Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on October 01, 2015, 04:38:24 am
-
My friends,
Just a quick and basic question.
Do you think that, in a democracy, the majority should decide where the country should be headed on key topics?
Or is it better to leave that to a minority of smarter than average people who know what's good for the majority?
Genuine question.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think it should all be left up to me to decide
-
My friends,
Just a quick and basic question.
Do you think that, in a democracy, the majority should decide where the country should be headed on key topics?
Or is it better to leave that to a minority of smarter than average people who know what's good for the majority?
Genuine question.
Cheers,
Bernard
The latter is not a democracy yet it is akin to what we have here, the basic difference being that it seems to be the dumber than average who are pulling the levers.
-
In my country (Portugal), we get to vote for the parliament, who then nominates a prime minister, who then proposes a government to the president. This happens every 4 years, if the government lasts that much.
We get to vote for the president (every 5 years), who has the power to dissolve the parliament, should the government fall for any reason.
This should work fine, were it not for the fact that candidates to prime ministers never keep their election promises... so what is new...
So in a democracy, I believe that the parliament, elected by the people, is the appropriate body to make decisions. Now, we can also have referendums, if the issues at stake are not "normal": we had a few ones in recent times, for example about abortion.
But we did not have a referendum on joining the Euro, or several EU treaties that impose tight rules on budget, for example. These have brought fundamental changes to the way we live in Portugal, and in Europe, which were not part of a normal election cycle.
We are going to have parliament election on 4 October, and it may well happen that the winning party (polls at ~36%) will not have the majority in the parliament (less deputies than all the other parties combined). It will be up to the president to decide whether to: accept a minority government of one party; or decide on a possible government with a majority of all other parties combined.
The latter has never happened in our history before; so again, the majority would be made not from the party with the most votes, but from a combination of all the other parties. Is this democracy? Yes, because in the end, it is up to the parliament to propose a government that does not have the majority in the house, or a government that has the majority in the house, should all the other parties agree to do so.
-
My friends,
Just a quick and basic question.
Do you think that, in a democracy, the majority should decide where the country should be headed on key topics?
Or is it better to leave that to a minority of smarter than average people who know what's good for the majority?
Neither, because they are an oversimplification.
Try this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy), which is closer to what it is (or should be), which (amongst others) includes safeguarding the rights of minorities ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
At least here (Finland) it used to be that the population (majority) voted smarter than average people to the parliament, who then made the decisions. This also for the workers & farmers parties, where the electorate was not so well educated. Parliament was trusted to make the best choices and there was not so much public discussion (before the Net).
Now, with the rise of the populist parties it seems that people have started voting dumber than average candidates to the parliament… Making dumb comments and proposals to get media attention.
-
At least here (Finland) it used to be that the population (majority) voted smarter than average people to the parliament, who then made the decisions. This also for the workers & farmers parties, where the electorate was not so well educated. Parliament was trusted to make the best choices and there was not so much public discussion (before the Net).
Now, with the rise of the populist parties it seems that people have started voting dumber than average candidates to the parliament… Making dumb comments and proposals to get media attention.
You've been watching Britain's Labour party holding its conferences!
As Justinr wrote, the dumber people are getting put into the top jobs. The party above has just decided to allow itself to be headed by a gentleman who has just declared that he will never press the nuclear button under any circumstances, destroying, in a sentence, the unused strength of the nuclear deterrent. It's real strength? It offered certain, retaliatory destruction, to anyone stupid enough to fire the first round. If you remove that, as so many 'earnest' people seem to desire, the only outcome possible is that those who don't share the same interest in remaining protected from other's nuclear armaments will have no alternative but to give up when the first push actually does come to shove.
It's so bloody simple: if you are the smallest, weakest kid in school, you are the one who will get bullied. Nobody, including the original gang of bullies, is going to mess with the boxing champion. Why does this seem to escape so many left-leaning people? I suspect that it actually doesn't; I also suspect that they have an agenda in creating Western weakness.
Communism has failed everywhere it has been tried/enforced; the only places where allegiance remains is where it has never been experienced.
Rob C
-
My friends,
Just a quick and basic question.
Do you think that, in a democracy, the majority should decide where the country should be headed on key topics?
Or is it better to leave that to a minority of smarter than average people who know what's good for the majority?
Genuine question.
Cheers,
Bernard
Your second one is a republic, not a democracy.
Now for a bit of fun data theory. A hot term in the tech industry is called Big Data, and it has answers for this very topic. The larger and larger of set of people you ask a question, the more accurate the answer will become. Or, at least that is how the theory goes. So, if you can get the majority of people to respond in a true democracy, it should be better than a few elected lawmakers making the decision. That is the theory, anyways.
But, both systems have a problem, in that they can be rigged. In a democracy, the media, where almost all people will get their information, can be used to mislead and sway the outcome. In a republic, the individual lawmakers can be influenced to sway one way or another.
-
Rob,
It's so bloody simple: if you are the smallest, weakest kid in school, you are the one who will get bullied. Nobody, including the original gang of bullies, is going to mess with the boxing champion.
There are five declared nuclear weapon states in the world. There are three others that have nuclear weapons. That is eight countries out of 192...So 187 countries don’t feel the need to have a nuclear weapon to protect their security.
