|
Post by redstriper on Feb 7, 2012 17:26:22 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16918110Actually it appears Labour have been handing out free money to pretty much everyone ;D £10.9billion written off in unpaid tax £131.5 billion in PFI liabilities for assets worth £30.9 billion I'd be grateful for some superior reasoning from a lefty to tell us what a good deal it really was and how this was all the bankers fault. Once again you labour under the misapprehension that the last labour administration was "left wing" The topic of this thread was made for folk like you matey. here we go again... they weren't labour... they were imposters, a big boy did it and ran away....etc etc lets see... supported financially by the unions - check leadership voted in by unions and labour party members - check ran up massive national debts - check paid millions to sit on their arses for 13 years - check wasted billions on the NHS - check fucked up the economy - check employed 60% in the public sector - check created stacks of extra quangos - check let any fucker into the country to sit on the dole - check of course they were left wing, no other doctrine could be this fucking useless ;D.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 17:39:49 GMT
The study is based on the assumption that homophobes, racists and people who like order are right wing and that people who have no issues with homosexuals, love people of every creed and colour and dislike order are left wing. If you're a racist homophobe who votes for Labour or a Tory voter who's married to an African girl (and has a few gay mates) the entire study falls flat on its stupid arse. So there you go, a waste of a couple of professors' time and a complete waste of someone elses money - now there's a bit of real left wing for you.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 17:42:14 GMT
The last two posts may have been used in the compilation of the study in question I suspect.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Feb 7, 2012 17:46:48 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16918110Actually it appears Labour have been handing out free money to pretty much everyone ;D £10.9billion written off in unpaid tax £131.5 billion in PFI liabilities for assets worth £30.9 billion I'd be grateful for some superior reasoning from a lefty to tell us what a good deal it really was and how this was all the bankers fault. Once again you labour under the misapprehension that the last labour administration was "left wing" The topic of this thread was made for folk like you matey. Except the study was based on research in the 60's and 70's and I wasn't born until 1971 ;D in the 60's and 70's people were more racist and homophobic, ask mumfy he grew up then and still has the attitudes hence his regular bans.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 17:46:49 GMT
The topic of this thread was made for folk like you matey. here we go again... they weren't labour... they were imposters, a big boy did it and ran away....etc etc lets see... supported financially by the unions - check leadership voted in by unions and labour party members - check ran up massive national debts - check paid millions to sit on their arses for 13 years - check wasted billions on the NHS - check fucked up the economy - check employed 60% in the public sector - check created stacks of extra quangos - check let any fucker into the country to sit on the dole - check of course they were left wing, no other doctrine could be this fucking useless ;D. Conjecture definition - "inference or conlusion based on incomplete evidence, guesswork". "Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 17:50:36 GMT
If you're a racist homophobe who votes for Labour or a Tory voter who's married to an African girl (and has a few gay mates) the entire study falls flat on its stupid arse. A better example of poor reasoning ability and low cognitive ability you couldn't wish for in that answer right there. One person like your example against the 15,000 other people in the study and it, quote, "falls flat on its arse". This thread could run and run ;D
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Feb 7, 2012 17:52:09 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16918110Actually it appears Labour have been handing out free money to pretty much everyone ;D £10.9billion written off in unpaid tax £131.5 billion in PFI liabilities for assets worth £30.9 billion I'd be grateful for some superior reasoning from a lefty to tell us what a good deal it really was and how this was all the bankers fault. Why would anyone from the Left say unpaid tax is a good thing? PFI - sounds much like a mortgage to me. Most ordinary folk can end up paying as much or more than their house is actually worth but get to enjoy the benefits of living in it in the meantime. But just to be clear one more time, I'd much prefer PFI never existed and that hospitals schools etc were funded directly through taxation (properly collected taxation ) Why would anyone blame the bankers for those two examples? Strange post, FYD. Your standard mantra is Labour were doing a good job and it's all down to the economic crisis, just giving you some information for you to reason with so you get to the right conclusion eventually. Really do you know anyone who doesn't choose the cheapest mortgage available when buying a house, so it doesn't sound like a very good mortgage...... With a mortgage you usually own the house you take the mortgage out on as soon as you start paying for it whereas with PFI you either never own the building or not until the last payment is made..... Now to a man of lesser reasoning ability this is starting to sound awfully like a rent, if you want to make any alterations to the building you have to ask the landlord for his agreement just like a rental except under PFI the landlord not only gets approval but he also does the work and charges you what they want. This is starting to sound awfully like a pretty crap rental
