Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I'm sure you disagree with what he says, but what about it offends you so terribly?
*an artificially sedated working class usually keeps capitalism in power.
I'd seriously worry for his sanity if he really truly believed half of what he has written.
What would a school system entirely independent of the State look like?... Classrooms full of respectful children, eager to learn and better themselves.
Clearly he hasn't set foot in a school since he left sixth form.
What of a country where all of its citizens had to speak a common language?
This gets funnier the more I think about it
All people need to own their own homes is a bit of desire. Money /houses prices etc. are irrelevant if you WANT IT enough... He's basically the Alan Shearer of politics...
To achieve his aims, he'd basically have to resort to genocide.
The society he proposes sounds absolutely fine but the steps he's proposing wouldn't work. You don't suddenly create a society of upwardly mobile, respectful English-speaking citizens who are motivated and capable of looking for work simply by removing all benefits and hoping for the best.
To cite Dr. Pepper...what's the worst that could happen?
Besides, I'm not really in favour of adopting massively flawed social experiments based on logical fallacies, specious reasoning and idealistic-but-unsupported-and-fundamentally-wrong assumptions about human behaviour. It's seldom a good idea.
I might be a small state liberal, but I'm not some Ayn Rand loving libertarian mentalist.
And in difficult times, we shouldn't necessarily shirk from trying to find ways to radically change the political landscape and to re-envision the role of the state in our life.
I agree with him in quite a few areas. We need a truly competitive healthcare system where patients are valued by hospitals rather than seen as a burden and where taxpayers can choose where to spend their money. We need a benefits system where the comfortably off aren't receiving state aid they don't need (winter fuel payment, for example). We need to realise that in the 21st century it's insane to demand that for the mere fact of owning a TV, you have to pay £140 or so to the state to fund a state-owned broadcaster. We need an education system where free schools are encouraged and a free school system with greater flexibility in whom can start one.
But his comments sadly also are typically conservative in their outlook. The riots happened because of a number of complex causes; one of those being the behaviour of the Met Police towards segments of the population it should serve. And a "country where all of its citizens had to speak a common language"? Of course English and other languages of the UK where appropiate should be the lingua franca in state schools or at the job centre, but this sounds rather controlling in other contexts.
It's a bold vision, but it's only half right.
Firstly, both as a patient and having worked in hospitals, I'd say that it isn't a widespread problem in the first place. Most doctors and nurses do value patients. Secondly I think what creates a situation where there's a perception doctors and nurses don't value patients is when they're over-stretched and don't have enough time to attend to people. Whilst it's a wonderful theory that hospitals competing against each other for contracts up their patient care to be as good as possible, my experience of competition in healthcare in practice is that it means cutting costs either by over-stretching frontline staff or removing admin support so that frontline staff waste time doing work a non-professional will do. My experience of attempts to introduce choice in the NHS is that few patients (especially elderly patients) really welcome it. Most people want their local hospital to be as good as possible and to be given an appointment without fuss rather than choices which are often confusing without full information.
I don't mind radically changing the political landscape but I think one area that really and fundamentally needs re-envisioning is the cross-party assumption that privatisation can always do things better and more effectively than the state can, especially as there doesn't seem to be a great deal of compelling evidence to back up that assumption.
i'd disagree with most of that. I think universal benefits are a good idea as people are less divided, in hard times though can see why things might have to be changed, but as an ideal I think it is good. TV license, given the importance of the media I think having a well funded independent broadcaster is pretty valuable. I don't see any advantages in free schools, destined to be looked back on as a big waste of money, don't understand why we don't look at what works in other countries, finland has the best education system in the world based on a completely standard egalitarian approach, we should just copy that. NHS I do think is a bit too much of a sacred cow and dont think it should be immune from a rethink
i mean like the new backbenchers from the 2010 election or whatever. I swear they're genuinely mental. It's like they saw one of those anarcho-capitalist dystopias from 80s film and thought THAT LOOKS AMAZING LETS DO THAT.
`Whereas Indian children aspire to be doctors or businessmen, the British are more interested in football and pop music.`
GOD FORBID PEOPLE HAVE INTERESTS OUTSIDE PROVIDING THEIR OWNERS WITH SUPERNORMAL PROFITS
I find this even more hilarious that the blog above :)
She seems disturbingly influential.
She's certainly hugely influential in the US, where the likes of Paul Ryan have previously used her views as justification for their beliefs.
Personally I think her views are rather narrow and restricted for me and her novels are rather over-egged and tub-thumping sorts of works.
doesn't even have to be randianism, could just be due to a very deeply held conviction in rationalism, and that everyone is ultimately motivated solely by their self-interest.
Ignoring the fact that this is generally considered to be a really really dumb, limited view these days- people who believe in this sort of thing (even according to the neo-liberal ideology that generally follows from rationalist ontology) are absolutely the worst sort of people to be in government. Cos if they believe that self-interest is our fundamental drive then they also believe that political power and agency to change the structure of our society through it can only ever be pursued for the benefit of the people making the laws. Maybe that's obvious, but Thatcher didn't believe anything like that- she had a strong conviction that she was doing a duty to the nation. I don't think even cameron quite subscribes to that viewpoint. So yeah, if we do finally get those sorts of people in power it's gonna be horrendous.
then that's really saying something
do you take it up the chutney?