Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Albatross wrote:

Henners91 wrote:As for "screwing up the country": You call me self-loathing? Do you read the Sun every morning and have a little raaage about all the damn immigants, da bankas and da Empeez expenzez? Maybe it would be prudent to cast your mind back to 1997 and think of everything we've gained, Major hardly left the nation in the best condition. If you're going to whine about "Broken Britain" then 1. I'd ask you if it's really altogether that bad, funny enough you can actually walk the streets and 2. If you can honestly tell me that the "disgusting, dirty underclasses" are kept as benefit claimers by Labour, who've introduced pretty nasty legislation that requires you to actively find work within 6 months? A friend of mine is going through that now and they literally watch his every move.

How old were you in 1997? Is the '91' in your username a reflection of your DOB? How do you know what we have and haven't gained in real terms? It isn't 'nasty' to expect someone to find work in half a year.

It's so fashionable to fling blame for every problem at the incumbent government, especially when the majority of the press is opposed to it. Thirteen years is a long time, a long time for people to get bored and attribute mistakes to the state and, of course, for random events to pop to the surface such as Civil Servants leaving laptops on the train...

Yeah, because it has nothing to do with two foreign wars, massive overspending, increased bureaucracy, forcing the Lisbon treaty down our necks, immigration the highest it's ever been and the worst financial crisis since WWII.
But hey, I'm just fashionable.

We're in a financial crisis which people can't expect a free ride through: If you have the ability to pay then you must, taxes should be raised and people forced to bear the brunt for their fellow man, Brits love to conjure up this phantom of "The Blitz Spirit" and yet when faced with the prospect of actually having to endure losses to assist others they shirk away. I recently had the pleasure of listening to Eddie Izzard for the second time thanks to my party and he flat out said to one question that he is happy to pay higher taxes temporarily.

Let me get this straight - Labour taxes us up the arse, wastes all the money, and your answer is 'put taxes up'? Erm, hello? The Civil Service is bloated beyond all sensible proportions and we spend BILLIONS on benefits - in some parts of the UK the Public Sector makes up 70% of the economy! If that wasn't bad enough, it's not even working! All those people the Labour Party promised to lift out of poverty... the gap between the richest and the poorest is higher than when Labour took over, and there are more people officially living in poverty now.

Yep that's my date of birth, however I'd like to think that by age 19 I've learned to read about the past...

The Iraq war I was against, but that's not going to make me fling my ideology out of the window and decide that the Tories (who *also backed the war*) would be better for the country, nor would I choose the LibDems for my aforementioned reasons. As for Europe, I think my opinions would probably leave you assuming I'm pro-EU, so to be honest I'm not exactly that big on the idea of a referendum , as for immigration: Since the idea that you can arrive and start claiming benefits is yet another right wing fantasy, I'm going to assume that in order to survive immigrants (supposing they do not turn to crime) actually have to get a job... how horrid. Not to say that I deny there are associated problems with lack of availability of work or money leaving the country, but the points system Labour proposed was supported by a House of Lords Commission under Lord Wakeham... I don't see why it's such a contentious issue, anyone (especially members of the EU) should have the right to settle where they wish provided they meet the country's criteria.

"Civil Service is bloated": Clearly you're a proponent of the fallacy that we can somehow eliminate the deficit by cutting down on "waste": What party wouldn't? Since when have parties run on the platform "Waste is a good thing!"? We hear horror stories about recreation rooms and such but ultimately that's not what's costing the money, even several million is just a drop in the water. Taxation and cuts are how we're cutting the deficit, don't kid yourself. Second, I'd attribute the wage gap to our wonderful capitalistic system (but that's a rant nobody can take seriously, so...), a gap doesn't betray numerical figures, does it? Tell me, how many people have risen through the classes whereas minorities forming polar opposites moved apart? Even if there was a severe problem, would I vote for a party that doesn't even pursue Labour's rhetorical agenda?

Immigration is not the highest it's ever been; it's gone down over the past two years

But let's move this to PMs, this is OT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Henners, did you actually say that Britain isnt that bad because we could WALK THE STREETS?

What the hell do you think we used to do in 1997?! Get escorted to work by the green berets?

Nope, I'm simply addressing the ludicrousness of the notion that this country has become broken under Labour... chavs, we have to admit, are a rare sight in our cosy neighbourhoods... But hey, I'm middle class.

