Meister Jag

At last a post I actually agree with! Well done Woody boy and a little bit more power to your market analyst/anarchist elbow!

I'll take that a complement, ta much! Give me moral ethics over profit any time. I'm also inclined to stop posting on this one as some of this stuff is becoming tot-for-tat and going nowhere. Let's face it we'll never agree; so why not agree to disagree. To quote Nietzsche: "Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions." But you'll probably disagree with this... Dragon: Hang in there mate, your post firmly hit the nail on the head and summed up a lot of my personal fears.

Commies? I think you'll find that most of us are just ordinary folk who are fed up with the crap that is spouted by Tory and Lib Dem apologists. Happy reading and night night: http://www.scottishcommunists.org.uk/communist-news/cuts-comprehensive-spending-review-the-most-comprehensive-assault-on-public-services-and-the-welfare-state-in-british-history-britain-s-communists-urge-militant-resistance-to-barbarians-at-the-gate

I seem to recall that ad homien abuse related to attacks and arguments which are designed to discredit the person rather than countering the logic or reason of the person's position or argument. Commonly referred to in DG parlance as flames; so when people like you and me send flames back and forth it is known as a flamewar. You seem to be taking this all very personally... is it not past your bed time?

Sorry Woody re your text book jibe, I forgot to add this to my last offering - Here are a few text books to be going on with: Das Kapital and Wages, Prices and Profit, which should be issued to all government ministers as the definitive guides to the causes of capitalism in crisis; they will give them an understanding of the inherent exploitative nature and instability of an economic system that is literally putting thousands of people on the dole queue each month, making many homeless and slowing down growth. I'd then suggest that you then read Robert Owen's work on co-operatives, Antonio Gramsci's prison writings on winning the battle of ideas, Ernest Mandel's Late Capitalism and Ralph Miliband's Socialism for a Sceptical Age. Just a few text books to be going on with... Oh and happy reading!

I think you're just hiding from the truth Woody, you need to me a nice left-wing girl; bet she'd quickly change your tune . But the fact remains that all deficit cuts are avoidable. By concentrating on tax alone we could save a small fortune - but maybe you don't like to bite the hand that might eventually feed you. Meryn King referred to this argument as being "persuasive" - high praise indeed from someone who should have been advising the last government to do more to regulate the bankers; but maybe he's feeling a little guilty Addressing the ‘tax gap’ is a vital part of tackling the deficit. Figures produced by the Tax Justice Network show that £25 billion is lost annually in tax avoidance and a further £70 billion in tax evasion by large companies and wealthy individuals. In addition, an additional £26 billion is going uncollected. Therefore, it is estimated that the total annual tax gap is over £120 billion (more than three-quarters of the annual deficit!). It is not just unions that are calculating this; leaked Treasury documents in 2006 estimated the tax gap at between £97 and £150 billion. Sometimes I don't know why I bother, you'll just tell me that I'm talking sh**e!

Woody, as ever, I think you’re talking out of a text book. Here are three reasons why the deficit cuts are unnecessary and, I think, ideologically driven. The coalition could have taxed more and cut less There was an alternative to George Osborne's £81bn spending cuts: higher taxes on the richest in our society. The Chancellor has chosen to reduce the deficit through a 59:41 ratio of spending cuts to tax rises in 2010/2011 - rising to 77:23 by 2015/2016. Very fair indeed… A higher level of tax rises on top earners would have enabled a more progressive programme of fiscal consolidation - the cuts are, by any measure, regressive. The coalition could have raised more revenue through a tax on land value - oh, erm, … 69 per cent of which is owned by just 0.6 per cent of the population. A genuine crackdown on the £25bn lost each year through tax avoidance; a tougher, not a weaker, bank levy; and a higher, not lower, corporation tax. The decision to rely on punitive spending cuts to reduce the deficit was a political choice, not an economic necessity. So again, not very fair… Spending cuts harm the economy more than tax rises You’ll hopefully accept that economists are agreed that the government's spending cuts will hit growth harder than tax rises would. My earlier posts refer and The Office for Budget Responsibility's own multipliers show that the cuts will reduce growth by significantly more than the coalition's tax rises. Fair? Nope, not in any way… The cuts are permanent, not temporary The Prime Minister's insistence that this is the only way reveals an ideological attachment to the small state that you clearly get off on and to low levels of public spending. The result will be permanently shrunken public services. And for many on the right, this is just the beginning of their long war against the active state. When analysed, the cuts will reduce public spending from 47.3 per cent of GDP in 2010/2011 to 39.8 per cent in 2015/2016 – equivalent to reductions made by Margaret Thatcher between 1979 and 1990. But where is the evidence of fairness and how can you not say that this is ideologically driven. This is the Tories returning to demolish that which they fear i.e a society that actually looks after and cares for its citizens – to include the poor, the sick and pensioners. Fair? No fu**ing way… this is the Tories returning to type and form. I don’t expect agreement; just acceptance that the country is in the grip of monsters! I'll close by returning to a theme that clearly tiles you and a wee quote from the great architect: "And so in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority." Read it and rejoice - salvation and emancipation is at hand!!