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Feb 7, 2012 17:52:22 GMT
The last two posts may have been used in the compilation of the study in question I suspect. Those two posts were written in the past hour, the thread started days ago. So here we have another example of brilliant left wing reasoning ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 17:58:35 GMT
here we go again... they weren't labour... they were imposters, a big boy did it and ran away....etc etc lets see... supported financially by the unions - check leadership voted in by unions and labour party members - check ran up massive national debts - check paid millions to sit on their arses for 13 years - check wasted billions on the NHS - check fucked up the economy - check employed 60% in the public sector - check created stacks of extra quangos - check let any fucker into the country to sit on the dole - check of course they were left wing, no other doctrine could be this fucking useless ;D. Conjecture definition - "inference or conlusion based on incomplete evidence, guesswork". "Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics." It must be true then. After all, Canadian academics are pretty much the architects of modern society and life as we know it. The study doesn't even attempt to marry left\right wing stereotypes with UK political party support because, as I mentioned in my other post, it'd end up proving absolutey fuck all. 'Do you hate blacks?' 'Yep. Bastards'. 'What about gays?' 'Dirty twats, the lot of them' 'What about the police?' 'Would shoot them all.' 'Who will you vote for in the next election?' 'Labour' 'Hhhmmm, I think we'll omit that from our findings. Let's try again'.
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Feb 7, 2012 18:01:37 GMT
here we go again... they weren't labour... they were imposters, a big boy did it and ran away....etc etc lets see... supported financially by the unions - check leadership voted in by unions and labour party members - check ran up massive national debts - check paid millions to sit on their arses for 13 years - check wasted billions on the NHS - check fucked up the economy - check employed 60% in the public sector - check created stacks of extra quangos - check let any fucker into the country to sit on the dole - check of course they were left wing, no other doctrine could be this fucking useless ;D. Conjecture definition - "inference or conlusion based on incomplete evidence, guesswork". "Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics." Which part is conjecture ? all of the above is in the public domain... Your idea of conjecture = anything which doesn't tally with your own view. You are (despite your rather poor attempts to frame your posts as balanced) one of the most prejudiced people on here. man up and admit it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 18:04:21 GMT
If you're a racist homophobe who votes for Labour or a Tory voter who's married to an African girl (and has a few gay mates) the entire study falls flat on its stupid arse. A better example of poor reasoning ability and low cognitive ability you couldn't wish for in that answer right there. One person like your example against the 15,000 other people in the study and it, quote, "falls flat on its arse". This thread could run and run ;D So enlighten us as to how the study explains the simple failing highlighted? It doesn't. There is no link whatsover with political allegiances as homophobes and racists are deemed right wing from the start. Which is obviously total bollocks. Cue another cryptic response from someone who believes he's the proud owner of a open, free thinking mind but can't apply simple logic to anything he types.
|
|
|
Post by Tubes on Feb 7, 2012 18:19:00 GMT
So enlighten us as to how the study explains the simple failing highlighted? It doesn't. There is no link whatsover with political allegiances as homophobes and racists are deemed right wing from the start. Which is obviously total bollocks. Cue another cryptic response from someone who believes he's the proud owner of a open, free thinking mind but can't apply simple logic to anything he types. What's the simple failing? The study doesn't say that all right wingers are racist or stupid, or that all left wingers are tolerant and intelligent. I personally know many people in both categories who don't fit the bill. The study actually says that those with a low general intelligence are more likely to be prejudiced, and that this relationship is mediated by right wing views - effectively that people with low intelligence are more likely to grasp at conservative ideologies (hierarchy, resistance to change, inter-group inequality) and that these provide a pathway to intolerance. If your going to make claims that it's bullshit you should probably read it first. pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187.full.pdf
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Feb 7, 2012 18:56:18 GMT
A better example of poor reasoning ability and low cognitive ability you couldn't wish for in that answer right there. One person like your example against the 15,000 other people in the study and it, quote, "falls flat on its arse". This thread could run and run ;D So enlighten us as to how the study explains the simple failing highlighted? It doesn't. There is no link whatsover with political allegiances as homophobes and racists are deemed right wing from the start. Which is obviously total bollocks. Cue another cryptic response from someone who believes he's the proud owner of a open, free thinking mind but can't apply simple logic to anything he types. Nothing cryptic about your lack of open mindedness though.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 18:59:45 GMT