-
The party above has just decided to allow itself to be headed by a gentleman who has just declared that he will never press the nuclear button under any circumstances, destroying, in a sentence, the unused strength of the nuclear deterrent.
the point of deterrent as it is implemented in a relevant countries (which UK is not) is that in certain circumstances the button is simply pressed by other people (not president or whoever is the chief executive) and quite possible just automatically.
-
Now for a bit of fun data theory. A hot term in the tech industry is called Big Data, and it has answers for this very topic. The larger and larger of set of people you ask a question, the more accurate the answer will become. Or, at least that is how the theory goes. So, if you can get the majority of people to respond in a true democracy, it should be better than a few elected lawmakers making the decision. That is the theory, anyways.
That only works when you ask educated and informed people on the topic they are knowledgeable about.
-
You've been watching Britain's Labour party holding its conferences!
As Justinr wrote, the dumber people are getting put into the top jobs. The party above has just decided to allow itself to be headed by a gentleman who has just declared that he will never press the nuclear button under any circumstances, destroying, in a sentence, the unused strength of the nuclear deterrent. It's real strength? It offered certain, retaliatory destruction, to anyone stupid enough to fire the first round. If you remove that, as so many 'earnest' people seem to desire, the only outcome possible is that those who don't share the same interest in remaining protected from other's nuclear armaments will have no alternative but to give up when the first push actually does come to shove.
Alternatively....
"Think of it this way: Corbyn declared to Britain's potential enemies that with him in charge they could disregard a multi-billion pound weapon system.
Or, perhaps, put it like this: a man with a lifetime commitment to scrapping Britain's deterrent promised not to kill untold thousands of innocent people if he had the opportunity.
Many politicians choose not to be so frank."
It's so bloody simple: if you are the smallest, weakest kid in school, you are the one who will get bullied. Nobody, including the original gang of bullies, is going to mess with the boxing champion. Why does this seem to escape so many left-leaning people? I suspect that it actually doesn't; I also suspect that they have an agenda in creating Western weakness.
That's simplistic paranoid nonsense that the Daily Mail would be proud to print. As is this...
Communism has failed everywhere it has been tried/enforced; the only places where allegiance remains is where it has never been experienced.
Corbyn is left wing, he is not a communist. That like saying you're a Nazi because you have a right wing viewpoint. Not sure why you even mention communism in context of not wanting nuclear weapons, after all the USSR was the other side in the nuclear arms race.
Besides all those failed communist societies were in reality oligarchies with a few powerful + rich people in control and a downtrodden populace. Which could also describe a lot of right wing states.
In fact the difference between the far right and far left is just that the excuse used to behave in the same crappy way to others is different. The end results are much the same.
-
You've been watching Britain's Labour party holding its conferences!
As Justinr wrote, the dumber people are getting put into the top jobs. The party above has just decided to allow itself to be headed by a gentleman who has just declared that he will never press the nuclear button under any circumstances, destroying, in a sentence, the unused strength of the nuclear deterrent. It's real strength? It offered certain, retaliatory destruction, to anyone stupid enough to fire the first round. If you remove that, as so many 'earnest' people seem to desire, the only outcome possible is that those who don't share the same interest in remaining protected from other's nuclear armaments will have no alternative but to give up when the first push actually does come to shove.
It's so bloody simple: if you are the smallest, weakest kid in school, you are the one who will get bullied. Nobody, including the original gang of bullies, is going to mess with the boxing champion. Why does this seem to escape so many left-leaning people? I suspect that it actually doesn't; I also suspect that they have an agenda in creating Western weakness.
Communism has failed everywhere it has been tried/enforced; the only places where allegiance remains is where it has never been experienced.
Rob C
Don't worry, the US will be there to press it for him, and for Cameron come to that.
-
Alternatively....
"Think of it this way: Corbyn declared to Britain's potential enemies that with him in charge they could disregard a multi-billion pound weapon system.
Or, perhaps, put it like this: a man with a lifetime commitment to scrapping Britain's deterrent promised not to kill untold thousands of innocent people if he had the opportunity.
Many politicians choose not to be so frank."
That's simplistic paranoid nonsense that the Daily Mail would be proud to print. As is this...
Corbyn is left wing, he is not a communist. That like saying you're a Nazi because you have a right wing viewpoint. Not sure why you even mention communism in context of not wanting nuclear weapons, after all the USSR was the other side in the nuclear arms race.
Besides all those failed communist societies were in reality oligarchies with a few powerful + rich people in control and a downtrodden populace. Which could also describe a lot of right wing states.
In fact the difference between the far right and far left is just that the excuse used to behave in the same crappy way to others is different. The end results are much the same.
jjj
You puzzle me: reading this, I can't decide which point of view you are actually espousing. Neither can I see from whence cometh your suggestion that the option to press the 'button' was based upon any desire to kill zillions of innocent people; I imagined that it was clearly the case that the intent behind any deterrent was to prevent anyone from pressing buttons, the opposite of deciding to kill all those innocents. The only way I see this panning out is thus: A has the button as has B. If A presses it, then B knows about it well before it's too late to respond. So, A is exterminated by B seconds after A has exterminated B. In the case that B had not responded, the casualties would not be limited to B, but that massive amount of radiation required to eliminate B would hit the territory of A as well, along with many of the alligned and non-alligned countries too.. Don't forget that that single reactor meltdown in Russia affected Scotland as well.