Woody, it will come as no surprise that I disagre with what you say. So the UK economy is back on course? Bollo**s! My point is that the deficit cuts are unnecessary and only serve to provide those who take pleasure in the misery of others with the means to an erection. The following is taken from a recent FT article (late Nov last year I think - I've used this in other discussions): "Analysts at Capital Economics estimate that government spending is set to swing from adding 1 per cent to annual UK GDP growth before the cuts to subtracting about 0.2 per cent in coming years. They say UK growth will slow to all but zero by the end of the year, prompting the Bank of England to launch a further round of quantitative easing." The article then goes onto say: "According to Capital Economics, UK growth could fall from around 1.5 per cent this year to just 1 per cent in 2011." That is significantly below the forecast by both the Bank of England and the UK’s Office for Budget Responsibility, raising the prospect that the UK government will struggle to achieve its fiscal targets. Q. If they know this, WTF bother? A. Tory ideology - cut the public sector, union bash and then when there is no one to deliver public services, open up to private enterprise i.e. their mates. With apologies if I've strayed from Siege's original topic - whatever that was

Apologies guys this Torygraph aricle (my late father was an avid reader and an old-school Tory I still take the odd swatch): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8046772/IMF-warns-UK-cuts-must-stop-if-growth-slows.html It was this that led me to the IMF link (probably the wrong one though as I was in and out of their site like a Tory taking benefit from a single parent). Woody with apologies, I wasn't trying to patronise; but I hope you never have to face unemployment or have to mix with poor people. Ooops... there I go again. Sorry!

Woody will keep this short and to the point. I think Marx was correct when he succinctly said: "The way people get their living determines their social outlook." What you're suggesting, for many people, removes choice. In your ideal world there is no level playing field and it strikes me that you really don't give a toss about those who'll you'll have to step over on your way to the bank. Chomsky summed it up nicely and I guess this applies to so-called libertarians; especially those with little or no life experience: "Education is a condition of imposed ignorance!"

Welcome back comrade Jaggy and happy New Year to you too. In truth, I was getting worried about you and feared that your gout had been playing up - overdoing the port and pheasant again. I also feared that your manservant had perhaps done a runner and had hidden the key to your wine cellar. It even crossed my mind that you'd had an accident with a shotgun at a New Year's day shoot - actually witnessed a neighbour being carried into his house after such an event. Hunting and shooting-types p!shed with shotguns; a deadly combination. Good to see you're back on form and denying what you know to be right. Whatever happened about caring and fair conservatism? Meanwhile, the bad boys of UK Business, the Banks, continue to try and gain a better image with the Joe Public by announcing under the leadership of the British Banking Association, they are looking to cut bonuses this year. A suggested figure has been a collective cut from £7 Billion to £4 Billion, how can you sit and slag-off ordinary working people when these b******* continue to take the proverbial p***? Cut bonuses down to a bare minimum and have them off-set against the so-called deficit. They'll still earn quite a lot and doesn't the tax-payer own most of the banks anyway? Oh and interesting to see that The International Monetary fund have said the cuts are rubbish and are going to cause more damage than good. Not in so many words, of course. But what do they know and why let their expert advice stand in the way of attacking the public sector: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2010/CAR060710A.htm With any luck that should set the old BP racing; but don't take it out on your servants!

