Are Tories welcome at Glastonbury

[Blisterpack]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

me, I prefer to be on the side of the best overall outcome, and not a side where prejudice decides my stance. That would just make me the same.

So the ends always justify the means? Not for me. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Blisterpack said:

So the ends always justify the means? Not for me. 

That's the difference between satisfying your own feeling of righteousness, and doing the best for the victims of wrong-doing.

We don't know what was the best method for SA, but we do know that Thatcher had her own considered rationale no different to how you or I had one. The fact that we had different ideas doesn't make her view rooted in evil, it merely makes her (from our own point of view) wrong.

There's a number of regimes around the world under extreme economic sanctions for many decades who show no sign of reform. If tough sanctions were without-doubt the right action for SA, why have those countries not reformed? More than one view with supporting evidence is available.

[Blisterpack]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

That's the difference between satisfying your own feeling of righteousness, and doing the best for the victims of wrong-doing.

We don't know what was the best method for SA, but we do know that Thatcher had her own considered rationale no different to how you or I had one. The fact that we had different ideas doesn't make her view rooted in evil, it merely makes her (from our own point of view) wrong.

There's a number of regimes around the world under extreme economic sanctions for many decades who show no sign of reform. If tough sanctions were without-doubt the right action for SA, why have those countries not reformed? More than one view with supporting evidence is available.

Thatcher was led to do what she did because of people like me. And you. We changed the worldview that you mentioned. That’s fact, not self righteousness. I give her credit for not fighting against the tide, though we all know she wanted to.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Blisterpack said:

Thatcher was led to do what she did because of people like me. And you. We changed the worldview that you mentioned. That’s fact, not self righteousness. I give her credit for not fighting against the tide, though we all know she wanted to.

and we're back to the fake news where I came in.  

A world of deliberate divisive lies is not a better one.

[Scott129]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I'm simply pointing out that the UK govt not supporting sanctions on SA does not equal support for apartheid. It's 100% clear that the UK govt was leaning on the SA govt to try and get them to change their ways.

Yeah i don't think supporting the apartheid regime inherently meant support for apartheid or immorality. I think it depends completely on whether you are not sanctioning or taking away political support for fear of harming the oppressed, like the arguments you have said (i'm not sure i agree with them but i take your point and agree we'll never know) or whether your not sanctioning for purely your own self interest. I think its clear( or at least in my mind it is) that the US and UK fell into the latter category. I don't think Thatcher was supportive of apartheid, I just don't think she cared either way if black South Africans suffered if it benefited her. In the same way i think she didn't want working class communities in the UK torn apart, she was just didn't care if it was a necessary consequence

[Blisterpack]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

and we're back to the fake news where I came in.  

A world of deliberate divisive lies is not a better one.

Thatcher saw black rule in SA as potentially damaging to world order. Read the archive releases. 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

Thatcher saw black rule in SA as potentially damaging to world order. Read the archive releases. 

That's a new one on me. Link?

Was it really that she saw communist rule as that bad thing?

If she was so against black rule (because it was black people), care to explain her central role in bringing it about in Rhodesia?

Edited October 19, 2018 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

Yeah i don't think supporting the apartheid regime inherently meant support for apartheid or immorality.

there's a big difference between engaging with a regime and supporting it.  The UK govt from 1961 onwards was very definitely not "supporting the apartheid regime".

[Scott129]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

there's a big difference between engaging with a regime and supporting it.  The UK govt from 1961 onwards was very definitely not "supporting the apartheid regime".

Perhaps support is the wrong word, but certainly assisting and propping up the regime

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

Perhaps support is the wrong word, but certainly assisting and propping up the regime

 Doing less that it otherwise would have done in normal circumstances isn't propping up. Propping up would be doing more than the normal. 

Edited October 19, 2018 by eFestivals

[Blisterpack]

12 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

Perhaps support is the wrong word, but certainly assisting and propping up the regime

Even after mandela’s release Thatcher continued to fight against her own cabinet and the international community in terms of funding the return of ANC exiles. Even the apartheid government was  funding it! Thatcher was literally the only dissenter. Her husband and son had significant business interest in SA and while there is no suggestion that this was a corrupt position on her part it’s unlikely that their experiences in the country were alongside the majority black population and her view will have been influenced by them.

[RichardWaller]

Good to hear austerity's over, I'll have to remember that when I get my 1% payrise in April. This £400m "little extra" for schools is pitiful too, works out barely over a quid a pupil per year and Phillip Hammond expects a pat on the back for that? What does he expect schools to do with that money? Kin hell..

 

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

Good to hear austerity's over, I'll have to remember that when I get my 1% payrise in April. This £400m "little extra" for schools is pitiful too, works out barely over a quid a pupil per year and Phillip Hammond expects a pat on the back for that? What does he expect schools to do with that money? Kin hell..

 

I don't disagree, but the problem is much more than 'tories'.

After all, I've yet to see anyone complaining about the rise in the personal allowance, which if cancelled could (for example) mean hundreds extra for every pupil.

[clarkete]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

After all, I've yet to see anyone complaining about the rise in the personal allowance, which if cancelled could (for example) mean hundreds extra for every pupil.

I'd be more than happy to forego every tax reduction that has benefited me since 2010 onwards, particularly any that are targeted at higher rate payers, as I think that showed the nonsense of the "in it together" claim.

[RichardWaller]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I don't disagree, but the problem is much more than 'tories'.

After all, I've yet to see anyone complaining about the rise in the personal allowance, which if cancelled could (for example) mean hundreds extra for every pupil.

Well this is their budget. 

