On 17 Sep 2011 at 8:22pm Southover Queen wrote:
I'm starting yet another thread because Paul Newman really can't be allowed to get away with these two statements unchallenged:
"New Labour's ten years unsustainable squander delivered less social mobility ,not more. The throw money at it' approach more or less failed to improve health inequality without suggesting it did no good"
It is true that the trend towards a more equal society has slowed in the last 30 years. It is also true that New Labour was as much in thrall to the financial sector as anyone else, terrified that by challenging greed in the city they'd kill the golden goose which appeared to be driving the whole economy. Well it seems that was mostly smoke and mirrors and what they were actually doing in the city was gambling with billions and billions of pounds of our money. As has been said several times it's not the unions who have brought this country to its knees, it's untrammelled gambling and greed in the city.
The trend to greater social equality started after the war, with a state funded health system, a safety net for the very poor and an educational system funded by taxes with access awarded on merit not wherewithal. It was the vision of pesky socialists and they transformed the life chances of a whole generation.
I'd say that since then we've been infected by people who (probably sincerely) believe that the way to happiness is ever more expensive stuff, particularly stuff which is more expensive than that of your neighbour. This is meant to stimulate the desire to work harder so that you can buy this stuff. The trouble is that for a large section of society the work either isn't there or is so badly paid that the stuff is completely out of reach. If you also choke off access to education then there's really no hope for a big chunk of society. That makes lots of people very unhappy.
Interestingly, the happiest societies are those where there is more equality. Disposable income comes quite low down the list of things which lead to happiness. Sadly, New Labour lost sight of that essential point, not least driven by a media which buys wholesale into the free market/greed model. You mustn't frighten the Daily Mail horses.
"As for hosing resources on criminals denied to decent and equally under privileged families. Very caring."
Yes. Because locking people up does not stop them reoffending on release. In fact the evidence is quite to the contrary: the more you lock them up and the more you treat them like subhumans the more they go on offending. You can either try to educate them out of the gutter (and for some it works) or, I suppose, you should just blast them off into outer space or send them to a remote island, because "short sharp shocks" just make them nastier, more bitter people of whom we should all be wary.
So my comments about the way we treat prisoners is nothing to do with giving them a soft option and everything to do with looking for a way to putting them on a path which stops them doing it again and again and again. Which is, I'm afraid, what the present system achieves. I'm just being pragmatic: retribution gets you nowhere.
One last thing: the "throw money approach" was necessary because the Tories had given all the profits of their grand sell-off of the family silver back to the rich as tasx bribes and they were not investing any of it into public services. Most transport systems were failing (Potters Bar, anyone?), the NHS was on its knees, education was bankrupt. This is a cycle: one government cuts spending, the next has to increase it exponentially to fill the gaps. Then the incoming government blames everything on the previous one and the merry-go-round starts up again.
On 17 Sep 2011 at 9:59pm Bored wrote:
Does speakers corner still exist? Can I suggest that Southover Queen and others on this forum go there and have a mass debate over these political issues together rather than on here.
On 17 Sep 2011 at 10:01pm Southover Queen wrote:
You don't actually have to read any of it; some of us were quite enjoying an intelligent conversation for once.
On 17 Sep 2011 at 11:11pm Paul Newman wrote:
You said " I`d like to see a society where the sick get the treatment they need regardless of income" I `d like everyone to have a pony.so what ? In fact, from 1999/2000 to 2009/10 real terms funding for the NHS increased by 95% and social redistribution via tax was a daily boast. During that period inequalities in life expectancy between rich and poor have widened(Thorlby and Maybun 2010/Kings Fund ).The gap between routine and manual groups widened 4% for men and 11% for women.( Civitas) Obviously that sort of spending get improvements but not in equality.
On 17 Sep 2011 at 11:41pm Paul Newman wrote:
You are confusing mobility and equality Originally you claimed to want mobility. The famous Sutton Trust report showed that a cohort born poor in 1958 had more chance of escaping poverty than one born in 1970 growing up after the Butskellite consensus and in the era of Foot, Callaghan, Nationalisation and Comprehensive education. There is no question that the trend continued, if not accelerated, during the period of our acquiring a 10% plus, structural deficit under Blair and Brown. See attached, or Rowntree, or many more. Some startling stats
Check it out here »
On 17 Sep 2011 at 11:55pm ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ wrote:
.......why your mates never ask you out for a drink
On 18 Sep 2011 at 12:08am Paul Newman wrote:
Not bothering with the banker bashing or happy people doing happy things stuff.On Prison. If we have spare resources the vast majority of educationally and socially deprived families, who are honest and work hard, have a prior claim over criminals. The sad feelings of people who rape injure steal and destroy are low on my list of priorities. You can agonise for me .