Woody, I have to say that I'm struggling with all lot of what you're saying so won't multi-quote. My posts are verbose enough without rehashing the full exchange. Anyway and to try to gain an understanding of where you're coming from, I think I'm right when I suggest that libertarians often insist that human beings are radically autonomous agents, who should be uninfluenced in any respect by the behaviour that is expected from the average punter in the street; this ranges from the poor to the super-rich. To my mind - you will no doubt correct me, this view tends to suggest that you have a somewhat laissez-faire political philosophy, since if people are mostly self-made, there is little society can, and by definition should, do to alleviate the difficulties of those who are unlucky in life. I find such a view to be lacking in any basic compassion; but each to his own. Meanwhile and I guess this is crucial in understanding your mind set, those who are born advantaged get to enjoy all of the privileges that their parent's wealth can buy. How does this fit in with a truly libertarian outlook on life; or is it simply that your basic philosophy is that the strong will survive, so let the weak go to the wall? If so, doesn't this contradict what your view of the Libertarian new world order? How all of this fits in with current Lib-Dem thinking (I know it changes by the second and depends on what their political masters tell them to think), I don't know. I thought the classic liberal philosophy was one of recognising the importance of individual liberty and equal rights for all. What you suggest often hints at removing any equal rights and leaving everyone exposed to free market forces i.e. if you're fortunate enough to find a job then you'll be okay (but god knows what your pay will be like); if not, nae luck and away and beg. For guys like me there will always be scope for those with too much to give a little more; but that's another discussion for another day.

Woody, remember that we're discussing one comrade Blackpool Jag's posts and I'm defending his comments. He's obviously more than capable of fighting his own corner but all Marxists together and all that... As I understand it and as explained to me during my time at Socialist Sunday School - where we were taught to be good socialist citizens and to challenge life with open minds, part of the Tu Quoque used by capitalist oppressors was a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the argument (critique) back against the accuser. When analysed, this is a classic red herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. But when used as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend his / herself against the accusation. So what I'm saying is that you're basically having a go at my Blackpool comrade. All very clever; but we have the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky to light our path. Remember my young friend: "Capital is dead labour, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks." A wee bit of old Karl there for you... When you understand this - and we are providing you with the tools of enlightenment, you too will be free. I give you a few more weeks and then you too will be happy to be called comrade. But remember, the class struggle is no picnic. ... and if that doesn't pull your chain the probably nothing will!

Woody, when your attacks start to take the form of Ad hominem abuse then I fear you have lost the argument. Shame, because you were doing so well... "Brutes have risen to power, but they lie!" Charlie Chaplin

... and it will no doubt be lifted straight from "Fundamentals of Marxism Leninism, Manual 250(2):Imperialism Is Parasitic or Decaying Capitalism". Are you for real or just a pi** taking wind-up merchant of the highest order? If it helps, in his masterful analysis of the capitalist system Lenin suggests that it was victorious over feudalism under the banner of "liberty, equality and fraternity” and that bourgeois democracy, as a new form of political domination, met the needs of pre-monopoly capitalism. However, the situation changed with the transition to imperialism. The formation of monopolies meant a transition from relations of free competition to relations of domination and the coercion associated with it. Monopolies through the banks, oil corporations and other multi-nationals then became the rulers of economic life. In layman's terms when they make an ar** of it we all suffer e.g. the cuts that are planned due to the so-called "deficit" caused by the banks. As they say, know your enemy. All very relevant to the problems we are facing today. When I recall Lenin's teachings I am reminded that, if anything, he had his eye on the ball and fully understood the nature of those who exist only to exploit for profit. Stick the above into your doctoral dissertation and win a season ticket for Firhill Dr Sigester indeed.

Glad you like them, check out stuff that's been put out by Black Francis and by the Pixies. Sure you'll enjoy. Try this: sent to me by a mate from work. Pretty good IMO. Happy New Year and FTOF!