Henners91 wrote:Nope, I'm simply addressing the ludicrousness of the notion that this country has become broken under Labour... chavs, we have to admit, are a rare sight in our cosy neighbourhoods... But hey, I'm middle class.

This is why there's no point taking this to PM, or even any further. You've only READ about the real world. The rest of us have to put up with OBEYING THE FORUM POSTING RULES !
Move out of your parent's house and get some life, kidda. Move to Salford and tell me there's nothing to worry about.

Here's another reason.

Henners91 wrote:...but that's not going to make me fling my ideology out of the window ...

Ideology is considered a pejorative description of any given position within the context of serious debate. If you admit to having an ideology, you admit to being blind to alternatives.

Albatross wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Nope, I'm simply addressing the ludicrousness of the notion that this country has become broken under Labour... chavs, we have to admit, are a rare sight in our cosy neighbourhoods... But hey, I'm middle class.

Move out of your parent's house and get some life, kidda. Move to Salford and tell me there's nothing to worry about.

I wonder if your view's a majority 'un... y'know, since Hazel Blears got reelected 'n' all...

How low did you have to rummage through your vocabulary sack to find that vulgarity? I shan't deny my class... I never have, never will.

dogma wrote:Here's another reason.

Henners91 wrote:...but that's not going to make me fling my ideology out of the window ...

Ideology is considered a pejorative description of any given position within the context of serious debate. If you admit to having an ideology, you admit to being blind to alternatives.

Surely the same could be said of party membership? An ideology is chosen by an individual because they believe that their ideas roughly fit well together with an established group of like-minded individuals, just like in a party... And yet people still defect, how could they if they were "blind to ideas"? I've argued in my fair share of debates, read what I've read and experienced whatever limited amounts (and I *know* how much y'all like to stress *how* limited, since you're veterans of the world 'n' all) and arrived at my conclusion: I'm sure that when my wages come in I'll start voting Tory, or the next time I'm mugged I'll decide not to think about the social/economic motivations (and I did) and rather blame it on the underclass of THE DAMN YOBBOS.

dogma wrote:Here's another reason.

Henners91 wrote:...but that's not going to make me fling my ideology out of the window ...

Ideology is considered a pejorative description of any given position within the context of serious debate. If you admit to having an ideology, you admit to being blind to alternatives.

Considered by who? He is just stating that he won't haphazardly throw out his way of thinking. He never stated he wouldn't listen to anything. BTW Henners I don't think I've ever defended somebody I disagree with on so many topics. Kudos on that one.

Henners91 wrote:
Surely the same could be said of party membership?

No, not necessarily. In certain instances you may find that a given party is sufficiently narrow in focus so as to encompass only a single ideological position, but that is extremely rare, and may even be impossible. Even a group as narrowly focused as the American Greens will feature many different ideological positions.

Henners91 wrote:
An ideology is chosen by an individual because they believe that their ideas roughly fit well together with an established group of like-minded individuals, just like in a party...

Yes, and the people that 'choose' ideologies in a manner akin to choosing a breakfast cereal are blind to alternatives. They only see monolithic bodies which they must wholly embrace, or wholly ignore.

Henners91 wrote:
And yet people still defect, how could they if they were "blind to ideas"?

The people who 'defect' are not necessarily ideologues, unless they actually consider themselves to be defectors. You're confusing the issue by looking at this in terms of partisanship.

Henners91 wrote:
I've argued in my fair share of debates, read what I've read and experienced whatever limited amounts (and I *know* how much y'all like to stress *how* limited, since you're veterans of the world 'n' all) and arrived at my conclusion: I'm sure that when my wages come in I'll start voting Tory, or the next time I'm mugged I'll decide not to think about the social/economic motivations (and I did) and rather blame it on the underclass of THE DAMN YOBBOS.

You're arguing against a strawman, well, several strawmen. This is what makes ideology a pejorative in academic circles. When all you see are contiguous bodies of thought the only possible method of processing differences arises from stereotypes.

At the same time, attacking a poster because of their percieved youth and inexperience is pretty poor. Not that you were doing that Dogma, that's more for Albatross.

Attacks like that make it too easy for people to get distracted from the meat of the debate, which is actually pretty interesting stuff.

rocklord2004 wrote:
Considered by who?

