Be Excellent To Each Other

Don't be ridiculous! You have to come to something! Hell, even if it's only drinks in London.

Cheers mate.
I did try to meet Grim.. and Craster once, after the Stones gig.
Prob just as well it didn't materialise; man, Mrs C and I were absolutely trollied.

What, that load of nit-picking bollocks?
In your mind, Doc, you think picking a few semantic holes in the broad-brush arguments of others with far less time on their hands than you amounts to "winning the argument" (bless).

Probably why EBG routinely hands your ass back to you in a sling, I guess.

I'll come to you presently, but you'll excuse me if I address earlier posts firsts. Yours won't take long.

Sorry Cavey but I must say that whilst I do have the utmost respect for you and always have, your recent comments to this thread are absolutely stretching that to breaking point, and I'm finding those comments borderline repugnant, if I'm honest.

I wouldn't agree with the invective used by markg but I can understand and sympathise with his absolute 'what the fuck?' reaction to some of the bile and triumphalist vitriol you're spewing.

To suggest that the Labour party have 'fucked up everything they've ever touched' is to deny both history and human decency.

no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.

The 'bitter experiences' the former Labour minister for health recounts were rooted in a poverty stricken childhood in South Wales, when working class families such as his lived a precarious existence on the precipice of disaster and destitution without an NHS or welfare state to protect them. Those things arrived in Britain courtesy of the 1945 Labour government, of which he was a key member, and in 2014 are in the process of being rolled back.

If that's your attitude, don't bother, as I won't be reading it.

This is the horrible lie that America seems to have successfully sold most of it's population and it's fucking heart-breaking to see it accepted.

Prediction: not that I'll be reading it but Cavey will be right back here with some extended bullshit narrative about how terrible his upbringing was and/or how much he had to struggle to get everything he's ever had without once actually taking on board anything I've said.

What a pile of shit.

Even disregarding the fact that a whole load of people don't live in countries that give them the things you listed, and the ones that do share those things with millions of others, you're seriously suggesting that working hard has nothing to do with becoming successful?

The liberals have made it quite clear that earning money is evil, and that you should be ashamed that you went to school, learned diligently, and then applied that knowledge in the advancement of a career. Such capitalist thinking must be stopped - everyone should get a fair share of everything regardless of how hard they work because to imply that low-income earners are anything other than a hapless victims of society's inequality makes you patronisingly classist and out-of-touch with reality.

People therefore must dedicate their lives to working hard and running successful businesses, but at no point should they expect to reap the rewards of their endeavour. They need to be taxed out of proportion to those that don't earn as much and forever be made to feel like they're parasites of human dignity. People are desperate to appear humble, because to evince any pride in your success just makes you a boastful, undeserving cunt.

Or, y'know, we could stop trying to make out it's one extreme or the other and that it's actually a combination of factors. Some silver spooned people do badly and fail at life because they never tried hard. Some people were born without a spoon in the house and get to a very sustainable, decent standard of living purely from their own graft.

The guy behind the counter at McDonalds does work hard. If they're not simply content to take orders and shell out fries all day, they can engage in career progression opportunities and either use that to advance internally or leverage a better position elsewhere, or do something else that's entirely unrelated to customer services.

I respect anyone who has a job, regardless of the job, and I have no respect for anyone that does nothing but fucking whine about how it's society's/the government's/capitalism's fault that they don't own a massive house and drive a fancy car.

Me and my brother had the same opportunities. I worked hard in school, he didn't so much. I went to Uni, he didn't. He worked a series of fairly low-paid jobs in IT and has slowed advanced up over the years, but still earns less than me. He doesn't own a house and struggles to keep on top of his credit cards, but he's doing OK.

My parents 'owned' their own house but always had an overdraft to keep things ticking over. My dad can't afford to retire and is currently working beyond 65. I went to whatever the local school was with no effort to ensure it was either good or bad. On the whole it was entirely average. They didn't help me with my homework, or give me special attention. I went to Uni with almost no money and took the maximum loans and worked up to 3 jobs simultaneously to support myself. I wouldn't cast myself as a rags-to-riches success story by any stretch but I worked hard and have always earned a decent wage. There's a whole other level of people above me who work harder still, with more initiative, and do a whole lot better than me. It would be nice if I earned more, but acknowledge that that's on me and not anyone else's fault.