The last two posts may have been used in the compilation of the study in question I suspect. Those two posts were written in the past hour, the thread started days ago. So here we have another example of brilliant left wing reasoning ;D ;D ;D It was a joke, but feel free to let it fly over your head! I "should of" stuck a smiley after it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 19:12:35 GMT
Why would anyone from the Left say unpaid tax is a good thing? PFI - sounds much like a mortgage to me. Most ordinary folk can end up paying as much or more than their house is actually worth but get to enjoy the benefits of living in it in the meantime. But just to be clear one more time, I'd much prefer PFI never existed and that hospitals schools etc were funded directly through taxation (properly collected taxation ) Why would anyone blame the bankers for those two examples? Strange post, FYD. Your standard mantra is Labour were doing a good job and it's all down to the economic crisis, just giving you some information for you to reason with so you get to the right conclusion eventually. Really do you know anyone who doesn't choose the cheapest mortgage available when buying a house, so it doesn't sound like a very good mortgage...... With a mortgage you usually own the house you take the mortgage out on as soon as you start paying for it whereas with PFI you either never own the building or not until the last payment is made..... Now to a man of lesser reasoning ability this is starting to sound awfully like a rent, if you want to make any alterations to the building you have to ask the landlord for his agreement just like a rental except under PFI the landlord not only gets approval but he also does the work and charges you what they want. This is starting to sound awfully like a pretty crap rental Close, but my "standard mantra" is simply to counter the usual right-wing posters' efforts of "13 years of Labour financial recklessness and over-spending", "piss poor financial management" etc etc etc, and show that it was manageable at that time which it was. Hence the Tories plans to match spending (although this could have been blatant and cynical lying - what do you think about Squareball's opinion on that by the way?) Feel free to check back. What is the right conclusion, in your opinion? I'd happily do away with PFI. I'd much rather spending was open and transparent. Again, you'll find this has been my consistent response. But imo, having a working hospital is better than not having one even if you do eventually end up paying more in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 19:15:59 GMT
It must be true then. After all, Canadian academics are pretty much the architects of modern society and life as we know it. The study doesn't even attempt to marry left\right wing stereotypes with UK political party support because, as I mentioned in my other post, it'd end up proving absolutey fuck all. 'Do you hate blacks?' 'Yep. Bastards'. 'What about gays?' 'Dirty twats, the lot of them' 'What about the police?' 'Would shoot them all.' 'Who will you vote for in the next election?' 'Labour' 'Hhhmmm, I think we'll omit that from our findings. Let's try again'. Sorry, but the above says absolutely nothing about the validity or otherwise of that survey of 15,000 people simply because it's based on nothing other than your assumption of what you wish happened! It's just complete guesswork!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 19:19:28 GMT
Conjecture definition - "inference or conlusion based on incomplete evidence, guesswork". "Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics." Which part is conjecture ? all of the above is in the public domain... Your idea of conjecture = anything which doesn't tally with your own view. You are (despite your rather poor attempts to frame your posts as balanced) one of the most prejudiced people on here. man up and admit it. Just to take one - "fucked up the economy". You blame Labour for this. No assessment of the role of the financial crisis = inference or conclusion based on incomplete evidence. Again. This is, in essence, precisely how you formulate most of your conclusions, I'd guess. That's conjecture, btw Edit: I'll add a couple more: "paid millions to sit on their arses" - who are you talking about? "employed 60% in the public sector" - and these were all non-jobs presumably? No? So which ones were valuable and which weren't? Oh fuck, look into it a bit more deeply and it's not quite so easy is it! Still, I'll just stick with the headline figure and assume that it was all a gigantic waste of my money. Tell you what though, why don't you email a political professor at a Uni of your choice and ask him or her when was the last time we had a genuinely socialist government in the UK, then post the response on here? My guess is they'll say in the 70s, but I might be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 19:22:32 GMT
So enlighten us as to how the study explains the simple failing highlighted? It doesn't. There is no link whatsover with political allegiances as homophobes and racists are deemed right wing from the start. Which is obviously total bollocks. Cue another cryptic response from someone who believes he's the proud owner of a open, free thinking mind but can't apply simple logic to anything he types. What's the simple failing? The study doesn't say that all right wingers are racist or stupid, or that all left wingers are tolerant and intelligent. I personally know many people in both categories who don't fit the bill. The study actually says that those with a low general intelligence are more likely to be prejudiced, and that this relationship is mediated by right wing views - effectively that people with low intelligence are more likely to grasp at conservative ideologies (hierarchy, resistance to change, inter-group inequality) and that these provide a pathway to intolerance. If your going to make claims that it's bullshit you should probably read it first. pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187.full.pdfOh, the irony. Is that too cryptic, Squareball?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 19:44:14 GMT