But Jaggy, you know I'm right no same old just good old socialist moral righteousness. But more seriously, take care, have a good one and look after Mini Me (Woodstock Jag). I'm tee total btw, hung up my hauf glass a while back. You can only be a champagne socialist for soooo long - this morning's paracatamol was for my aching limbs afte a night's dancing. As Gorgeous George said: "Why should the Tories enjoy all the good Bollinger!" Think he actually said it about suits but why spoil a good line.

Cheers Jaggy, wise words... that was worth waiting for. All the compassion of a stepmother's kiss - you could go a long way in government. Why not take a wee donner down to the Tory recruiting office and see if there's a vacancy for a DWP fraud special agent or even a ministerial-type job as a missionary in the Tory-free zone that is central Scotland. Your talents are wasted on this DG. IMO of course

Jaggy, do you seriously belive that the current government is any better than the last? Had Labour got back into power - with or without the help of Woodstock's mates - I'd still be suggesting that they'd not done enough and there was work still to do. The following is an extract of an article that was written by Bob Russell MP - 8th June 2010: Britain, despite the current economic uncertainty, remains one of the wealthiest nations on Earth. It is to the lasting shame of successive governments that our country has one of the worst levels of child poverty in the developed world. And one of the worst in Europe, with poverty rates lower even than the former Communist countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - a point which I have already made to prime minister David Cameron on the floor of the Commons. My debate in Westminster Hall will combine strong criticism primarily of the last Labour government, but also reminding the Conservative Party that the situation has not arisen in the last 13 years but was one inherited from when it was last in office. Successive governments should hang their heads in shame, generations of young people have been let down. I will be urging the new Coalition government, of which nominally I am a member, that they simply have got to do better. Whatever the economic issues facing the country, it plainly cannot be right in a so-called civilised society to have children living in conditions which are deemed to be below the official poverty line. I recognise that this is all relative. What is described as poverty in the UK is not the poverty which can be found in third world countries. Nor in the slums of some overseas cities, where obscene wealth and grinding poverty are physically close to one another but are worlds apart in the quality of life and life expectancy. I shall point out that much was expected of "new" Labour in tackling child poverty. I don't doubt for a minute that they had sincere intentions - but the stark reality is that they failed - and failed big time. To me, I look at life as if it is a jigsaw - lots of pieces which need to come together to complete the picture. It is not enough to talk about education, of health, of employment, and so on. You have to look at the whole picture and if any of the pieces are missing, which tragically is the case for children living in poverty. Then that young individual will struggle throughout his or her life with the guarantee that their chances will be considerably less than for a child from a household which is not lacking in the necessities of life, and with a shorter life expectancy as well. So Comrade Jagster, let's get real and agree that all politicians are failing those they are meant serve. Now MP's expenses and looking after number one... don't get me started. New Labour were admittedly bad, but history has shown that we can expect much worse from the Tories and their little helpers. The following is a quote from of all things, a Scouse Tory: “The state has bailed out the banking system but has proved incapable of saving its own citizens from debt and servitude...” “Moreover the state has arrested social mobility and destroyed the structures of working class advancement." “And in the absence of a common British narrative that unites all peoples and classes; proper respect for other cultures and traditions has collapsed into a state sanctioned multiculturalism that has produced antagonistic communities and licensed the return of extremism and racism.” Those are the words of Phillip Blond, the 43-year-old Liverpudlian philosopher nicknamed “the Red Tory” for his socially conservative, anti-Thatcherite views. Like I say, when analysed, really not that much to differentiate either side.

Away and enjoy your game and I promise to give you peace. In truth, some of your politicial ideas aren't all bad; some I even agree with e.g. HRA. Pity that your side decided to team up the evil sons of Thatcher! But at the end of the day, all a matter of personal opinion and yours is respected. Comrade Jaggy on the other hand remains a lost soul who will be saved!

