Political Crossfire Forums

[Robin Hood]

This statistics not only show the dependency culture created by socialism as opposed to the wealth, health and happiness through capitalism; but they do it within one country. Surely decisive, and therefore demonstrate what the political interests of the entire population should be: capitalism.

If London were an independent country, its gross domestic product (GDP) per person would be the fifth-highest in the world, almost as high America’s and beaten only by special cases Luxembourg, (oil-rich) Norway and Switzerland. The average person in Wealth-Creating Britain generates £36,717 of gross value added (a good measure of economic output) per head compared with a pathetic £9,525 in Cornwall and £10,524 in the Scottish Highlands.

Total government spending in Wealth-Creating Britain comes to only 32% of GDP, below even low tax-and-spend countries such as Ireland (34%), America (36%), Switzerland (36%) and Australia (35.5%), despite the fact that those are all usually considered to be low tax-and-spend economies. Indeed, according to a new report from London brokers Williams de Broë, if it were an independent country, the South-East of England would boast the ­second-lowest public expenditure burden in the OECD (after South Korea, where government spending is a mere 27.7% of GDP), while Dependency Britain Wales approaches Swedish levels of state spending (57% of GDP), as does the North-East of England (56%), which means these parts of Britain are essentially socialist economies. But über-Dependency Britain Northern Ireland exceeds them all: public spending has now reached a fantastical 64% of GDP in Northern Ireland, the kind of number associated with a miserable People’s Republic of the 1970s. By contrast the size of the state in Scotland (50% of GDP) and the North-West of England (47%) is more in the European social democratic mainstream – though there are pockets in both where the size of the state approaches Soviet proportions, such as Ayrshire, where government accounts for over 70% of GDP.

More than 50% of Glaswegian households have no earned income, the highest ratio in Britain and a new high watermark for the dependency culture. According to some estimates, state-financed health spending per head in Glasgow is now higher than any other city in the world. Sadly the avalanche of money is not generating healthy lifestyles: the latest available figures from the World Health Organisation and Britain’s Office for National Statistics show that Glasgow’s average male life expectancy (68.7) is lower than Bulgaria and Bosnia (both 69 years), China (70 years) and Libya (71 years). Parts of the east-end of Glasgow have a lower life expectancy than Iran or Iraq.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/online_article.php?id=64&page=1

Maybe regional assemblies are quite a good idea. Possibly the South East could jettison the parasites and dependents.

[Lord Hargreaves]

It is not the case that the triumph of socialism would mean everyone voted conservative?

Well no, because socialism makes people poorer, and even more dependent on socialism. I expect some people will try to argue that Glasgow needs such high spending because it is poor, while it is plainly obvious that it is poor because it is socialist. Ditch socialism and you get richer - that theory has been vindicated in so many parts of the world that it can now realistically be called a fact.

Good piece :tu:

[Robin Hood]

Quote: It is not the case that the triumph of socialism would mean everyone voted conservative?

Well no, because socialism makes people poorer, and even more dependent on socialism. I expect some people will try to argue that Glasgow needs such high spending because it is poor, while it is plainly obvious that it is poor because it is socialist. Ditch socialism and you get richer - that theory has been vindicated in so many parts of the world that it can now realistically be called a fact.

Excellent post. The second me starting this thread is linked. The statistics on Glasgow, it's huge spending on healthcare and terrible health. Underlining the point that when you treat people like children, they act like it and lose self-responsibility.

[antonio62]

I don't think that is true. The reason there is so much spent on health care in Glasgow is because they are unhealthy. You don't need to spend any money on healthy people. Glasgow’s violent crime rates wont help matters either. People also cant eat healthily because they cant afford it. This makes them more unhealthy and means more spending is necessary.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: The reason there is so much spent on health care in Glasgow is because they are unhealthy.

Why are they so unhealthy? Surely with this long sustained vast spending on health they should be healthier. What factor makes them different from Londoners, and thus so much less healthy? It certainly isn't the work.