What's the simple failing? The study doesn't say that all right wingers are racist or stupid, or that all left wingers are tolerant and intelligent. I personally know many people in both categories who don't fit the bill. The study actually says that those with a low general intelligence are more likely to be prejudiced, and that this relationship is mediated by right wing views - effectively that people with low intelligence are more likely to grasp at conservative ideologies (hierarchy, resistance to change, inter-group inequality) and that these provide a pathway to intolerance. If your going to make claims that it's bullshit you should probably read it first. pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187.full.pdfOh, the irony. Is that too cryptic, Squareball? Come off it. You know as well as I do that the use of the term 'right wing' in the report has been taken so far out of context that its comical. By linking right wing (extreme right wing) and conservative idealogy its managed to 'suggest' a link between intelligence and conservative thinking. It's not hard to do. Historical thinking links racism\homophobia to right wing idealogies (as I mentioned, extreme right wing). The report then links the term right wing with conservatives and then, on the findings that some of the thick twats in the study exhibit racist\homophobic leanings they're put into the right wing category and therefore seen as conservative. The lefties\socialists then jump on this and you're left to wonder what the original aim of the study was. All the study proves is that racist\homophobic\order seeking people are generally less intelligent than the opposites. The right wing\conservative link is as weak as fuck. I await the next study, Conservative Voters All Want to Build Concentration Camps, with eager anticipation.
|
|
|
Post by Tubes on Feb 7, 2012 19:54:59 GMT
Come off it. You know as well as I do that the use of the term 'right wing' in the report has been taken so far out of context that its comical. By linking right wing (extreme right wing) and conservative idealogy its managed to 'suggest' a link between intelligence and conservative thinking. The term right wing in the report was judged to mean social conservatism and authoritarianism. "In both the NCDS and the BCS, socially conservative ideology was assessed in terms of respect for and submission to authority (7 items in the NCDS and 10 items in the BCS; e.g., “Give law breakers stiffer sentences” and “Schools should teach children to obey authority”) and support for conventional (i.e., unequal) sex roles (6 items in both studies; e.g., “Family life suffers if mum is working fulltime”); scale reliabilities ranged from .63 to .68 (Deary et al., 2008; Schoon et al., 2010). These measures tap socially conservative values, including desire for law and order, punitive reactions toward wrongdoers, adherence to social conventions or traditions, and social control" Seems reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 19:55:31 GMT
Exactly, it doesn't say anything about extremism.
Simply that those of low general intelligence tend to be more prone to prejudiced views and that they also tend to grasp at conservative ideology as it makes them feel safe.
That's a finding based on 15,000 people, not that all 15,000 could be categorised that way.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Feb 7, 2012 20:15:51 GMT
Once again you labour under the misapprehension that the last labour administration was "left wing" The topic of this thread was made for folk like you matey. Except the study was based on research in the 60's and 70's and I wasn't born until 1971 ;D in the 60's and 70's people were more racist and homophobic, ask mumfy he grew up then and still has the attitudes hence his regular bans. mumfs not racist just in africa on holiday
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 20:23:32 GMT
on a shooting darkies holiday though Edit: hold on... there we go
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Feb 7, 2012 20:59:19 GMT
on a shooting darkies holiday though Edit: hold on... there we go ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by jonah77 on Feb 7, 2012 21:16:43 GMT
Come off it. You know as well as I do that the use of the term 'right wing' in the report has been taken so far out of context that its comical. By linking right wing (extreme right wing) and conservative idealogy its managed to 'suggest' a link between intelligence and conservative thinking. The term right wing in the report was judged to mean social conservatism and authoritarianism. "In both the NCDS and the BCS, socially conservative ideology was assessed in terms of respect for and submission to authority (7 items in the NCDS and 10 items in the BCS; e.g., “Give law breakers stiffer sentences” and “Schools should teach children to obey authority”) and support for conventional (i.e., unequal) sex roles (6 items in both studies; e.g., “Family life suffers if mum is working fulltime”); scale reliabilities ranged from .63 to .68 (Deary et al., 2008; Schoon et al., 2010). These measures tap socially conservative values, including desire for law and order, punitive reactions toward wrongdoers, adherence to social conventions or traditions, and social control" Seems reasonable to me. does a desire for law and order really make you conservative?