As for the nuclear powers dependent on religious maniacs, well, they are something else and certainly do not preclude our own (UK) need to be vigilant. As for the lower levels of such mentalities, we are already powerless to defend ourselves - how do you combat suicide jockeys?
Now, take a look at the world map and, for this purpose, exclude the entire Americas. What do you see? You see Russia pretty much landlocked but for its often frozen northern edges and hinterland. Look to the east and you see China, to the south yet more of China, the middle-east, Balkans and parts of an Islam which when not hostile to Russia as in Afghanistan and even Russia's own Islamic-strong territories, shares some mutually useful interests beyond its own borders. What does Russia need most? It needs warm seas giving access to the wider world at any time. As you already know, that's the main reason it is concerned with Syria: such, at the moment tiny, access it already has right there. Do you imagine it will aid the vanishing of the current dictator in charge of that area it uses? Don't you think that a successful propping up of that dictator will be rewarded with even more facilities? After all, if Russia is all that's keeping him alive, of course he'll strengthen Russia as much as he can.
Look westwardly and you see what was its early satellite countries, which it is already eyeing with appetite once again. What incentive for that eye to stop its roaming right there? There's the rest of the European continent just beyond, largely filled wih a population neither concerned about or even much aware of the larger game being played and hidden in broad daylight.
The only viable force standing in the way of such expansion to the west is NATO. Remove the British content, which is exactly what the UK's fellow-traveller reds desire, and France will crumble again too, followed by the rest of the herd.
Now, I asked you to exclude the entire Americas for a moment. Okay; imagine a scenario where there is neither a UK nor a French button to push (a French one would vanish PDQ too, I expect) and Russia decides to move itself westwards. What prevents it? You imagine that the White House will start pressing buttons for 'over there' and risk instant retaliation when it knows perfectly well that Russia wouldn't take it on? We'd be on our own, sans any defence worth squat. Our own red govermnet would have fixed that!
But for the fact of that pesky button, the world would be a very different shade of pink right now, starting with Cuba and the rest of the Caribbean and far down into latin America too.
No wonder some factions see great benefit accrue in reducing the number of western fingers capable of touching buttons.
Rob C
-
Do you think that, in a democracy, the majority should decide where the country should be headed on key topics?
Or is it better to leave that to a minority of smarter than average people who know what's good for the majority?
Genuine question.
Hmmm, I just started another topic (The Dictatorship of the Minority) with an excerpt from an upcoming book that, in part, attempts to address these questions. Nassim Taleb's hypothesis in the excerpt is that social structures, including governments, are always highly influenced and even dictated by the needs & desires of small but committed & intransigent minority groups. This can be for good or for ill.
My own contention is that people nominally in favor of democratic rule—which is to say most people living in democratic countries—will easily become supporters of autocracy if the autocrats promise to impose standards & behaviors they (the nominal democrats) particularly value, even if those standards & behaviors run counter to majority wishes.
-Dave-
-
My friends,
Just a quick and basic question.
Do you think that, in a democracy, the majority should decide where the country should be headed on key topics?
Or is it better to leave that to a minority of smarter than average people who know what's good for the majority?
Depends on what you mean by "smart." Look at the many dismal messes the neocons have gotten the US into, Iraq being only the most obvious example. All these neocons were folks with impressive degrees and high IQs, and what good did it do them (or the country)?
As for democracy, look at the gaggle of tea party nincompoops in the U.S. congress who are messing up so many things - elected, every one of them.
It's easy to get discouraged.
-
Rob,
...The only viable force standing in the way of such expansion to the west is NATO. Remove the British content, which is exactly what the UK's fellow-traveller reds desire, and France will crumble again too, followed by the rest of the herd...
Article 5 (https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_5) of the North Atlantic Treaty makes provision for the protection under the NATO nuclear umbrella (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_umbrella) of nuclear-free member states.
-
Rob,
Article 5 (https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_5) of the North Atlantic Treaty makes provision for the protection under the NATO nuclear umbrella (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_umbrella) of nuclear-free member states.
I do not read any obligation there... if a member will not deem it necessary then it will not act... = "as it deems necessary"... so the decision what a member deems necessary is with that member, its sole discretion...
-
AlterEgo,
I do not read any obligation there...so the decision what a member deems necessary is with that member...
Individually, yes, but collectively there is an obligation to "...restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Member states can't all do nothing.
The greater the degree of attack, the greater the likelihood, and severity, of the response.