Quote: Glasgow’s violent crime rates wont help matters either.

Why is there so much crime in Glasgow?

Quote: People also cant eat healthily because they cant afford it. This makes them more unhealthy and means more spending is necessary.

Have you ever been shopping? It is cheaper to eat healthily (but more effort). Surely these time rich people (they aren't working) in Glasgow can put more effort into preparing food than the constantly at work Londoners into their food...or is it that the state has created irresponsible dependents?

[antonio62]

Reason wrote: Have you ever been shopping? It is cheaper to eat healthily (but more effort). Surely these time rich people (they aren't working) in Glasgow can put more effort into preparing food than the constantly at work Londoners into their food...or is it that the state has created irresponsible dependents?

Yes I have. Processed food is bad for you which is what these people most likely eat most of the time. Why do they eat it because it is cheap.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Yes I have. Processed food is bad for you which is what these people most likely eat most of the time. Why do they eat it because it is cheap.

Vegetables, fruit and suchlike are the cheapest. Ready made meals are much more expensive than the ingredients, whilst A whole chicken is considerably cheaper than processed chicken wafers.

Healthy eating is cheaper, the difference is the amount of effort put in.

[antonio62]

An average chicken from a supermarket has over a pint of fat in it they aren't so good for you. When you add the price of all the ingredients together then I would be very surprised if they came to more than the price of a ready meal.

Also the reason Glasgow has a high rate of unemployment is that the industries that gave it most of its employment disappeared rapidly giving the economy no time to change and diversify.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: An average chicken from a supermarket has over a pint of fat in it they aren't so good for you.

What on earth do you think people in the south eat....they eat chicken too (oh and by the way butchers are cheaper than supermarkets but again they require more effort....effort that the unemployed time rich people of Glasgow don't seem able to expend.)

Quote: When you add the price of all the ingredients together then I would be very surprised if they came to more than the price of a ready meal.

I too would be very suprised....
Quote:
Also the reason Glasgow has a high rate of unemployment is that the industries that gave it most of its employment disappeared rapidly giving the economy no time to change and diversify.

Welfare increases employment costs, the minimum wage does this too. Vast amounts of regulations on businesses strangle them as does high tax. Planning laws that are controlled by socialist politicians (in Scotland) drive away any chance of innovation. Meanwhile the huge state presence crowds out private sector investment.

The indolent, dependent, and childlike state of a huge many of the citizens of Glasgow makes it an extremely unattractive place to have a business. These people have lost all sense of self-responsibility, do you expect the incredible innovation that one finds in the south with the state smothering everything?

We should jettison it, and let it suffer the full consequences of it's socialism. Then maybe people will wake up and learn rather than whingeing about their benefit cheques, or that the goverment should do everything for them.

The British working class used to be the envy of the world, self-sufficient , responsible, and crimeless. Then the goverment got involved.

[antonio62]

[quote="Reason"] Quote: An average chicken from a supermarket has over a pint of fat in it they aren't so good for you.

What on earth do you think people in the south eat....they eat chicken too (oh and by the way butchers are cheaper than supermarkets but again they require more effort....effort that the unemployed time rich people of Glasgow don't seem able to expend.)[quote]

Quote: When you add the price of all the ingredients together then I would be very surprised if they came to more than the price of a ready meal.

I too would be very suprised.... Quote:

Quote: Also the reason Glasgow has a high rate of unemployment is that the industries that gave it most of its employment disappeared rapidly giving the economy no time to change and diversify.

Welfare increases employment costs, the minimum wage does this too. Vast amounts of regulations on businesses strangle them as does high tax. Planning laws that are controlled by socialist politicians (in Scotland) drive away any chance of innovation. Meanwhile the huge state presence crowds out private sector investment.

The indolent, dependent, and childlike state of a huge many of the citizens of Glasgow makes it an extremely unattractive place to have a business. These people have lost all sense of self-responsibility, do you expect the incredible innovation that one finds in the south with the state smothering everything?