Yes, it's a huge advantage to be born in the UK, to parents that didn't abuse, starve, or otherwise beat the shit out of me. I've seldom experienced any kind of racial abuse or discrimination, and no single experience of my life has been so traumatic that I've been unable to function. Lucky indeed.

But those huge examples of disadvantage do not provide the excuses for everyone that fails to get ahead. Some people are just fucking lazy, or would rather steal than learn and apply knowledge, or never have enough initiative to do anything other than make do with whatever they're presented with. We're all part-circumstances and part self-application.

I otherwise broadly agree with Cavey. Rewarding hard work and aspiration sound good to me. I don't care if you're an immigrant from abroad either, for the record - if you're here to work hard in an honest job then you're welcome as far as I'm concerned.

Despite being evil tory scum I agree with all points in your last post, Doc G, with the exception of the final quote. There is no way on earth that the UK economy in any quarter was worth £35bn. That's significantly less than Apples cash pile.

However, the point that Gaywood seems to be missing is that, whether it's 2.5%, 3% or 4%, we'd have snapped off anyone's hand who was offering anything like these levels of growth, the creation of this many new jobs from within the private sector and low inflation (not to mention vastly better performance than our Eurozone peers) within just 5 years after Labourmeddon? This is what I mean by nitpicking; never mind the semantics and graphs etc., what about the broad, substantive point?

Meh.
Well, the economy grew by 0.9% last quarter, which if extrapolated for a year (optimistic, certainly), gives 3.6% obviously.

However, the point that Gaywood seems to be missing is that, whether it's 2.5%, 3% or 4%, we'd have snapped off anyone's hand who was offering anything like these levels of growth, the creation of this many new jobs from within the private sector and low inflation (not to mention vastly better performance than our Eurozone peers) within just 5 years after Labourmeddon? This is what I mean by nitpicking; never mind the semantics and graphs etc., what about the broad, substantive point?

Of course, Doc totally fails to address the elephant-in-room point that Labour presided over the financial meltdown in the first place by utterly and completely failing to regulate the banks, upon which it was their absolute governmental and statutory duty so to do, for the sake of all of us. Arguing the toss about whether the Tories have actually achieved +3% or +4% growth, against such an absurd backdrop (and then gloating about it), just strikes me as ridiculous, sorry.

That's more reasonable.

Blaming Labour is a bit disingenuous. There was a global failure in financial regulation that, while it very definitely occurred with the knowing acceptance of the labour party, would I very much expect have happened whoever was in power - the City is the UK's golden goose, and there's no way any UK government would have gone against the prevailing global regulatory environment to make it harder for the banks to do business in London.

You really can't blame the financial crisis on Labour's regulatory policy.

Blaming Labour is a bit disingenuous. There was a global failure in financial regulation that, while it very definitely occurred with the knowing acceptance of the labour party, would I very much expect have happened whoever was in power - the City is the UK's golden goose, and there's no way any UK government would have gone against the prevailing global regulatory environment to make it harder for the banks to do business in London.

Why ever not? Curio, it's the job of the UK government to successfully and effectively regulate the UK financial sector - a huge chunk of the world total and therefore massively influential. Note this is not a matter of my opinion, but absolute, incontrovertible fact.

With the full benefit of hindsight, there can be no argument that they failed to do this, and failed catastrophically - and the resultant (massive) fallout and damage to the UK (and world) economy was, and is, there for all to see.

Of course, it wasn't Labour themselves doing the dodgy deals, selling our grandchildren's futures up the river - that'll be the bankers themselves. But the point is this; they were effectively permitted to do this by poor or non-existent regulation/ignorance/ineptitude.

But Labour were just continuing the policies of the Tories before them, indeed they sold themselves very much on being 'business friendly' and 'city friendly'.