I don't think that should've happened either. It'll mean about a tenner a month for me and I'm not even gonna notice that. As someone well below the average salary I'm only a lower rate tax payer and course, like so many Tory policies it does favour the rich. I see tax as a duty, as an investment rather than as a penalty and I wish more people did. I'd gladly forego a tax cut if it meant better public services or less poverty.

Edited October 30, 2018 by RichardWaller

[slash's hat]

37 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

Good to hear austerity's over, I'll have to remember that when I get my 1% payrise in April. This £400m "little extra" for schools is pitiful too, works out barely over a quid a pupil per year and Phillip Hammond expects a pat on the back for that? What does he expect schools to do with that money? Kin hell..

 

Don't forget the extra £1million to visit WW1 battlefields. Might be able to hire a coach for each secondary school with that, but trip still going to be out of price range for majority of families.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

Well this is their budget. 

yep, and the public reaction is the public reaction which helps inform how they budget.

I'm not trying to have a pop at you because lots of people support paying extra taxes (me included) - but your response is the typical one, of complaining about not-enough (for the thing you support) but no mention of the thing you're directly benefiting from which could have instead gone towards the thing you're supporting.

I can't really see any govt's (Labour included) approach to taxes changing while the public reaction is like it is - which means we're always likely to have underfunded services.

[RichardWaller]

3 minutes ago, clarkete said:

I'd be more than happy to forego every tax reduction that has benefited me since 2010 onwards, particularly any that are targeted at higher rate payers, as I think that showed the nonsense of the "in it together" claim.

Have they stopped pretending we're all in it together? Hard to keep track of all the vacuous soundbites. 

1 minute ago, slash's hat said:

Don't forget the extra £1million to visit WW1 battlefields. Might be able to hire a coach for each secondary school with that, but trip still going to be out of price range for majority of families.

I missed that one. 3408 secondary schools in the UK last year, so £293 per school.. 

[RichardWaller]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep, and the public reaction is the public reaction which helps inform how they budget.

I'm not trying to have a pop at you because lots of people support paying extra taxes (me included) - but your response is the typical one, of complaining about not-enough (for the thing you support) but no mention of the thing you're directly benefiting from which could have instead gone towards the thing you're supporting.

I can't really see any govt's (Labour included) approach to taxes changing while the public reaction is like it is - which means we're always likely to have underfunded services.

Kin hell, well I've mentioned it now. This isn't even a politics forum, do you expect us to qualify every statement we make with another statement, and another statement, telling you what we're not saying etc? Do I need to criticise everything I think is crap in case someone thinks I think it's good?

I haven't read the whole budget and I've got no inclination of doing so, some things stand out more than others and I'm sure if I did read more there'd be more stuff I think is bollocks. There might even be something I think is positive, never know, stranger things have happened. This isn't though. The £3 a week tax cut I'll be getting is a benefit hardly worth acknowledging, if it were that big a deal I'd have mentioned it before you did. But still, it's a hell of a lot more than the "little extra" going to pupils, and it shouldn't be.

I agree with that last bit though, I can't see any government significantly changing their approach to taxation. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by RichardWaller

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

do you expect us to qualify every statement we make with another statement

I'm saying govts listen to what they hear from the voting public.

[slash's hat]

17 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

Have they stopped pretending we're all in it together? Hard to keep track of all the vacuous soundbites. 

I missed that one. 3408 secondary schools in the UK last year, so £293 per school.. 

In reality what will happen will be that schools running a trip can apply for some funding to reduce the cost passed on to pupil. So not every school will "benefit" and only those that can afford the trip in the first place will apply. 

I know this is just one tiny part of the budget, but it's just laughable. I think I'd prefer them give the money to the poppy appeal, provide each student with a free poppy and them have an assembly/lesson about its significance.

[RichardWaller]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm saying govts listen to what they hear from the voting public.

I'd say that depends much more on what they want to hear.  You've done it yourself just now, because I didn't criticise the tax cut off the bat there's an implication that I'm fine with it. Whoever we vote for we've got our own reasons and once the vote is cast it's the candidate who gets to decide what those reasons are. You can't stick on the ballot saying you agree with them on A, B and C but disagree with them on X, Y and Z. They're free to decide that you agree with A, B, C, X, Y, Z.

Edited October 30, 2018 by RichardWaller

[RichardWaller]

3 minutes ago, slash's hat said:

In reality what will happen will be that schools running a trip can apply for some funding to reduce the cost passed on to pupil. So not every school will "benefit" and only those that can afford the trip in the first place will apply. 

I know this is just one tiny part of the budget, but it's just laughable. I think I'd prefer them give the money to the poppy appeal, provide each student with a free poppy and them have an assembly/lesson about its significance.

Yeah, can't imagine many schools and families where I'm from being able to afford it. I'm sure it'll be a fulfilling experience for those who do manage to go,  but yeah... another part of the budget that won't benefit those who need it most.

[glastolover19]

7 minutes ago, slash's hat said:

In reality what will happen will be that schools running a trip can apply for some funding to reduce the cost passed on to pupil. So not every school will "benefit" and only those that can afford the trip in the first place will apply. 

I know this is just one tiny part of the budget, but it's just laughable. I think I'd prefer them give the money to the poppy appeal, provide each student with a free poppy and them have an assembly/lesson about its significance.

Or use the money to buy books and equipment,stuff kids actually need. I say this as someone who has witnessed for several years teachers buying books from the school fete stalls with their own money to use in the classroom because the school itself can't afford to

[slash's hat]

4 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

Or use the money to buy books and equipment,stuff kids actually need. I say this as someone who has witnessed for several years teachers buying books from the school fete stalls with their own money to use in the classroom because the school itself can't afford to

Oh absolutely, this was my first thought. Probably a lot of schools out there that don't even have a library, I was just keeping it within their train of thought really.