We should jettison it, and let it suffer the full consequences of it's socialism. Then maybe people will wake up and learn rather than whingeing about their benefit cheques, or that the goverment should do everything for them.

The British working class used to be the envy of the world, self-sufficient , responsible, and crimeless. Then the goverment got involved.

If Butchers use battery farmed hens you'll find they have the same high fat content.

Prove to me then that it is cheaper to buy ingredients than the processed meal.

the same root cause as I mentioned earlier is not diversifying before the industry was gone.

If you let us go 30 years ago you would find we would be allot richer than you. We would be just another Norway. Problem is you decided to keep us, using propaganda to convince us that the oil wouldn't make us rich, so you could keep the oil revenues for yourself.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Prove to me then that it is cheaper to buy ingredients than the processed meal.

I can't do it over the internet, but go to your supermarket and look for a small amount processed chicken slices or something. Then go to your butchers and ask for a whole chicken. You'll see yourself.
Quote:
If you let us go 30 years ago you would find we would be allot richer than you. We would be just another Norway.


What with the vast oil reserves? (By the way the oil and gas reserves off the coast of Britain, and much would be in English territory, don't even compare to Norway's.)

Since 1999, Norway has experienced strong oil export revenues, raising concerns over possible economic overstimulation and also over how to allocate the money. In November 2003, Norway's government and opposition agreed on a budget for 2004, including some increases in spending (on health, education, and other social services, for instance) and $7 billion in transfers from the country's nearly 15-year-old Petroleum Fund (which stood at more than $150 billion as of September 2004). :lol:

Scotland was a land of useless dependents back then too, anyway.
Quote:
Problem is you decided to keep us, using propaganda to convince us that the oil wouldn't make us rich, so you could keep the oil revenues for yourself.

More tax revenue crosses the border from England to Scotland every year than the total annual revenue from oil, and gas.....that's all the reserves not just the ones that Scotland would be able to lay claim to!

Since 1975 some £120bn ($180bn) of Scottish (note from reason: it's only Scottish if you use the SNP declared boundary not the official one.) oil revenue has flowed to the London Treasury. Meanwhile some 30% of Scots live in cold damp housing, below the official European Union poverty line. It is a disgrace. Scotland is the most energy rich country in Europe, yet is probably the only country to discover oil and get poorer.

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/hamish/whosoil.html

The first point that we can gain from that source is that Norway had managed to SAVE the same amount of oil money in the last 15 years as Scottish and English oil would have produced in 30 years....

Meanwhile:

Quote: Scottish Enterprise claims that total public spending in Scotland in 2002-03 reached £40bn, or 55% of Scotland's total economy.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=2061452005

So let's times that by 30, and we get £1200bn now we can compare to it to the total gains from Scottish and English oil: £120bn. 1/10! Since more than that ratio of the Scottish state spending come from England, and since far from all that oil would be Scottish anyway, it's easy to conclude that Scotland would be a very significant net loss.

p.s also remeber that the oil money that went to the treasury in London often as not went back to Scotland anyway, so we can cut that £120bn figure significantly again.

[JDnCoke]

Reason wrote: The British working class used to be the envy of the world, self-sufficient , responsible, and crimeless. Then the goverment got involved.

:lol:

What a poor misguided person you are. 1/4 of the working class did Heroin in Rowntree's era, how crimeless. Yes they were so self-sufficient that the Liberal Government didn't at all need to pass those reforms, only 70% of men from industrial towns were so unfit for service during the Empire's need of the Boer War, that giving minimum wage wasn't at all necessary for them to buy decent food, which in reality wasn't even decent. Pepper had led in it, milk was watered down. Shame these horrible interfering food regulations changed all that.

I won't deny I agree with your first post, dependency culture is a huge problem, but the sources that cause it are completely different.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: What a poor misguided person you are. 1/4 of the working class did Heroin in Rowntree's era, how crimeless.