-
There is one important fact missing in the above posts. The nuclear deterrent in the UK - Trident and Polaris before it - isn't independent. They are are wholly owned by the US which means that the UK is only a launching platform for the US. No UK prime minister will ever get to press that button. The US decides if it gets used and NOT the UK. The UK pays massively for that privilege. Believe me I know what I am talking about. :(
-
There is one important fact missing in the above posts. The nuclear deterrent in the UK - Trident and Polaris before it - isn't independent. They are are wholly owned by the US which means that the UK is only a launching platform for the US. No UK prime minister will ever get to press that button. The US decides if it gets used and NOT the UK. The UK pays massively for that privilege. Believe me I know what I am talking about. :(
Not totally missing, see my post above. The USS Great Britain has been one of America's fleet of unsinkable aircraft carriers pretty much since the end of WWII and it's a nonsense to think that any British Prime Minister has the say on whether the nukes are fired or not. Corbyn is simply being honest, he hasn't a button to push, nor has Cameron. You can see why the establishment hates the new Labour Leader so much, he's started blowing their cosy little pretences, long may it continue.
-
Not totally missing, see my post above. The USS Great Britain has been one of America's fleet of unsinkable aircraft carriers pretty much since the end of WWII and it's a nonsense to think that any British Prime Minister has the say on whether the nukes are fired or not. Corbyn is simply being honest, he hasn't a button to push, nor has Cameron. You can see why the establishment hates the new Labour Leader so much, he's started blowing their cosy little pretences, long may it continue.
The difference between what you are stating is that you are stating an opinion and I am stating a fact. I was once involved with the nuclear deterrent. Nuff said.
-
The difference between what you are stating is that you are stating an opinion and I am stating a fact. I was once involved with the nuclear deterrent. Nuff said.
Oooh Sorreeee!
-
Oooh Sorreeee!
It wasn't a put down. I was trying to state I know - in this rare case - what I am talking about.
-
It wasn't a put down. I was trying to state I know - in this rare case - what I am talking about.
Don't we all believe that we do?
I spent nine years in factories, in one capacity or another, yet my first-hand knowledge of shop-floor industrial labour manipulation goes for nothing. I lived through stikes, 'scab' insults and all of the rest of it. What did I learn? The 'man in the street' is dumber than most of the dogs that I have loved, and at whose deaths I have wept.
Rob C
-
It wasn't a put down. I was trying to state I know - in this rare case - what I am talking about.
And I don't?
-
Don't we all believe that we do?
I spent nine years in factories, in one capacity or another, yet my first-hand knowledge of shop-floor industrial labour manipulation goes for nothing. I lived through stikes, 'scab' insults and all of the rest of it. What did I learn? The 'man in the street' is dumber than most of the dogs that I have loved, and at whose deaths I have wept.
Rob C
It takes two to have an argument and neither side were angels, a lot (not all) of UK management was basically crap and they got what they deserved. The whole history of England is based on an us and them philosophy, industrial relations of the seventies and eighties were just another symptom of it.
-
And I don't?
This time I think we are both in agreement? ;)
-
This time I think we are both in agreement? ;)
If you are inferring that I don't know what I am on about then you could at least do the kindness of explaining just what it is about my posts that you find so wrong?
-
I stated that you were giving an opinion which was essentially subjective. I was stating that I knew the "truth". We are are both in agreement so there isn't a problem and we are both on the same side of the "argument"? The inference was we disagreed on AE in cameras.
i
-
I stated that you were giving an opinion which was essentially subjective. I was stating that I knew the "truth". We are are both in agreement so there isn't a problem and we are both on the same side of the "argument"? The inference was we disagreed on AE in cameras.
i
And I was asking how you came to conclusion that I don't know what the truth is. The fact you think I am giving an opinion is only an opinion in itself as you have failed to back it up with any hard evidence.
What this has to do with AE is beyond me, but for the record I am not at all swayed that AE on many dSLR's works to a satisfactory level of performance. Blubber on about it as much as you like, that 'opinion' is based on hard earned experience of myself and some colleagues who do the same sort of work.
-
For some inexplicable reason this reminds me of the parable about the little fox that had its tail cut off: it wanted all the other little foxes to have theirs cut off too.
Rob C
-
AlterEgo,
Individually, yes, but collectively there is an obligation to "...restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Member states can't all do nothing.
as you understand it is just enough that one certain member will deem it not necessary to do anything militarily for selfish reasons ;D ... "restore and maintain" again does not mean a military response... negotiations can do the same
-
as you understand it is just enough that one certain member will deem it not necessary to do anything militarily for selfish reasons ;D ... "restore and maintain" again does not mean a military response... negotiations can do the same
If anyone goes letting off nuclear fireworks it all becomes pretty much academic anyway as the world will basically be sizzled by the time someone from the 'other lot' has fired a few back in retaliation. It's an all or nothing situation.
-
If anyone goes letting off nuclear fireworks it all becomes pretty much academic anyway as the world will basically be sizzled by the time someone from the 'other lot' has fired a few back in retaliation. It's an all or nothing situation.
And therein lies the beauty!
Cuba was close... comes a time when it's better to go than become slaves. At the time we all held our breath - but we knew standing up was the only thing to do.
;-)
Rob C
-
And therein lies the beauty!
Cuba was close... comes a time when it's better to go than become slaves. At the time we all held our breath - but we knew standing up was the only thing to do.
;-)
Rob C
MAD. But I think it's been mentioned before that the US had a good idea that much of the Russian whizz bangs didn't actually work.
