By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
'If you are the Democrats and all you have to counter this powerful vision is a lot of nice values and dancing “joy” but no material proposal to radically change people’s lives, you haven’t even brought a knife to a gunfight – you’ve brought Oprah Winfrey.'
'But the truth is that, all over the world, the old order is gone and the new one is bewildering. People feel trapped and want a sense of release, a promise of a dramatically different future, or just a future. Even if that sense of freedom comes vicariously from an autocrat who has flexed and snapped the chains of the system. And they want to feel as if they are part of something bigger and stronger as they get lonelier and weaker and their worlds fracture and atomise by the day.'
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
A Guardian read for you all! on 12:32 - Nov 20 by redrickstuhaart
Evil is a ridiculous emotive phrase to use.
Millions of people died because of communism and fascism. I think an emotive word is pretty appropriate. You'd probably describe the holocaust as not so good.
0
A Guardian read for you all! on 23:25 - Nov 20 with 984 views
A Guardian read for you all! on 20:44 - Nov 20 by Swansea_Blue
See, you are a lefty at heart really
So you don't need to worry about inheritance tax on multi-millionaires (especially when they've received well over any likely IHT due via public subsidies over the years).
Farming's a bit stuffed in this country. I don't think that gives them a free pass on their future tax liabilities (lots of professions are important and don't get tax breaks). I'd rather we looked at the issue of income and fair prices from buyers (supermarkets particularly). But then that needs more wealth in the population to afford higher prices for food. Also, if the farmers received more income, maybe they could take a bit more care with the land they farm and stop pumping it full of pesticides and filing our waterways with toxic sludge (when they haven't taken most of the water out already).
If you concept of left wing is for the people and right wing is big corporations, then of course I would be left wing in that case. I see left wing as progressive rather than conservative, looking to throw out structures entirely that basically work very well and just need a bit of tweaking. I actually think I know just about enough about left wing and right wing to think I don't really understand what those concepts really mean.
Maybe inheritance tax needs a complete rethink. Tax on income is completely logical, by definition you can afford to pay some proportion of your income because it is income. We have it so wrong with our concept of asset values of property. If you never realize your asset, then it is never more than an imagined number. If I don't move, I'm no richer if my house is worth 100k of 500k. There needs to be an incentive to work hard, save, and provide for yourself and your family. I don't have any sympathy for people with second homes. The government is an expert in wasting money or stealing money from one group to give to the favoured groups.
0
A Guardian read for you all! on 23:30 - Nov 20 with 972 views
A Guardian read for you all! on 23:25 - Nov 20 by Europablue
If you concept of left wing is for the people and right wing is big corporations, then of course I would be left wing in that case. I see left wing as progressive rather than conservative, looking to throw out structures entirely that basically work very well and just need a bit of tweaking. I actually think I know just about enough about left wing and right wing to think I don't really understand what those concepts really mean.
Maybe inheritance tax needs a complete rethink. Tax on income is completely logical, by definition you can afford to pay some proportion of your income because it is income. We have it so wrong with our concept of asset values of property. If you never realize your asset, then it is never more than an imagined number. If I don't move, I'm no richer if my house is worth 100k of 500k. There needs to be an incentive to work hard, save, and provide for yourself and your family. I don't have any sympathy for people with second homes. The government is an expert in wasting money or stealing money from one group to give to the favoured groups.
I'm with Marcus Aurelius on inheritance, judge someone not by the fortune they leave but by what they do with their fortune whilst they live, i.e. use your money wisely when you give it all away and leave nothing when you die. Arguments about inheritance tax disappear.
A Guardian read for you all! on 22:52 - Nov 20 by Europablue
It is human nature for different people to put in different amounts of effort. It is human nature to strive to earn rewards by proving value. There has to be a hierarchy. Trying to force a system that goes against human nature is going to create awful results.
Just observing communism in practice in history you can tell that it is evil, just like fascism. It's weird to me that people can be on the same page about fascism, but not communism.
All this striving and putting in effort just needlessly uses up resources and created pollution, if people relaxed a bit and eased off, learnt to live on what they could get for free I think you would find the World would become a lot nicer to live in...
A Guardian read for you all! on 22:52 - Nov 20 by Europablue
It is human nature for different people to put in different amounts of effort. It is human nature to strive to earn rewards by proving value. There has to be a hierarchy. Trying to force a system that goes against human nature is going to create awful results.