I'd love to see some evidence for that, since it was only invented in 1874! Also doing heroin isn't what I'd consider a crime, i.e there's no victim.
Quote:
Pepper had led in it, milk was watered down. Shame these horrible interfering food regulations changed all that.

Food regulations or greater wealth and understanding?

Quote: only 70% of men from industrial towns were so unfit for service during the Empire's need of the Boer War, that giving minimum wage wasn't at all necessary for them to buy decent food

You seem very confused, since there was no minimum wage in Britain until 1999.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/1/newsid_2465000/2465397.stm

70% is also a grossly exaggerated firgure, it was at the very most 40%, and do you not realise that military service in South Africa would be extremely demanding....0.1% of people from Glasgow could do it now, and I doubt most would have been fit enough long before that.

By the way, what year are you in at Queen's?

[JDnCoke]

Reason wrote: I'd love to see some evidence for that, since it was only invented in 1874! Also doing heroin isn't what I'd consider a crime, i.e there's no victim.

Are you telling me that Britain didn't have a working class circa 1874? :lol:

Still heroin abuse is not a crime at all, there's no victims at all, except the abuser, the family of the abuser, the friends of the abuser, the people around the abuser. Tell me Reason, what is single most important factor that contributes to both violent and petty crime? It's not drugs now is it.

Reason wrote: Food regulations or greater wealth and understanding?

Here's a little example of why what you're talking about is off the beam:

You work 70 hours a week, and you earn barely enough money to pay the rent let alone feed and clothe yourself. How do you go about using the "greater understanding" that you don't have because free education doesn't exist to combat the firms which essentially poison the food they sell in the name of profit? Now this is in the context of 19th century working-class Britain (which you seem to think doesn't exist), 'consumer choice' really doesn't come into the equation. Today, however, is a different matter altogether, and while I do agree that people themselves do need to be reponsible for their individual eating habits, how can you combat what you don't understand, or even know exists.

For example, chicken. Real chicken is rarely sold in the West now, you go to any of the major food shops in Britain, Tescos, Asda, whatever and you look around at the chickens. 40% here, 50% there of "chicken", the rest is some maize glucate or just plain old water. What does the individual shopper do to combat this? Not much to be honest, that's why we have goverments, which are (supposed to be) representative. This custom will phone his or her MP. When that MP gets a load of these phonecalls, he'll take it to Parliament, where other MPs will nod and say "oh yes people have said the same thing in my constituency", so they debate it and pass a bill protecting people from poor quality food.

Welcome to Parliamentary democracy.

Reason wrote: You seem very confused, since there was no minimum wage in Britain until 1999.

Apologies for the factual inaccurary, but you can tell I was trying to make a point that sometimes regulation is needed to protect people.

Reason wrote: 70% is also a grossly exaggerated firgure, it was at the very most 40%, and do you not realise that military service in South Africa would be extremely demanding....0.1% of people from Glasgow could do it now, and I doubt most would have been fit enough long before that.

Quite to the contary, according to Essential Modern World History, John Murray (Page 31, ISBN 0-7195-7715-2) a massive 90% of the workforce in Manchester was unfit for military service, a common picture was painted across British industrial heartlands during the time.... But I'm very sure that admittance standards then are much lower than they are today, given the contrasted natures of the two armies (Large versus Professional), which makes the figure even more alarming.

Reason wrote: By the way, what year are you in at Queen's?

4th year medic, though I'm 24 this january as I took a year out before Uni for medical work experience.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Are you telling me that Britain didn't have a working class circa 1874?

No, I said that there was no heroin before 1874......it hadn't been invented yet.
Quote:
Still heroin abuse is not a crime at all, there's no victims at all, except the abuser, the family of the abuser, the friends of the abuser, the people around the abuser. Tell me Reason, what is single most important factor that contributes to both violent and petty crime? It's not drugs now is it.

No it's the prohibition of drugs, just like the prohibition of alcochol was the cause of crime in America.
Quote:
Today, however, is a different matter altogether, and while I do agree that people themselves do need to be reponsible for their individual eating habits, how can you combat what you don't understand, or even know exists.