-
MAD. But I think it's been mentioned before that the US had a good idea that much of the Russian whizz bangs didn't actually work.
You'd prefer the craven life of the lowered eye and slave?
Rob C
-
AlterEgo,
..."restore and maintain" again does not mean a military response... negotiations can do the same
Article 5 was invoked following a non-nuclear terrorist attack on the USA on 11 September 2001. The outcome was not negotiation.
Now consider a nuclear strike.
-
You'd prefer the craven life of the lowered eye and slave?
Rob C
pure rhetoric nowadays...
-
You'd prefer the craven life of the lowered eye and slave?
Rob C
I'll give you your due Rob, you have a very vivid imagination,
-
AlterEgo,
Article 5 was invoked following a non-nuclear terrorist attack on the USA on 11 September 2001. The outcome was not negotiation.
Now consider a nuclear strike.
and it was against whom my I ask ;D ... now you understand the difference between situations... as one chineese general put it more bluntly recently
-
It takes two to have an argument and neither side were angels, a lot (not all) of UK management was basically crap and they got what they deserved. The whole history of England is based on an us and them philosophy, industrial relations of the seventies and eighties were just another symptom of it.
You're out of date: I'm talking about my experiences in the mid-50s onwards.
I saw communist - yes, the C word (I personally knew the people) - manipulation of both apprentices and men; I watched as lone voices were squashed, as people were made to fear for their skins. No, nothing about them 'n' us as in employers/workers, all about internal fights in fucking unions. Someone should tell you why Rootes Group (cars, for the youthful amongst us) in Linwood, Scotland had to fold.
After those grim days, into private practice as a photographer. Eventually I began to do calendars, which meant design work and getting that copied in a process house and turned into printing plates. Fine for a while, then SLADE (Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers and Engravers) decided not so fine, and folks like me had to get their 'stickers' to put on the artwork before we could get our work touched by the process house... I'm not sure who stopped that racket, but it did end.
Sorry, but you have to live it to believe it, and that's the problem: those who are in it are understandably too scared for their asses, and those out are irrelevant. It's been behind the Brit industrial decline all along. Not really anything to do with bad workmanship; more to do with people being held back and not allowed to put in 100% of what they are capable of putting in, and I don't mean more work for less money, I mean doing the job the best they know how. We had/have some marvellous craftsmen and engineers - when allowed to do their job they could beat the world, as they did for a long, long time. Who could match the Clyde, the Tyne, Crewe?
Rob C
-
AlterEgo,
Sorry, but my interest in continuing our conversation has expired. No offence intended.
-
You're out of date: I'm talking about my experiences in the mid-50s onwards.
I saw communist - yes, the C word (I personally knew the people) - manipulation of both apprentices and men; I watched as lone voices were squashed, as people were made to fear for their skins. No, nothing about them 'n' us as in employers/workers, all about internal fights in fucking unions. Someone should tell you why Rootes Group (cars, for the youthful amongst us) in Linwood, Scotland had to fold.
After those grim days, into private practice as a photographer. Eventually I began to do calendars, which meant design work and getting that copied in a process house and turned into printing plates. Fine for a while, then SLADE (Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers and Engravers) decided not so fine, and folks like me had to get their 'stickers' to put on the artwork before we could get our work touched by the process house... I'm not sure who stopped that racket, but it did end.
Sorry, but you have to live it to believe it, and that's the problem: those who are in it are understandably too scared for their asses, and those out are irrelevant. It's been behind the Brit industrial decline all along. Not really anything to do with bad workmanship; more to do with people being held back and not allowed to put in 100% of what they are capable of putting in, and I don't mean more work for less money, I mean doing the job the best they know how. We had/have some marvellous craftsmen and engineers - when allowed to do their job they could beat the world, as they did for a long, long time. Who could match the Clyde, the Tyne, Crewe?
Rob C
That is only a small part of Britain's industrial decline, one that is jerked for by the right when they are looking for scapegoats. What about the shear lack of investment in tools, technology and design that was a major characteristic of post war British manufacturing. When Triumph eventually folded in 1982 how come they were still using an engine first produced in 1938 and tools which also predated the war? What happened to the Marshal Aid? The UK got over twice as much as Germany. Just from the farming point of view why did David Brown and Nuffield/Leyland/Marshal disappear when an ex gun factory in Finland (pop: 7m) not only created a successful tractor brand but also exported that success to Brazil where Valtra still has a handsome slice of the market? Land Rover had their market to themselves and then simply got outclassed by foreign competition, why? How come it took Toyota and Nissan to come over and show the British how to build cards for the modern age? Non of this was due to bolshie commies on the shop floor but it all added to the loss of our industrial edge. BTW, there is a strong argument to suggest that Britain's relative industrial decline started before the turn of the century as the Germans started specialising in electrical goods and chemicals instead of the much more capital intensive heavy engineering. They didn't have an empire to flog any old stuff to either but had to sell the goods on quality and price.
Sure there were great British craftsmen and great British pioneers but the world needed industrialists and their machines, Soichiro Honda worked that out while running an arms factory with slave labour during the war and he took that lesson with him when he started making motorbikes. The rest, as they say, is history.