Just observing communism in practice in history you can tell that it is evil, just like fascism. It's weird to me that people can be on the same page about fascism, but not communism.
You keep suggesting that 'there as to be hierarchies' and that systems based on equality and communal sharing ' go against human nature'.
But the archaeological and anthropological record show this to be completely untrue and incorrect. Humans first arrived approximately 6 million years ago, even yer homo sapian as been here for approximately 300, 000 years. But until the last approximately 10,000 years worldwide and no more then 4,500-5000 in UK and Ireland there is no sign of hierarchy in society. Earlier cultures and many modern hunter gather groups live with minimum hierarchy and a system of communal assistance and equality of access to resources.
I should add I'm not a supporter of and have no interest in Communism. I do though have more then a passing interest in Theoretical Frameworks of Stone Age Economics
1
A Guardian read for you all! on 14:15 - Nov 21 with 876 views
A Guardian read for you all! on 10:57 - Nov 21 by leitrimblue
You keep suggesting that 'there as to be hierarchies' and that systems based on equality and communal sharing ' go against human nature'.
But the archaeological and anthropological record show this to be completely untrue and incorrect. Humans first arrived approximately 6 million years ago, even yer homo sapian as been here for approximately 300, 000 years. But until the last approximately 10,000 years worldwide and no more then 4,500-5000 in UK and Ireland there is no sign of hierarchy in society. Earlier cultures and many modern hunter gather groups live with minimum hierarchy and a system of communal assistance and equality of access to resources.
I should add I'm not a supporter of and have no interest in Communism. I do though have more then a passing interest in Theoretical Frameworks of Stone Age Economics
Hierarchy look very different in a small group and a large society demands a much more prescribed hierarchy. The ideal is to reward effort and skill. In a stone age tribe, there is going to be a top dog and he will have his pick of the women and probably have more than one. Communism is not about acting like a family with your neighbours, it's about the state intervening to redistribute resources usually to people you don't know and with a lot of corruption.
The "system of communal assistance and equality of access to resources" would hinge on effort to serve the group. It was very tough to survive in those days especially as we aren't a very strong animal or actually very impressive in any measure except for intelligence. If you refused to work or make any effort no doubt you would have been murdered or left to fend for yourself.
0
A Guardian read for you all! on 14:20 - Nov 21 with 861 views
A Guardian read for you all! on 14:15 - Nov 21 by Europablue
Hierarchy look very different in a small group and a large society demands a much more prescribed hierarchy. The ideal is to reward effort and skill. In a stone age tribe, there is going to be a top dog and he will have his pick of the women and probably have more than one. Communism is not about acting like a family with your neighbours, it's about the state intervening to redistribute resources usually to people you don't know and with a lot of corruption.
The "system of communal assistance and equality of access to resources" would hinge on effort to serve the group. It was very tough to survive in those days especially as we aren't a very strong animal or actually very impressive in any measure except for intelligence. If you refused to work or make any effort no doubt you would have been murdered or left to fend for yourself.
"In a stone age tribe, there is going to be a top dog and he will have his pick of the women and probably have more than one."
Source required for this claim. The idea that a bunch of very disparate neolithic tribes would all behave the same way across the board (including being patriarchal) seems to be incredibly unlikely.
A Guardian read for you all! on 14:20 - Nov 21 by DanTheMan
"In a stone age tribe, there is going to be a top dog and he will have his pick of the women and probably have more than one."
Source required for this claim. The idea that a bunch of very disparate neolithic tribes would all behave the same way across the board (including being patriarchal) seems to be incredibly unlikely.
A Guardian read for you all! on 14:15 - Nov 21 by Europablue
Hierarchy look very different in a small group and a large society demands a much more prescribed hierarchy. The ideal is to reward effort and skill. In a stone age tribe, there is going to be a top dog and he will have his pick of the women and probably have more than one. Communism is not about acting like a family with your neighbours, it's about the state intervening to redistribute resources usually to people you don't know and with a lot of corruption.
The "system of communal assistance and equality of access to resources" would hinge on effort to serve the group. It was very tough to survive in those days especially as we aren't a very strong animal or actually very impressive in any measure except for intelligence. If you refused to work or make any effort no doubt you would have been murdered or left to fend for yourself.