By rational thought and examining likeliehoods. How does anyone gain new knowledge? You can also pay people to help you.
Quote:
For example, chicken. Real chicken is rarely sold in the West now, you go to any of the major food shops in Britain, Tescos, Asda, whatever and you look around at the chickens. 40% here, 50% there of "chicken", the rest is some maize glucate or just plain old water.

That's simply not true. The processed food, yes, like Chicken wafers and so on, but not the chickens, or even chicken breats that one actually buys.

Quote: Apologies for the factual inaccurary, but you can tell I was trying to make a point that sometimes regulation is needed to protect people.
People need self-responsibility, not protection from their own decisions. Children need protection, not adults.
Quote: Quite to the contary, according to Essential Modern World History, John Murray (Page 31, ISBN 0-7195-7715-2) a massive 90% of the workforce in Manchester was unfit for military service, a common picture was painted across British industrial heartlands during the time.... But I'm very sure that admittance standards then are much lower than they are today, given the contrasted natures of the two armies (Large versus Professional), which makes the figure even more alarming.

That secondary school textbook is unavaliable online...and so I can't check your quote, the context of your quote or anything like that. Do you think 10% of the current population of Glasgow could get into the army? Not a chance.
Quote:
4th year medic, though I'm 24 this january as I took a year out before Uni for medical work experience.

Cool, just I have some friends there, and unfortunately I failed an interview for there....

:(

[antonio62]

About your 10% of Glaswegians wouldn't get into the Army. I think they could. Well 10% of the population that are able to join up. I have spent time at the army and an army physical training instructor said I was fitter than him and most of the people in the Army. I know people aren't going to believe that but its the truth. At the time I was only just turned 14 and never actually do any kind of training. Apart from sport in general. I am not so sure that it is that hard to qualify for the Army.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: About your 10% of Glaswegians wouldn't get into the Army. I think they could. Well 10% of the population that are able to join up. I have spent time at the army and an army physical training instructor said I was fitter than him and most of the people in the Army. I know people aren't going to believe that but its the truth. At the time I was only just turned 14 and never actually do any kind of training. Apart from sport in general. I am not so sure that it is that hard to qualify for the Army.

Then how do you qualify that with your previous statements about how it's harder now than it was before, and how barely anyone could get in before?

[JDnCoke]

Reason wrote: No, I said that there was no heroin before 1874......it hadn't been invented yet.

I said that 1/4 of the British working class did heroin or rather "opiates", you inferred that you didn't believe this because I lacked evidence (in the form of a link or otherwise) to which you backed up by saying that heroin wasn't created until 1874. Now forgive me, but that piece of trivia doesn't defeat the fact that the British working class did heroin, or opiates. 1874 is in the 19th century, the height of Britain's industrial age, the height of Britain's working class. Therefore you either think that this doesn't happen because there was no working class, or I'm completely bonkers.

Reason wrote: No it's the prohibition of drugs, just like the prohibition of alcochol was the cause of crime in America.

The difference being that alcohol is socially acceptable and heroin is not? I hesitate to categorise drugs, detesting them all, but I don't think you've thought through the ramifications of legalising such drugs. Cannabis, or other "light" drugs, sure why not. I have no problem in letting stupid teenagers rotting their lungs away, I don't really care. But Class A drugs are different ball park altogether. Not even touching on the criminal underside to it all, its a human tradegy to see someone degenerate into a sub-human craving for chemicals. Not to sound patronising, but pop into your local rehabilitation clinic on voluntary work. You'll see why it was banned in the first place.

Reason wrote: By rational thought and examining likeliehoods. How does anyone gain new knowledge? You can also pay people to help you.

Assuming the average person, worrying about jobs, mortgages, loans, taxes, their spouses and children and families have plenty of time to go into philosophical debate about how to tackle corruption in the food industry. Like you said "you can also pay people to help you", they're called Politicians.