FFS Jaggy are you on the sherry again... last time I checked ESA for a single guy was about £55 per week. If you're a householder then you need to pay your electricity, gas, part of your Council Tax, buy food, clothes etc out of that princely sum. Not much left over for caviar and cigars then? Not rot btw; a serious point. Not everyone on benefit lives a "Shameless" black economy lifestyle. Take a look at many OAPs who have worked hard but are surviving on what amount to means-tested pensions. We are still light years behind many European countries when it comes to the provision of welfare. A quick closing point is that research from Strathclyde Uni' revealed that the elderly have more chance of dying from the cold in Glasgow than Siberia. Slightly off-topic but of relevance. But good to see the Tories looking out for one of their own. A further point is that my place of employment recently advertised for a handful of staff and we were inundated with in excess of 1500 applications in 3-days. Where the f*** are the jobs that the idle are meant to be turning down? Get real and look at what is being done in your name.

Just noticed the following Evening Times article: "Alan Archibald today praised Partick Thistle keeper Scott Fox for his role in turning around their fortunes." http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/high-praise-from-archie-for-thistle-s-flying-fox-1.1077198 I'm not knocking Fox incidentally but can't recall us banging in goals and romping up the table; but maybe that's yet to come... But agree that he'd be a good acquisition and has been a steadying influence at the back.

Used a games console for what exactly - are they not sizable big boys? Are you suggesting that lube is best? Out of interest and for future reference, you say that you are a Liberal Dem' libertarian or similar; but what is the difference between you and a young Tory? To my mind you are one and the same person. The only difference - and I hate to say this - is that YT's are programmed from birth to think that they are the masters of the universe. From what I've read, you at least are willing to stand your ground in debate. Also, why the hatred of the unemployed? Do you have a (final) solution or did one of their ranks do you a bad deed once?

Siegy, not sure if you're just making a Marxist-Leninist statement (if so well done son) or trying to spark a debate... I'm literally just in from the Bad Manners gig and have work in a few hours. Ma heid is bouncin'... but what a night! Anyway, sitting with a cup of tea and some paracetamol and pondering your new world vision. The wife had to be summonsed from her bed in the wee sma' hours to ensure I was returned to my dacha in deepest Renfrewshire safely and I'm walking on egg shells. Wonderful wummin, even found the time to drop a fellow Jags fan off in darkest Thornliebank. What I'm trying to say is that I'm not exactly tuned into Marx just now but in the spirit of internationalism and as I'm killing time - and don't want to go back to bed in case I miss work - thought I'd give you a some comments straight from the hip.... As anyone with a basic understanding of Marxism-Leninism knows, without a genuine communist party (term used as a generic catch-all) of the working class, any serious advance towards socialist revolution is impossible. When analysed, the late 1960s and early 1970s saw a widespread upsurge of the revolutionary movement in a number of western democractic countries e.g. US, Britain and France. In particular, the liberation movements that highlighted the causes of oppressed nationalities, the movement against the war in Vietnam, the student movement, etc. All grew and developed. however, the fact is that the movement among the working class as a whole grew to a lesser extent, at least partly due to the then still favourable economic situation that was prevalent in most imperialist countries at that time. It followed that the so-called "revisionist parties", the Communist Parties of the aforementioned countries and other far-left socialist parties, were unable to capitalise (no pun intended) on the prevailing climate so as to develop a class conscious movement for socialist revolution. Strangely - and you may recall riots and protest that were similar to what is happening today, they could only try to drag this movement back onto the path of reformism. Back in the day, there were many attempts - some serious and others farcical and shambolic - to form a genuine communist party, but all of them ultimately were unsuccessful. It was the failure to build such a party that led to the lack of stable gains from this period of upsurge. The current intensified attack by the ruling class against the working class, the oppressed nationalities and their allies has, to a certain extent, led to another reawakening of the spontaneous movement. In order to be able to take advantage of such a new upsurge, not only to gain reforms but most importantly to develop the movement for socialist revolution, a new vanguard party of the working class must be constructed. In this you are correct, but the fact is that it probably won't happen. Struggle will win small concessions and the status quo will be maintained, we will still go to Burger king and play with our iPhones (don't have one but they do look quite good!). The cuts will be bad but will be followed by better times... and so the capitalist system will be reinvented. I guess what I'm trying to say (badly given the early hour) is that the left is a useful tool for change; but if you're looking for the permananent revolution to start in Britain then you've probably no chance. at the end of the day and in the final analysis, there's sh**e and there's mair sh**te; and I guess this offering falls into the former or the latter. You decide did I mention the bad Manners gig? Bouncin'