Academics, analysts, researchers, etc. No one admits to possessing an ideology if they wish to be taken seriously. Its an external definition for reference, not an internal definition for advocacy.

rocklord2004 wrote:
He is just stating that he won't haphazardly throw out his way of thinking. He never stated he wouldn't listen to anything.

I never said that he did. All I did was explain what the word means. If Henners didn't intend to express that sentiment, then he could clarify his position. However, based on his reply, I would say that he chose the correct word.

In any case, ideology, as Henners used the term, is not a 'way of thinking' but a set of immutable political values. A way of thinking deals necessarily in intellectual methodology, which is not something that ideology incorporates.

Ah. We have another case of me and you using different definitions of the same word. Carry on then since I really don't want to get into yet another pointless debate with you over who is attempting to use what variation of a word. Best of luck to ya Henners in dealing with the arbitrary dictionary.

Henners91 wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Nope, I'm simply addressing the ludicrousness of the notion that this country has become broken under Labour... chavs, we have to admit, are a rare sight in our cosy neighbourhoods... But hey, I'm middle class.

This is why there's no point taking this to PM, or even any further. You've only READ about the real world. The rest of us have to put up with patronising midle-class c**ts like you telling us that what we are actually seeing take place in our neighbourhoods is really all in our imagination.

Move out of your parent's house and get some life, kidda. Move to Salford and tell me there's nothing to worry about.

I wonder if your view's a majority 'un... y'know, since Hazel Blears got reelected 'n' all...

Which tells you all you need to know - that morons will vote for anyone, no matter how corrupt and incompetent, as long as there's a reasonable chance they'll protect their benefits. I don't live in Salford by the way. But it's a dump, as are many northern Labour 'strongholds'. That's what happens when you can claim alcoholism as sufficient reason to be on Incapacity Benefit. That's what happens when people feel 'entitled' to claim as much as they can. This isn't a few 'bad apples', as I'm sure the spiffing chaps down at your local university's Nelson Mandela Bar would have you believe - it's generational. Large numbers of kids are claiming benefits as soon as they are able. How do I know this? Because I grew up in that culture. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, I grew up with did the same thing - to us it was free money. None of us worked, and it isn't an isolated problem specific to Middlesbrough. Why is it that there are so many council estates? And why are they overflowing? Why do we (apparently) need to build MORE of them?

If you have detected a note of irritation in my posts it's because you have the temerity to post patronising and sarcastic statements about subjects you clearly know nothing about. 'Cast your mind back to 1997'? Are you fething serious? You would have been 6, 7 years old at most! It's easy to champion the 'little guy' when you don't live next door to him - something 'sensitive' middle-class students seem to have a habit of doing. You can act all sarky about people like me villifying chavs, but kids from the neighbourhood I grew up in aren't sitting around reading Gramsci complaining about how the 'system' is unfairly stacked against them - they're nicking the dinner money from kids like you. Don't feel too sorry for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:At the same time, attacking a poster because of their percieved youth and inexperience is pretty poor. Not that you were doing that Dogma, that's more for Albatross.

Attacks like that make it too easy for people to get distracted from the meat of the debate, which is actually pretty interesting stuff.

I'm not 'attacking' him for his youth, so much as his hubris. I wouldn't presume to tell people about events they lived THROUGH, in areas they lived IN, if I had only read about it.

Neither would I act like a smart-arse about it.

mattyrm wrote:Labour have screwed the country, but you tactically voted to try and keep them in?

Explain a good reason why, and no "mum and dad raised me to do that" doesnt count as a good answer.

Ugh.. "tactical voting".. even the words make me want to rip my own head off in frustration.

I voted tactically to get Labour out. It didn't work.

George Spiggott wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Labour have screwed the country, but you tactically voted to try and keep them in?

Explain a good reason why, and no "mum and dad raised me to do that" doesnt count as a good answer.

Ugh.. "tactical voting".. even the words make me want to rip my own head off in frustration.

I voted tactically to get Labour out. It didn't work.

Didn't it?

Hang on... aren't you in Sheffield? Isn't that Clegg's seat?

Albatross wrote:Didn't it?

Hang on... aren't you in Sheffield? Isn't that Clegg's seat?

No. Sheffield isn't a constituency, just like Manchester isn't. 'Sheffield Hallam' is Clegg's constituency, I don't live there. None of the seats in the Sheffield area changed hands during the recent election.

Had to delete several posts and edit some others, there are rules with regards to how you speak to each other on the forum.