Properly deterrent and early sentencing might be worth a try.
On 18 Sep 2011 at 4:04am expat two wrote:
"Not bothering with the banker bashing or happy people doing happy things stuff"
Good, because nobody's done that in this thread, how very magnanimous of you.
"If we have spare resources the vast majority of educationally and socially deprived families, who are honest and work hard, have a prior claim over criminals."
Maybe, maybe not, The poor are always bigger victims of crime than the rich, reducing crime might help them more than you'd care to admit (or just care). Its often poverty that leads to crime too, so maybe two-birds-with-one-stone. Surely that's got to appeal to your cost cutting agenda? all of which is entirely academic, neither of them will see any "spare resources" - there's no such thing when the economy's in deficit and when there is, there'll be tax cuts for the rich.
"Properly deterrent and early sentencing might be worth a try."
Hmm. Quoting The Daily Mail verbatim by the looks of things.
"properly deterrent" what exactly does this mean - a sentence with support, training, re-habilitation programmes which will reduce the likelihood of re-offending? Or, as I suspect, just a more draconian one, which won't.
"worth a try" - what - never been tried before? Have sentences always, since the dawn of the history of incarceration, been lenient and focused on rehabilitation over revenge?
"The sad feelings of people who rape injure steal and destroy are low on my list of priorities. "
Their feelings are low on everybody's list of priorities you tory numpty, we just care about stopping them from doing it.
"You can agonise for me"
Because, as we all remember, you're too busy agonising over the reputation of those tragically victimised Tory Councillors who drink/drive and assault police officers.
Once again you've submitted a post which is a mish-mash of paranoid Daily Mail rhetoric and patronising condescension. Do you actually want Lewesians to see a different point of view, or do you want them to hate tories more? Seriously, your going about it in entirely the wrong way. Maybe its why nobody reads your blogs (btw - is that still running?)
On 18 Sep 2011 at 11:09am Clifford wrote:
The main thing we have to remember is 'It wasn't the bankers' fault. Bankers can do no wrong. They're very rich so they must have all our interests at heart. It's not the fault of the bankers. It was the poor that did it.' That's right, isn't it?
On 18 Sep 2011 at 11:29am DFL wrote:
That's right all bankers are innocent.....yeah right.
On 18 Sep 2011 at 12:45pm Clifford wrote:
That's it DFL. If we keep saying it, it will become true. 'The bankers are our benefactors. The bankers deserve every penny they can get. We don't deserve our bankers but they are here to make our lives better. Everything that goes wrong is the fault of the poor and those terrible workers.'
On 18 Sep 2011 at 1:15pm The Tooth Fairy wrote:
Indeed Clifford, like saying 'the union dominated, inefficient, bloated, wasteful, unaccountable, public sector is worth every penny of tax payers taxes'. Oh!, I see what you mean now.
On 18 Sep 2011 at 2:20pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I could be wrong, but I've yet to hear of anyone in the public sector being arrested for misappropriating £2bn of other people's money. Most of it goes on providing services everyone, or almost everyone, benefits from.
On 18 Sep 2011 at 2:26pm bastian wrote:
SQ paul newman has the hide of a rhino and hides behind a barrage of sophistry which becomes so droningly boring it makes us want to cut our own limbs off, be warned, if you take him on I may have to pass on the time honoured rusty pen knife for you to use on your own wrists.
On 18 Sep 2011 at 3:24pm appenherirors wrote:
On 18 Sep 2011 at 3:41pm DFL wrote:
The bankers are innocent, I love bankers, the bankers are innocent, I love bankers....
On 18 Sep 2011 at 4:31pm Southover Queen wrote:
Coo. I set off for a meeting at the crack of dawn (to do a little revolutionary plotting, obviously) and return to discover that everyone's had a splendid time.
Thank you expat two for explaining why treating prisoners like human beings and trying to ensure at least a basic level of literacy matters. There was a report endorsed by the Justice Secretary just last week which showed that incarcerating people for long periods with no access to education and training just makes it even more certain they will reoffend on release. However recidivism rates drop considerably once prisoners are exposed to education and rehabilitation and treated civilly. Otherwise just cut off their hands or stone them to death (oh wait, that's Sharia law isn't it; that's probably no good either).
Thank you very much for explaining the difference between social mobility and equality. Would you agree they're actually closely linked as ideas? Unless that is you're using "social mobility" to describe people becoming less equal, which I suppose is an option.