-
If you cared to read what I'd written and understand it instead of simply react from your political stance, you'd find the answers to your own questions.
Investment? When the labour force is being manipulated to cripple your every attempt at streamlining, innovating, and on and unholy on. Yeah right, dream on baby; you kill the golden goose, soon no effin' eggs for you, the boss nor even the janitor, never mind your little/huge union.
You mention British Leyland: didn't your folks ever tell you about Red Robbo, by any chance, was he represented as hero or villain?
As I said in my earlier post, you had to live in it, not read fairy tales in the little red book.
Never mind, it's not worth my wasting my time on this stuff; I'm well out of all of it.
-
If you cared to read what I'd written and understand it instead of simply react from your political stance, you'd find the answers to your own questions.
Investment? When the labour force is being manipulated to cripple your every attempt at streamlining, innovating, and on and unholy on. Yeah right, dream on baby; you kill the golden goose, soon no effin' eggs for you, the boss nor even the janitor, never mind your little/huge union.
You mention British Leyland: didn't your folks ever tell you about Red Robbo, by any chance, was he represented as hero or villain?
As I said in my earlier post, you had to live in it, not read fairy tales in the little red book.
Never mind, it's not worth my wasting my time on this stuff; I'm well out of all of it.
Sigh!
Which decade are we talking about now? First you chide me for talking about the 70's and 80's instead of the 50's and then you mention Red Robbo who was in fact active in the err... 70's!
The rest of your diatribe is also bollux, yes, Rob C is talking out of his ring piece no matter how persuasively he arranges the words. May I suggest you take your very own rightwing nostrums, wrap them in those treasured old copies of the Telegraph and cast them far out to sea where they belong.
Just for the record I have never been a member of a union because I object to the closed shop, but that won't conform to your prejudices so I guess you'll turn back to whatever wine you are supping and mutter and fume about how anyone who dares to challenge your BS must automatically be a commie and can therefore be safely dismissed.
Sorry mate, I just don't buy into your sad self justifying piffle.
-
Just before I sign off for the evening:
You asked about Japan; did you forget about culture, the work ethic, the difference in mentality and the sense of loyalty? Did you forget the little matter of wage differentials between there and Britain in those early days? Oh, did you forget that even there, the golden days have slowly give way to wage inflation, previously unheard off layoffs; the fact that labour is much cheaper elsewhere in the neighbourhood, and that workmanship is just as good?
With the British industries, did nobody tell you about the business of lines of demarcation? Have you any idea what they were? Your building's water pump goes futt here in Spain and you can call a plumber or an electrician: either will fix your problems just as cheerfully. Can you do that yet in Britain? Are you surprised Ford, Volkswagen et al. have some of their factories here, too, just for good measure and global security? Valencia says thank you very much, Britain!
Oh, don't call me mate; I'm not.
Rob C
-
Just before I sign off for the evening:
You asked about Japan; did you forget about culture, the work ethic, the difference in mentality and the sense of loyalty? Did you forget the little matter of wage differentials between there and Britain in those early days? Oh, did you forget that even there, the golden days have slowly give way to wage inflation, previously unheard off layoffs; the fact that labour is much cheaper elsewhere in the neighbourhood, and that workmanship is just as good?
With the British industries, did nobody tell you about the business of lines of demarcation? Have you any idea what they were? Your building's water pump goes futt here in Spain and you can call a plumber or an electrician: either will fix your problems just as cheerfully. Can you do that yet in Britain? Are you surprised Ford, Volkswagen et al. have some of their factories here, too, just for good measure and global security? Valencia says thank you very much, Britain!
Oh, don't call me mate; I'm not.
Rob C
I didn't ask you about Japan, I mentioned Honda myself. But anyway, the Japanese were so keen on the discipline you adore that they imposed upon it millions of imported labourers whether they liked it or not. After the war Honda and his designer came up with the Honda Cub (1958 if memory serves me correctly), this went on to become the worlds best selling vehicle and is still in production and is still being copied the world over. One of the secrets of its success was the fact that it was designed to be built by unskilled labour, the machine was king in his factories. Meanwhile, the poor old British workmen in the motorbike factories had to deal with worn out machines that took a craftsman to operate because they were so old, inaccurate and unreliable.
You might recall the Meriden cooperative? This was a collection of workers who were so bolshie that they actually locked themselves into the factory and continued to produce bikes with their own time and even money to begin with. A brave attempt but it failed because they couldn't compete with the Japanese who had modern products for the modern world, not worthy but tired designs from four decades beforehand, which is all the management had left them.
-
Sigh!
1. Which decade are we talking about now? First you chide me for talking about the 70's and 80's instead of the 50's and then you mention Red Robbo who was in fact active in the err... 70's!
The rest of your diatribe is also bollux, yes, Rob C is talking out of his ring piece no matter how persuasively he arranges the words. May I suggest you take your very own rightwing nostrums, wrap them in those treasured old copies of the Telegraph and cast them far out to sea where they belong.
Just for the record I have never been a member of a union because I object to the closed shop, but that won't conform to your prejudices so I guess you'll turn back to whatever wine you are supping and mutter and fume about how anyone who dares to challenge your BS must automatically be a commie and can therefore be safely dismissed.
