UK General Election 2010

Post Reply New Topic

No - I am just pointing out the fallacy of relating terrorism with immigration. Terrorism has arisen from this nations actions around the world.

But, please, do answer my question.

Britain's actions around the world are being punished with terrorism? What of Spain? France? Italy? Russia? Do these actions have to be in the present or can they be from any time in the past? Do they have to be against or for any certain ethnic or religious group?

but black people do sound different, so your statement would be false

david cameron got egged, its not the first time david;s had difficulty with getting down with the youth, remember his hug a hoody finger gesturer, perhaps thats whys he aiming for the elderly vote,

'toff' is a byword for an elite, insular exclusive strata of society who consolidate & wield enormous influence behind the scenes. Aristocrats, by and large do not give, they take - this is precisely why they have retained such power over many centuries. And they are especially dangerous when networked with each other - what is it now, 21 etonians in the tory party? (i dont mean actual schoolboys)

So your comparison doesnt really carry. for one thing 'toffs' seem to live in a completely different world to us, immigrants (you may disagree) live in ours, neighbours, so they do not represent the same type of threat. (in fact, i bet a lot of the excesses of anti-immigrant rhetoric in the popular press was driven by their elite owners)

I object to this claim that "healthy capitalist" countries "will always have unemployment". Mass unemployment has been a strategic decision of the past 30 years. Before then, governments used the levers of power to keep unemployment to negligible levels. This was a policy of full employment Under the influence of neoclassical economists devoted to shifting resources to the upper quintiles, this fraud called NAIRU (Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment) was invented to use the levers to maintain unemployment at levels that promote fear in the workplace to keep workers in their place and obedient as intended and keep wages down and profits up. Then the idea was inculcated that this unemployment is natural and cannot be remedied in any way, never mind that it was in the 1950s to 1970s. "Labour is not working", the British conservatives said in 1979 when unemployment was somewhere in the 3-5% range and mostly because the neoclassical scum in the IMF got their claws on the British economy in 1976. The Conservatives proceeded to more than double that rate of unemployment and told everyone "there is no alternative" and such rates of unemployment are now considered to be natural and beyond remedy.

Hey Xenon, just wondering how old are you?

Cameron's background does work against him. Thatcher and Major's backgrounds helped them. One thing that the right has tried to do is try to divide the working class from those who in the Labour Party like Tony Benn and Michael Foot with middle and upper class backgrounds. This image of a revolutionary vanguard of professional intellectuals who don't really know the realities of the working class, putting their necks on the line with no cost to them.

It reminds me a bit of some Dracula movies, British ones incidentally, where you'd have someone showing up at the village under Dracula's castle telling them that they plan to get rid of Dracula and the villagers plead with them to not do that, Dracula will survive and destroy them all in revenge. It's sort of like that. The right tells the working class that these interfering busybodies will rouse the angry bosses who will punish them severely and best to just obey those bosses and hope for the best.

Major and Thatcher, with their backgrounds, were far more able to play to this than someone with an aristocratic background could.

Object all you want -- it won't change reality. The only "full" employment you'll find is in communist dictatorships where the state will always find a place for you in some work camp or down the salt mine. North Korea is a shining example.

Cameron was born in to that. He is "toff" by birth, just as a person is "black" by birth. So, I think my comparison valid.

Even if you accept the latter as a premise, it does not mean immigration will not significantly influence the risk of that terrorism affecting you. So I'd suggest your argument is logically flawed, not mine. Clearly within the UK the large influx of a certain type of foreigner from Asia and N Africa has contributed to terrorist attacks and the cost for our security services to deal with this must be phenomenal. If none of those people had been allowed to settle here and strict border controls were in place I expect a number of individuals would still be alive, and a larger number again not maimed for life. Of course, to leftists, losing a limb and having your eardrums ruptured in a bomb blast is all part of cultural enrichment.

Last edited by ascan on 24 Apr 2010, 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Actually, to leftists, that would be a consequence of the right-wing people screwing up the bomber's country. ^.-

For most of the 1970s, unemployment in the UK was around 1% to 3%. After the IMF intervention in 1976 it rose from that point to no more than 5% in 1979, when "Labour is not working". Thatcher takes power, it jumps to 10% plus in a couple of years, then unemployment is redefined over 30 times during her rule in order to mask the embarrassing increases. One reason the London mayor position was ended was because Ken Livingston ran an "unemployment clock" in London that displayed the embarrassment for the world.

The elites decided that full employment was inflationary so abandoned any attempts at that. Milton Friedman's quackery resulted in something called NAIRU which has no scientific basis. The whole point was a massive redistribution upwards.

Essentially there are three measurements, three "evils" that are said to influence each other and they do to an extent - Unemployment, deficit and inflation. Too little unemployment is said to influence an increasing inflation, too much deficit is known to decrease unemployment. It used to be that unemployment was the worse of the three and came first. Now, inflation comes first, then deficit and unemployment is seen as the lesser of the evils officially.

Now there's this other quack theory used by deficit terrorists called the "crowding out theory" that has no scientific basis at all but it's an article of faith with national leaders. It maintains that a higher deficits causes a "crowding out" as money for government bonds means less money for private sector bonds. That deficit spending creates money that is used for private sector bonds is of course forgotten. This is used to argue that deficit terrorism and austerity somehow decreases unemployment because this "crowding out" ceases when spending is cut - an utter lie. The truth is they want mass unemployment and fool people into thinking it's natural, counting on people not remembering the past at all when not only was full employment possible, it was done and done successfully.

That's still a lot of unemployed people. It may in economist-speak be full employment, but in reality and politically it is still unemployment within the context of my original statement. Even if we reached that level again, leftists would still be arguing that the figure was too high, just the same as if some draconian legislation capped any employer paying more than £200k a year where leftists would still complain about the gap between rich and poor. Those sorts of people won't be happy until they've established some form of communism.

And just because a smaller proportion of individuals were unemployed 30 or 40 years ago, that doesn't mean the economic conditions of the 70s are at all desireable today. You may delight in blaming Thatcher for the spike in the 80s, but the fact is that unemployment had been slowing trending upwards since the 40s. The social and economic context in which we exist was changing, and has continued to do so since then. So, I'd suggest it's a little naive of you to hold up the 70s as some kind of paragon to which we should aspire. Unless, that is, your idea of success is uncollected household waste rotting on the streets, corpses piling-up at the undertaker, and your savings being eroded by near 30% inflation.

" Those sorts of people won't be happy until they've established some form of communism."

I resent that. -.- I just don't wanna see human lives being wasted (on anything you can think of). And yes i know that's quite arbitrary.

1% unemployment is officially considered to be either beyond the realm of possibility or is undesirable. In the '70s the price of oil went way up and the world economy was doing so well that the price of commodities went up and this is why there was this inflation. The answer was to shock the world economy in the early '80s. Most of the commodity producers were put into IMF receivership as the artificially-induced debt crisis happened, First World economies were plunged into recession deliberately to restore the terms of trade to be more favourable to the wealthier countries, and redistribution to the top took place everywhere. Many countries had their own industries, under IMF receivership these were shut down, there was a lot of deindustrialisation. The past 30 years has been a worldwide class massacre.