Hi there Europa, look I'm happy to discuss this with you. But you have to realise your argument isn't based on any kinda research. It's just your completely unsupported opinion.
Rather then suggesting your claims are in anyway factual perhaps you could just start by saying 'I have a feeling that stone age tribes may have worked like this, obviously my feelings go against the wider peer reviewed work of countless archaeologists and anthropologists, but feck it here goes'.
1
A Guardian read for you all! on 15:14 - Nov 21 with 812 views
A Guardian read for you all! on 15:01 - Nov 21 by leitrimblue
Hi there Europa, look I'm happy to discuss this with you. But you have to realise your argument isn't based on any kinda research. It's just your completely unsupported opinion.
Rather then suggesting your claims are in anyway factual perhaps you could just start by saying 'I have a feeling that stone age tribes may have worked like this, obviously my feelings go against the wider peer reviewed work of countless archaeologists and anthropologists, but feck it here goes'.
Feel you are being unnecessarily dismissive of Europe here, I think there is plenty of proof to back up his claims. In fact I have some actual footage rather than your theoretical nonsense:
A Guardian read for you all! on 15:14 - Nov 21 by WeWereZombies
Feel you are being unnecessarily dismissive of Europe here, I think there is plenty of proof to back up his claims. In fact I have some actual footage rather than your theoretical nonsense:
You could be right, sorry. There's no arguing with impressive evidence like that.
0
A Guardian read for you all! on 16:20 - Nov 21 with 774 views
A Guardian read for you all! on 15:01 - Nov 21 by leitrimblue
Hi there Europa, look I'm happy to discuss this with you. But you have to realise your argument isn't based on any kinda research. It's just your completely unsupported opinion.
Rather then suggesting your claims are in anyway factual perhaps you could just start by saying 'I have a feeling that stone age tribes may have worked like this, obviously my feelings go against the wider peer reviewed work of countless archaeologists and anthropologists, but feck it here goes'.
In Europa's defence, Fred used to push Barney about a fair bit, it was obvious who the alpha male was.
1
A Guardian read for you all! on 16:34 - Nov 21 with 749 views
A Guardian read for you all! on 15:14 - Nov 21 by WeWereZombies
Feel you are being unnecessarily dismissive of Europe here, I think there is plenty of proof to back up his claims. In fact I have some actual footage rather than your theoretical nonsense:
Was this before or after the apes ran the planet for a bit?
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Or maybe, half a million years ago, there was an advanced civilisation of Communist apes who built a Statue of Liberty to warmly welcome migrants from around the World but some scumbag human slaves rebelled and wiped them out, and had got halfway through the burying of the statue before Charlton Heston turned up (with Barney Rubble's abducted wife) and got a bit confused about things. We need Leitrim to give us the theory behind this now.
A Guardian read for you all! on 18:30 - Nov 21 by WeWereZombies
Or maybe, half a million years ago, there was an advanced civilisation of Communist apes who built a Statue of Liberty to warmly welcome migrants from around the World but some scumbag human slaves rebelled and wiped them out, and had got halfway through the burying of the statue before Charlton Heston turned up (with Barney Rubble's abducted wife) and got a bit confused about things. We need Leitrim to give us the theory behind this now.
No need, you've nailed it. My work here is done
1
A Guardian read for you all! on 07:08 - Nov 22 with 550 views
A Guardian read for you all! on 08:53 - Nov 20 by Europablue
A system that is set up against human nature like Communism or Fascism is evil. Advocating any system like that which has led to such death and destruction is evil.
"I work on climate change so maybe you can tell me how Labour is destroying farming by trying to reach net-zero." first you will have to tell me when I said that, otherwise you are just trying to get me to defend something that I didn't say. What I said was "It is a great act of vandalism and misdirected indignation to destroy the viability of farming in the UK." I was talking about inheritance tax, you linked it to net zero, maybe because I mentioned the phrase later. "People in the city look down on people in the country, and the middle class Labour-supporting city-dwelling intellectuals will probably be happy to gut the farming industry and also meet their net zero targets." How many times have you heard that the unintelligent people in the smaller towns and countryside of the UK are stupid for voting against the interests of the city dwellers (especially in the wake of Brexit)? If you don't see that governments tend religiously follow targets and rules regardless of whether they actually achieve the desired goals, then I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention. My point wasn't really about climate change at all, it was just that farmers who being pushed out of the industry will reduce the carbon footprint in the UK and regardless of whether or not that would be harmful for British food production and provision, those in Whitehall will be happy to move towards their target. Do you have any opinion on the point I made about inheritance tax?