I'm not clear whether you do want the sick to receive the treatment they need, since you appear to duck the issue. Do you want the poor to die first? (Actually, they do already) Or is it just the undeserving? Then the sick but deserving poor can carry on tugging their forelocks and coughing quietly.
I'll let the remarkably articulate expat two pursue you on the links between poverty and crime, but I am interested in why you think that it's not worth considering the indices for happiness in society. If we don't strive to be happy, or perhaps better content, what do we strive for? It seems fairly clear that possessing more and more stuff does not make us content, but equally it seems that it suits free-market governments to peddle that link in spite of the evidence. Societies which are more equal have much higher indices of happiness than do societies like ours, where the emphasis is on wealth accumulation and the devil take the hindmost.
Bastian: thank you very much for the offer of a rusty penknife. Can I pass this time? I've quite enjoyed poking the angry bear through the bars.
On 18 Sep 2011 at 5:09pm bastian wrote:
jolly good, i've been doing that for months,it's your turn.(we are singing off the same hym sheet)
On 18 Sep 2011 at 5:35pm Southover Queen wrote:
We are, Bastian. And what's more we're not alone, which oddly enough is quite cheering!
On 18 Sep 2011 at 5:56pm Clifford wrote:
Are you a banker Tooth Fairy? You know we love you. The bankers are innocent. It's all those terrible people in the public sector who ripped us off. What a happy world it would be if everyone was a banker.
On 18 Sep 2011 at 10:00pm Paul Newman wrote:
I`m disappointed in you SQ .‚??Look Look I must be right look the prolix clich√© spouting slack jawed gimp on my left is bawling the same slogan ‚??. What could possibly go wrong with that theory?
Crime is not an abstract phenomena. Christine Lakinski was a 50 year old with a spinal deformity who fell over and lay dying. John Anderson and his friends kicked her to their satisfaction, and her near death, then they urinated on her ‚?? .Mencap report this form of crime is on the increase .
Ok so there is a crime. Expat 2 suggests that John Andresen should fall on a soft downy pillow of pottery lessons and concern. I think there is a problem we righties refer to as ‚??Justice ‚??but I daresay I `m on my own there.
On 18 Sep 2011 at 10:07pm Paul Newman wrote:
Educational under privilege does not predetermine criminality. Ordinary people would vastly rather the money were spent on visible police officers. Many live lives that show this bourgeois fatuity to be a self aggrandising lie .
Btw.-Elevating evil scrotes into social victims amuses me but it was SQ who started banging on about it.Not much interested in crims really
On 18 Sep 2011 at 11:19pm Southover Queen wrote:
"Elevating evil scrotes into social victims amuses me but it was SQ who started banging on about it.Not much interested in crims really"
No indeed, and it shows. You haven't actually thought about it either. I suspect you'd actually rather spend more money torturing prisoners rather than turning them into decent citizens.
"Educational under privilege does not predetermine criminality. Ordinary people would vastly rather the money were spent on visible police officers. Many live lives that show this bourgeois fatuity to be a self aggrandising lie ."
Blimey. You excel yourself here. What completely abject, barely digested Daily Express nonsense. Putting three completely unrelated statements together does not constitute an argument.
As to your previous post, I'm actually at a loss. Why are you describing horrible crimes? What does this have to do with anything? Have I suggested not locking up psychopaths? Has anyone else?
Look, it's no fun arguing with you if you can't even be bothered to edit the Daily Express nonsense before spewing it up here. (It's not up to Daily Mail standard: they can generally marshall an argument even if it's hideously distorted.)
On 19 Sep 2011 at 8:02am Clifford wrote:
Amusing as he is, Paul is a prime example of why it's best to have more water with it before posting.
On 19 Sep 2011 at 8:17am DFL wrote:
Just a minute, I thought this thread was for the unashamed worship of bankers, but I see there are references to social mobility, equality, educational under privelage etc., what's all that got to do with our beloved bankers.....
On 19 Sep 2011 at 9:34am Paul Newman wrote:
Fantastic. I have quoted evidence form Civitas ,The Kings Fund, The Sutton Trust The BBC on a mobility survey and the material on the rise of crime against the disabled is from the New Statesman. I included this to draw the admittedly subtle distinction between "Crime" and " A crime " all of which has evidently flown over the heads of the intellectual Lollipop League.Waste of time.
As I am unable to print off SQs endless needy tantrums on soft paper with perforations I have no use for it at all so if you could resist another poignant testament to wounded pride,I`ll live with that.