2. Sorry mate, I just don't buy into your sad self justifying piffle.
If you want to make a point, it's always a good idea to start from where a point can be made.
1. The 50s were mentioned as my first immersion into the industrial landscape, my baptism in hell, you might say: there was no implication that that was to be the only period about which I would write, nor was it ever suggested that your Red Hero was part of that decade. The objective was to demonstrate that the troubles in Brit. Ind. didn't begin in the 70s or 80s, which you quoted, but long before, way before my own 50s, in fact, but as I wasn't there to understand, I began where I began. My personal knowledge extended right up into the mid-eighties, beyond which I'd have to rely upon news reports. But at least, unlike some, I had personal experience of what I write.
2. Why would I have to 'self-justify' anything? I got out as quickly as I could and led a good life doing, successfully, something that I still love today. Of what need I be sad? Rather do I sniff in the air a little of the same green stuff that soured so much in industry... envy is a fine basis for winning votes, but a failure as a way of living one's own life.
But you know that.
Cheers,
Rob C
-
If you want to make a point, it's always a good idea to start from where a point can be made.
1. The 50s were mentioned as my first immersion into the industrial landscape, my baptism in hell, you might say: there was no implication that that was to be the only period about which I would write, nor was it ever suggested that your Red Hero was part of that decade. The objective was to demonstrate that the troubles in Brit. Ind. didn't begin in the 70s or 80s, which you quoted, but long before, way before my own 50s, in fact, but as I wasn't there to understand, I began where I began. My personal knowledge extended right up into the mid-eighties, beyond which I'd have to rely upon news reports. But at least, unlike some, I had personal experience of what I write.
2. Why would I have to 'self-justify' anything? I got out as quickly as I could and led a good life doing, successfully, something that I still love today. Of what need I be sad? Rather do I sniff in the air a little of the same green stuff that soured so much in industry... envy is a fine basis for winning votes, but a failure as a way of living one's own life.
But you know that.
Cheers,
Rob C
Oh dear, A night's sleep hasn't settled your head at all it seems.
Rob, you sit out there in the sun reading dog eared old copies of the Telegraph or the Spectator or whatever and fulminate against the dreadful place that the UK has become since you ran away and how it is all the fault of the commies, although your definition of what a communist actually is seems to depend on how much you dislike an individual rather than a classification based on their political views. Yet you haven't a clue what was going on really, only that you had an unhappy experience by which you have extrapolated the whole condition of the country. No doubt out there in southern Spain there are also many more retired folk who are of the same blinkered outlook and you all comfort each other in your hatred of whatever it is you are hating at the moment, but the world keeps turning, dragging you with it, much to your chagrin.
You may not be sad, but it is rather sad watching you eat yourself up in loathing of others for no good reason other than your sense of superiority. You are either playing with semantics in an attempt to deflect valid points made or you are a fool, I don't believe you are the latter so kindly stop acting it.
-
Oh dear, A night's sleep hasn't settled your head at all it seems.
Rob, you sit out there in the sun reading dog eared old copies of the Telegraph or the Spectator or whatever and fulminate against the dreadful place that the UK has become since you ran away and how it is all the fault of the commies, although your definition of what a communist actually is seems to depend on how much you dislike an individual rather than a classification based on their political views. Yet you haven't a clue what was going on really, only that you had an unhappy experience by which you have extrapolated the whole condition of the country. No doubt out there in southern Spain there are also many more retired folk who are of the same blinkered outlook and you all comfort each other in your hatred of whatever it is you are hating at the moment, but the world keeps turning, dragging you with it, much to your chagrin.
You may not be sad, but it is rather sad watching you eat yourself up in loathing of others for no good reason other than your sense of superiority. You are either playing with semantics in an attempt to deflect valid points made or you are a fool, I don't believe you are the latter so kindly stop acting it.
You sound exactly like the idiots you are trying to attack! Well done!
God rest your funny little mind!
Nighty night, Irene.
Rob C
-
You sound exactly like the idiots you are trying to attack! Well done!
God rest your funny little mind!
Nighty night, Irene.
Rob C
Running away again. You seem to make quite a habit of it.
-
Rob, you sit out there in the sun reading dog eared old copies of the Telegraph or the Spectator or whatever and fulminate against the dreadful place that the UK has become since you ran away and how it is all the fault of the commies, although your definition of what a communist actually is seems to depend on how much you dislike an individual rather than a classification based on their political views. Yet you haven't a clue what was going on really, only that you had an unhappy experience by which you have extrapolated the whole condition of the country. No doubt out there in southern Spain there are also many more retired folk who are of the same blinkered outlook and you all comfort each other in your hatred of whatever it is you are hating at the moment, but the world keeps turning, dragging you with it, much to your chagrin.
You may not be sad, but it is rather sad watching you eat yourself up in loathing of others for no good reason other than your sense of superiority. You are either playing with semantics in an attempt to deflect valid points made or you are a fool, I don't believe you are the latter so kindly stop acting it.
If that isn't an ad hominem ...
Shame on you and your ilk.
-
If that isn't an ad hominem ...
Shame on you and your ilk.
Who are you accusing of whatever here?