The whole deregulation bandwagon of the financial system started back in the Reagan/Thatcher era and continued unabated throughout the 80s, 90s and 00s. Do you honestly think the Tories would have regulated the city any differently or more diligently than the Blair governments did?

Now see, this sort of sentiment makes my blood boil. It is a total NON DEFENCE to say "the other lot would've done exactly the same"

Now, with the referendum ink not even dry, I note there's talk of "IndyRef 2" within months. I mean I ask you, wtf? I've come to the conclusion that to these people, much like dyed-in-the-wool left wingers, this is a de facto belief system, possibly even pseudo religion?

I think it's that there is a feeling among a lot of people that there was a grenade being passed around that happened to go off at a specific time, and that passing the entirety of he blame on to that person is a little unfair.

Whilst we can hypothesise about what the Tories would have done until the cows come home,

as far as I'm aware they didn't really oppose the reforms,

haven't done much in the way of response

I think whilst you are incorrectly painted by some as a True Blue Tory (which you aren't), you do always seem hyper-critical of Labour.

I think you said something about them never having achieved anything, which overlooks the likes of the NHS, workers rights, and more recently peace in Northern Ireland, increase in gay rights, minimum wages, phenomenal reductions in child poverty, abstention from joining the Eurozone, and some other stuff (and a ton of awful shit).

The point is Cavey, you have to ignore them because they're ultimately beneath your notice. They'll spent their lives throwing mud around in their back garden while the rest of us are doing other shit that doesn't revolve around impotent, flailing bitterness.

In Europe, but out of the Euro. Advantages are far too many to be out.

When the coming EU in/out debate begins in earnest it'll be an interesting time, because I'm completely ambivalent about it. If a referendum does happen in 2017 I have absolutely no idea how I'd vote yet. That's palpably exciting.

When the coming EU in/out debate begins in earnest it'll be an interesting time, because I'm completely ambivalent about it. If a referendum does happen in 2017 I have absolutely no idea how I'd vote yet. That's palpably exciting.

I don't know how I'd vote either. Free movement of goods and people across the continent is an outstanding acheivement and we should never give up on that. Moreover, EU membership encourages the central and eastern countires to reform and feel part of the 'club', especially at a time when the Russian bear is getting restless. A NATO for civil life.

Yet, at the same time, I perceive the EU institutions as distant, remote, bureaucratic, and corrupt. It's tricky to uncover exactly which powers are held by which bodies, which are reserved to the member countries, and which are shared. It's extremely difficult to identify who is responsible for what, and when policy comes in, often years after it was first suggested and approved, mroe or less impossible to overturn. The complex, secretive nature makes it a boon for lobbysists and insiders, but excludes the rest. This is the ideal environment for corruption. To me, all this goes against what I consider a key principle of good governance: it is utterly unclear who is responsible for something, how to influence them, and how to kick them out.

And yet then there's ZOMG EMPIRICAL WOTSITS

You take the Gaywood approach to debate whereby just because you can impotently pick holes at the periphery of something (e.g. tax receipts have only risen slightly from last year, ignoring the fact that they're a damn sight fucking better than in 2008-10 and in any case, unemployment has plummeted, inflation is low and growth is inarguable etc etc), that means you've somehow proven some amazing point and "won" the argument.

If people don’t earn, they don’t pay tax – and Treasury receipts are falling way below forecast – needing higher tax or deeper cuts to fill the gap. The rising numbers in self-employment are among the non-taxpayers, not budding entrepreneurs but earning an average £10,000, mini-cab driver their most frequent occupation.

Another set of OBR figures this week should set the Treasury shuddering, showing that the benefit cap, trumpeted by George Osborne as his trap for Labour, will be burst. Low pay means many more poverty incomes have to be topped up with extra tax credits. Now add in the government’s disastrous housing policies – and three decades of successive governments’ failure to build council houses – and those pigeons have come home to roost in the Treasury.

Also I totally agree with what EBG said.

Politics will always get a rise out of people who disagree with the point, whether it's intended or not.