"If you don't see that governments tend religiously follow targets and rules regardless of whether they actually achieve the desired goals, then I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention"
We have something called science-based target initiative (SBTi) which is determined by scientists. The UK Government has failed for many years to keep up with those targets and it is people like me who pay very close attention as I work on the impacts of climate change.
Do I think people who hide wealth in land should pay their fair share? Yes. Do I think farmers should receive greater support to move towards sustainable farming? Yes.
Why will UK farmers being pushed out of the industry reduce emissions? Won't we then have greater reliance on imports?
I think you need to have some humility and actually learn about the things you want to discuss rather than just ranting. There are lots of cranks out there misinforming the public; Andrew Neil and Mike "Grow Concrete" Graham that use a confrontation style to stick it to the experts. Neither are experts in anything. My university works very closely with farmers on trying to get to grips with a whole range of problems facing the industry, this simplistic "them and us" lens that you are putting on this does a disservice to those who work in collaboration on very complex issues.
Just as a final thought, which system has led to biodiversity loss, and as some term, a sixth mass extinction? Is it evil?
4
A Guardian read for you all! on 07:31 - Nov 22 with 535 views
A Guardian read for you all! on 07:08 - Nov 22 by CoachRob
"If you don't see that governments tend religiously follow targets and rules regardless of whether they actually achieve the desired goals, then I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention"
We have something called science-based target initiative (SBTi) which is determined by scientists. The UK Government has failed for many years to keep up with those targets and it is people like me who pay very close attention as I work on the impacts of climate change.
Do I think people who hide wealth in land should pay their fair share? Yes. Do I think farmers should receive greater support to move towards sustainable farming? Yes.
Why will UK farmers being pushed out of the industry reduce emissions? Won't we then have greater reliance on imports?
I think you need to have some humility and actually learn about the things you want to discuss rather than just ranting. There are lots of cranks out there misinforming the public; Andrew Neil and Mike "Grow Concrete" Graham that use a confrontation style to stick it to the experts. Neither are experts in anything. My university works very closely with farmers on trying to get to grips with a whole range of problems facing the industry, this simplistic "them and us" lens that you are putting on this does a disservice to those who work in collaboration on very complex issues.
Just as a final thought, which system has led to biodiversity loss, and as some term, a sixth mass extinction? Is it evil?
A land owner I do a fair bit of work for is trying to access the new 'countryside stewardship scheme, do you know if it's any good. The previous one which included things like only cutting each side of a hedge every 3 years was clearly designed by someone that never cut hedges as by that time the tops are almost unreachable due to hedge plants wanting to be trees. Genuinely interested to know if you rate this one?
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
A Guardian read for you all! on 08:38 - Nov 19 by GeoffSentence
Nigel Farage has given an interview in which he says that there has been some form of cover up about the Southport riots.
He says he cannot be more specific or give more details since he has been told he cannot ask questions in parliament, parliamentary privilege does not apply and he does not want to prejudice the court case.
Elsewhere people have suggested that Merseyside police have been dishonest about matter of terrorism in the incident that led to the riots.
That's all I've seen.
In other words, Farage is stoking the fire but refusing to give any details to his claim - he’s never done that before.
1
A Guardian read for you all! on 09:48 - Nov 22 with 451 views
A land owner I do a fair bit of work for is trying to access the new 'countryside stewardship scheme, do you know if it's any good. The previous one which included things like only cutting each side of a hedge every 3 years was clearly designed by someone that never cut hedges as by that time the tops are almost unreachable due to hedge plants wanting to be trees. Genuinely interested to know if you rate this one?
If you haven't read 'Wilding' by Isabella Tree yet then I recommend it. Yes, she is married to a knight of the landed gentry and they own ten thousand acres. Not only that but she has been a journo for thirty years as well, actually that has given her a reasonable perspective on the issues that have been batted back and forth in conservation, agriculture, sustainability and climate science. The Countryside Stewardship Scheme gets mentioned a bit, they went through the hoops for the Knepp Estate.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
