colleagues and neighbours.

To try to mass-manage individuals is to implement vile statist control.

View original

Yet, how many laws have been passed, by Labour and Tory alike, claiming in their government blurb that their new statute 'sends a message that this/that has no place in society today'?

Passing law to 'send a message to society' has become almost the standard modus operandi, I'm afraid. By both sides.

Quote: Aaron @ 20th April 2015, 2:16 PM BST

How so?

View original

It's a kind of "you have only got yourselves to blame" attitude, isn't it, combined with the sort of ugly discrimination that equals or outdoes that seen in earlier decades towards most of the minorities.

The overweight, for example, who are no longer overweight but clinically obese. It's clever but nasty stuff. It might as well be doctors saying "fatty" like some sort of infant except when couched in those pseudo-medical terms they can get away with it and are generally applauded. Crucially, they are being egged on by policy makers who set them targets to nudge everyone into being Twiggy. If patients fail, it's "get out of the surgery until you are in the gym ten times a week". The lack of sophistication is unbelievable but then that is always the case with brutality. I have always argued that the average hoody on the street is like a lamb when compared with overly ambitious professionals in cold suits.

What is worrying is the sort of signal it sends out about the likelihood of decent hospital care. It is getting to the stage where there will be one ward for the perceived deserving and another for those perceived undeserving. Or something more akin to a tower block chute. I say this as someone who is of average weight myself and yet doesn't like the tone of the way this country is going. Labour, if anything, will be worse in this area. It has it own political reasons to push historical contexts away.

Quote: A Horseradish @ 20th April 2015, 2:34 PM BST

It's a kind of "you have only got yourselves to blame" attitude, isn't it, combined with the sort of ugly discrimination that equals or outweighs that seen in earlier decades towards most minorities.

The overweight, for example, who are no longer overweight but clinically obese. It's clever but nasty stuff. It might as well be doctors saying "fatty" like some sort of infant except when couched in pseudo-medical terms they can get away with it and are generally applauded. Crucially, they are being egged on by policy makers who set them targets to nudge everyone into being Twiggy. If they fail, it's "get out of the surgery until you are in the gym ten times a week". The lack of sophistication is unbelievable but then that is always the case with brutality. I have always argued that the average hoody on the street is like a lamb when compared with overly ambitious professionals in suits.

What is worrying is the sort of signal it sends out about the likelihood of decent hospital care. It is getting to the stage where there will be one ward for the perceived deserving and another for those perceived undeserving. Or something more akin to a tower block chute.

View original

Actually, I regard the 'fat' issue from a slightly different perspective.
We have lots of pressure groups and politicians calling for ever more controls and curbs on pictures of slim, young, possibly photoshopped females in adverts. All for the sake of body image.

The threat we are told is always bulimia and anorexia. But in terms of actual figures these are tiny problems when compared to the actual epidemic of obesity.

In short the two don't fit.

Yet still we have increasing numbers of MPs demanding legislation in order to prevent us from being corrupted by seeing too many skinny people. All again of course, in order to 'send a message to society'.

Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 20th April 2015, 2:40 PM BST

Actually, I regard the 'fat' issue from a slightly different perspective.
We have lots of pressure groups and politicians calling for ever more controls and curbs on pictures of slim, young, possibly photoshopped females in adverts. All for the sake of body image.

The threat we are told is always bulimia and anorexia. But in terms of actual figures these are tiny problems when compared to the actual epidemic of obesity.

In short the two don't fit.

Yet still we have increasing numbers of MPs demanding legislation in order to prevent us from being corrupted by seeing too many skinny people. All again of course, in order to 'send a message to society'.

View original

Well, I just say allow the adverts, send out a bit of information about negative impacts, collect the taxes from the sales and use those taxes to address all health needs equally. Right and left together. No angles. Less ratcheting up of anxiety. It isn't rocket science. Inside many a person who isn't regularly stuffing his face with breakfast cereal is someone taking steroids, getting problems from over-exercising, pushing coke up the nose or even impoverishing people to the point of starvation by getting them to pay up to charity or religion. These people are faddish in their attacks. One moment it's one group. Then it's another. At root, it is an excuse for excessive control bordering on bullying.

Quote: Aaron @ 20th April 2015, 2:23 PM BST

I dunno, you can make negative progress, such as the changes made by Gordon Brown to banking regulation. And indeed everything else he ever touched. Well, except keeping us out of the Euro, thank God. 'Progress' is simply forward movement to a destination; said destination in this case being the political aims of each party.

To paraphrase Mrs Thatcher, society cannot be 'managed' because it is only a theoretical construction of the human mind, to describe the actual bonds of individuals into groups of families, friends, colleagues and neighbours.

To try to mass-manage individuals is to implement vile statist control.

View original

Society is both a concept and an actual thing. Margaret Thatcher sadly knew more about carrots than ontology.

The Neo-liberal/Thatcherite model of society is different from the left-wing one but it is equally prescriptive. Friedman defined a free society as one in which you could sell your labour to whoever you wished, but in fact a free society would be one where you could also decide to not sell your labour if you wished and still have access to society's resources.

Hayek, Friedman, Thatcher and all the neo-liberals are so deep in the model that they don't actually realise it is a model, and not a fundamental characteristic of the planet Earth.

Most people define societal freedom by wether the state allows them to do what THEY want, wether it's own a machine gun or sleep with sixteen year old boys.

Quote: Godot Taxis @ 20th April 2015, 3:43 PM BST

Society is both a concept and an actual thing. (edited)

View original

Absolutely.

And ain't that just true of individuals too.

(Great post, incidentally)