On 19 Sep 2011 at 10:17am Mercian wrote:
Speaking of educational underprivilege: Paul, in the printed word it is usual to put a space after a full stop or comma, not before. Doing this would make your rants rather easier to read (although that might not be an advantage).
On 19 Sep 2011 at 10:48am Brixtonbelle wrote:
SQ and Bastian, Clifford , thanks for all your posts recently - you've said what I have thought. Can I join the anarchists too plse.
On 19 Sep 2011 at 11:09am Clifford wrote:
Brixtonbelle - I've always assumed you were one of us.
On 19 Sep 2011 at 11:57am DFL wrote:
Anarchists, bankers, don't you just love them all, aaaah, what a great world we live in.
On 19 Sep 2011 at 12:52pm Clifford wrote:
Yes, endless fun DFL. History is a vast spectacle in which we all play our part.
On 19 Sep 2011 at 4:19pm bastian wrote:
alot has happened while I was at work...so when is the first meeting of the Lewes anarchist syndicate?
Paul you must read your posts back to yourself because it is beginning to sound like raving gibberish..a drowning man in a sewer of socialism.(it's tough being a tory)Only the truely desperate start to lose it and become rude to their peers on a forum,you would, I hope, never do that face to face, say, at the headstrong club.
On 19 Sep 2011 at 6:01pm Southover Queen wrote:
So sorry: I was busy earning my not very immense living as well.
No, Paul Newman, I haven't bothered responding to your citations because they make no sense in the context of the actual argument. Nothing wrong with them per se; it's just that as rebuttals to my points they have no relevance.
For instance, it is not relevant that the numbers of hate crimes against people with learning disabilities are increasing, which on review appears to be the sum total of your response to my earlier post. Nothing about how all the evidence shows that rehabilitation is far more effective than retribution in preventing recidivism. Nothing either about the indices of happiness and why equality might be preferable to greed, nothing about who should be excluded from health care, nothing at all about how the financial sector got us all deep into hock and the public services seem to be fingered for getting us out again.
Here's a titbit to amuse you all: the amount of tax which UBS will now not be paying the HM government because of the activities of their rogue trader amounts to over half a billion pounds sterling. Just think how many nurses that would have paid for...
On 19 Sep 2011 at 6:08pm Clifford wrote:
Just to clarify - It is our duty to do everything to ensure the rich stay rich and become even richer, particularly the bankers who contribute nothing, absolute nothing, to the world: they produce no food, sew no clothes, build no houses, heal no sick. And yet the bonuses flood in.
On 19 Sep 2011 at 8:32pm Peter Byron wrote:
Bankers Clifford, the lot of them, and yes, I said BANKERS ha ha.
On 20 Sep 2011 at 5:08am expat two wrote:
the collective noun being 'wunch', of course
On 20 Sep 2011 at 7:15am expat two wrote:
for more rich Vs poor criminality;
Check it out here »
On 20 Sep 2011 at 10:41am Paul Newman wrote:
Clearly the CEO is only a criminal because of his lack of educational opportunity and social deprivation Expat 2, no doubt with access to basic literacy n his sense of right and wrong will come flooding back
Incidentally I chiefly blame you for reducing a thread which began in a reasonable way into a puerile ad hominem playground squawk. If you could get through one sentence without another dreary Daily Mail ref or banale clich√© it would be an improvement . Go old school mate what about a few "Lickle spit lackey of capitalism-s" marginally less boring at least.
On 20 Sep 2011 at 12:22pm Paul Newman wrote:
...and you Southover Queen have obviously lost track of what the subject/s were initially ,(like someone finding themselves in a room and not remembering why they went there...) Its your age I expect.
But, in general, anyone will find that I am scrupulously polite and make every effort to play the ball provided I am treated with similar courtesy. Simple as that.
On 20 Sep 2011 at 2:28pm Deelite wrote:
Ha ha ha ha, You're a joker Paul
On 20 Sep 2011 at 3:17pm bastian wrote:
optimism is for the young, after all they don't remember the tories the first time around.
On 20 Sep 2011 at 6:30pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
Paul the problem with your posts is that you completely undermine your point by not using grammar and changing tack in the middle of sentences completely losing the thread and then starting another attack in the middle of the first point know what I mean I think you do call yourself educated please form and complete proper sentences with subject object and verbs. etcetera
On 20 Sep 2011 at 7:43pm Whoops wrote:
Paul's strong point is that he remembers facts and is occasionally funny. Unfortunately his bizarre attempts to make sense of these facts and his inability to express himself clearly heavily outweigh these positive points.
And then there's his chip-on-the-shoulder jealous left-out, snivelling kid, wetting himself in the corner driven politics.