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Feb 8, 2012 0:17:29 GMT
The Bush administration showed the same financial incompetence as New Labour.
Is Bush left-wing?
No. Therefore, financial incompetence is probably just - financial incompetence. It is not necessarily the result of anything inherent in traditional leftist doctrines.
If overspending could be attributed to any doctrinal/ideological belief then it would be neoliberalism. This originates with Friedman and Von Hayek (definitely not left-wing) and originally entered mainstream Anglo-American politics through Thatcher and Reagan. It was embraced by New Labour before they entered power.
Historians of contemporary British politics refer to this as a 'consensus' in implicit reference to the socalled 'post-war consensus' that existed between both major parties between 1945 and 1979. This new 'consensus' came about in the mid-1990s as both Clinton in the US and Blair in this country accepted the economic doctrines of the right and both parties therefore converged around the idea that the 'free market' was the best way of allocating resources in society.
A central tenet of this free market ideology was massive deregulation. If you refuse to regulate credit derivatives... guess what happens? Ironically, if you are to be logically consistent, it leads to the deregulation of the labour markets and therefore we get all these 'scroungers' and 'dirty immigrants' washing up on our shores.
This pretty much establishes that both mainstream political parties are to blame but if we have to assign blame to either left or right then it should probably be the latter.
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Feb 8, 2012 0:19:11 GMT
Actually on second thoughts, probably can't attributed over-spending to neoliberalism. But overspending relies on inflation - which in turn relies on financial deregulation, so the argument still works.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 8:39:24 GMT
This is a bit of a tricky impasse isn't it, rightwingers?
If you continue to blame the previous government for, well, pretty much everything, it'll be fundamentally because they stuck to right-wing free market monetarist policies formulated in the early 80s, and continued through the 90s and 00s.
I'm guessing "reckless over-spending" will be your attempt at wriggle-room. Despite all the evidence on publicspending.com which shows this wasn't the case.
New Labour, a socialist government, redstriper ;D
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Feb 8, 2012 14:53:10 GMT
"The Bush administration showed the same financial incompetence as New Labour."
At last, someone (other than from the right) with the balls to admit that the last labour government was incompetent.
Refreshing.
If you also come clean and admit that you voted them every time, and in particular at the last election, a more honest debate could ensue.
The problem on here has always been that whilst the left-wing posters spend hours defending the last government, they wont admit to voting for them post 97, presumably because they think they would lose all credibility on here by being associated with what, as you have pointed out, was 13 years of incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by Tubes on Feb 8, 2012 16:26:48 GMT
"The Bush administration showed the same financial incompetence as New Labour." At last, someone (other than from the right) with the balls to admit that the last labour government was incompetent. Refreshing. If you also come clean and admit that you voted them every time, and in particular at the last election, a more honest debate could ensue. The problem on here has always been that whilst the left-wing posters spend hours defending the last government, they wont admit to voting for them post 97, presumably because they think they would lose all credibility on here by being associated with what, as you have pointed out, was 13 years of incompetence. depends on how you determine 13 years of incompetence. Looking back there were plenty of New Labour successes that now seem to be forgotten; NHS waiting times, a massive reduction in child poverty, introduction of the minimum wage, increased social mobility, tax credits, Sure Start, increased spending on public services. These are some of the many ways life improved under the Labour government. I think they have been very slow championing these successes and allowing their opposition to effectively rewrite their time in power as a failure. That's not to say there weren't failures. There were plenty, because you cannot run a country for such a long period and get everything right. If you ask anyone about Tony Blair, one of the most successful Prime Ministers in recent years in terms of electoral successes, his achievements will often be overshadowed by Iraq. Post 9/11, security policy become over-zealous, and the tuition fee system they introduced was a betrayal of their progressive roots. However, to suggest, in the face of the evidence, that they were an incompetent government seems to be a partisan position rather than a well thought out one. And no, I have never voted for them in the past.
|
|