Are you somehow suggesting that Rob is innocent of directing bile and hatred in my direction?
-
Probably a good time to lock this thread.
Cheers,
-
Probably a good time to lock this thread.
Cheers,
Please not!
I feel no pain from these barbs because I know from where they come, and the projection they actually are. I left another site about twelve years ago because of this same poster with the ostrich complex, and it did nobody any good, least of all me!
I bade him buenas noches a post or two ago, so as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't exist, which I'm sure makes both of us perfectly content... let the thread live!
;-)
Rob C
-
Please not!
I feel no pain from these barbs because I know from where they come, and the projection they actually are. I left another site about twelve years ago because of this same poster with the ostrich complex, and it did nobody any good, least of all me!
I bade him buenas noches a post or two ago, so as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't exist, which I'm sure makes both of us perfectly content... let the thread live!
;-)
Rob C
And I am looking forward to some answers I have posed above rather than your retreating into petty fibs and fabrications every time time your comfortable little prejudices are challenged.
We can start with you explaining just how you come to the conclusion that I am a communist?
-
Coulda been an interesting broad-scope discussion here. Sad, but typical, that it so quickly descended into grievance-airing and sniping. Which should tell us something deep-seated, maybe even intractable, about human nature: our unwillingness to acknowledge that the world beyond our own nose goes about its business regardless of what we say, think or do. Other people live other lives, feel other feelings, think other thoughts…and they just keep on doing it. Attempts to constrain such a crazy whirl of thought & emotion & behavior may be successful for awhile—think the Soviet Union, the Inquisition or the various current aspirants to similar levels of clampdown—but in the end they fail because the whirl never stops. No dystopia can clamp down hard enough…and no utopia can stave off boredom long enough.
Politics & government attract and are thus full of people who think they can control the whirl. Hoard all the resources. Narcotize the population. Purify thought & belief. Enforce stasis. "Keep the peace." IMO this is all medievalist delusion. Time for a more thorough & accurate understanding of human nature to prevail.
-Dave-
-
Investment? When the labour force is being manipulated to cripple your every attempt at streamlining, innovating, and on and unholy on. Yeah right, dream on baby; you kill the golden goose, soon no effin' eggs for you, the boss nor even the janitor, never mind your little/huge union.
You mention British Leyland: didn't your folks ever tell you about Red Robbo, by any chance, was he represented as hero or villain?
As I said in my earlier post, you had to live in it, not read fairy tales in the little red book.
Never mind, it's not worth my wasting my time on this stuff; I'm well out of all of it.
You seem to be confusing power crazed idiots with genuine political leanings. That's just their excuse, you have the same sort of ignorant stupidity on the right. Just justified in a different way.
Unions or bosses with too much power are not a good thing for all involved.
-
You seem to be confusing power crazed idiots with genuine political leanings. That's just their excuse, you have the same sort of ignorant stupidity on the right. Just justified in a different way.
Unions or bosses with too much power are not a good thing for all involved.
Good lord, I find myself in agreement!
Progress! :)
When it comes to the fall of Britain's industry the blame is usually firmly placed on the bolshie workforce but it doesn't take much investigation to realise that is only part of the story, in fact there is a great deal more and I even wrote a book about it.
-
When it comes to the fall of Britain's industry the blame is usually firmly placed on the bolshie workforce but it doesn't take much investigation to realise that is only part of the story, in fact there is a great deal more and I even wrote a book about it.
Indeed. After 3 decades of the destruction of the unions the UK has the next-lowest productivity in the G7, behind Germany, France and Italy. No great advertisement for employer-oriented politics.
-
Indeed. After 3 decades of the destruction of the unions the UK has the next-lowest productivity in the G7, behind Germany, France and Italy. No great advertisement for employer-oriented politics.
There is an interesting idea that I came across while researching the subject and that is the industrialisation of Britain was an accident that wasn't meant to happen. The argument goes something along the lines of the landed gentry were quite happy with their pastoral ideal of squires and serfs and a thin layer of what we would now call the middle class in between. But then the whole sort of industry thing happened in a rather random fashion, the infrastructure staggered along behind the demand for transport (in Germany the railways were planned and the factories followed) and suddenly the rolling hills and vales were besmirched by mills and slums and the lowly shepherd boy had set off to work in them. The age of romanticism, of the rich going off on the grand tour in the hope of discovering more noble ideals than actually making money rather than the ancient system of acquiring it through position, has been said to be a reaction against this. Maybe or maybe not, but the notion that the old nobility of England still resents the removal of their automatic right to rule over the peasants is not as radical as it may seem.
The post war industrial disruptions may perhaps be traced back to this resentment, the country had come together as never before to save its skin yet once it was over rather than the working class being reward in some way for their sacrifice the old ways were very quickly reinstated with the Marshal Aid being spent on new ventures of imperialism rather than rebuilding the country. Perhaps that was never articulated at the time but the strong support the far left enjoyed during those years must have had some underlying cause.
As I have noted, there is far more to the post war industrial unrest than just a few uppity commies who were, it later transpired, being manipulated by MI5.
-
Good lord, I find myself in agreement!
You better stop that or people will get confused. ;)