Reason wrote: That's simply not true. The processed food, yes, like Chicken wafers and so on, but not the chickens, or even chicken breats that one actually buys.

Lucky for you we had a Sunday Roast.



Not the 50% I said, but what can I say, we shop at M&S? Pleasantries aside, it's still not a whole chicken, and we went upmarket.

Reason wrote: People need self-responsibility, not protection from their own decisions. Children need protection, not adults.

Sometimes people need protecting from people, the weak from the rich. Isn't that what society is, a group of like minded individuals together for protection and self-preservation?

Reason wrote: That secondary school textbook is unavaliable online...and so I can't check your quote, the context of your quote or anything like that. Do you think 10% of the current population of Glasgow could get into the army? Not a chance.

Because our current armed forces are designed so that 10% of anywhere cannot join, it's a Professional army that wants the best of the best. I'm sure the vast majority of the population are able to join, but have niether the desire or need to. Today's army is built upon career minded individuals, not on the need's of British interests.

If you're desperate for the source, I can scan it in.

Reason wrote: Cool, just I have some friends there, and unfortunately I failed an interview for there.... :(

It is pretty gruelling, I still bear the mental scars *tic*. But what did you want to do? And what years are your friends in, I might know them! (small world lol).

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Therefore you either think that this doesn't happen because there was no working class, or I'm completely bonkers.

I'd go with the latter....I never even came close to saying that there was no working class.

Quote: I said that 1/4 of the British working class did heroin or rather "opiates"

The difference between heroin weaker opiates, like opium is extreme. Having done the latter, and knowing that it's about as strong as a couple of ibuprofen and a beer, I realise that they aren't at all similar.

Quote: But Class A drugs are different ball park altogether. Not even touching on the criminal underside to it all, its a human tradegy to see someone degenerate into a sub-human craving for chemicals.

Ever tried any? I don't think that you have.

Quote: Not to sound patronising, but pop into your local rehabilitation clinic on voluntary work. You'll see why it was banned in the first place.

You'll see why the ban is a pointless crime creator....notice drugs are banned and the rehab centre is full!

Quote: "you can also pay people to help you", they're called Politicians.

Politicians aren't people who you, individually choose to pay and who help you, they take your money and interfere. Also with politicians you can't opt out, choose the people you want as an individual, or have more than 1/60,000,000th of a choice. Nice.

Quote: Lucky for you we had a Sunday Roast.
On the photo you posted it says wafer thin and roasted reformed chicken....... not the chicken that people cook, I assume since you bought it you know this...shame on you.

Quote: Sometimes people need protecting from people, the weak from the rich. Isn't that what society is, a group of like minded individuals together for protection and self-preservation?

The goverment is about protection, but our goverment attacks people within our society. Everyone has money extorted, people are banned from large numbers of activities that are no-one elses business. The goverment is there is reduce aggression, but instead it's the biggest aggressor.

Quote: It is pretty gruelling, I still bear the mental scars *tic*. But what did you want to do? And what years are your friends in, I might know them! (small world lol).

2nd year, and it's only one in Queens, sorry typo. I was going to do history and politics.

[JDnCoke]

Reason wrote: I'd go with the latter....I never even came close to saying that there was no working class.

But you inferred it with a silly attempt to disprove by statement by posting a date.

Reason wrote: The difference between heroin weaker opiates, like opium is extreme. Having done the latter, and knowing that it's about as strong as a couple of ibuprofen and a beer, I realise that they aren't at all similar.

Like I said, I don't like to categorise, the victims who suffered the drug abuse ended up spending more money on drugs than on food, Just look at the "Opium Wars".

Reason wrote: Ever tried any? I don't think that you have.

But you have right? What a rebel! You're so cool I want to be just like you when I grow up! :roll:

No wonder you didn't get into Queen's.

Reason wrote: You'll see why the ban is a pointless crime creator....notice drugs are banned and the rehab centre is full!

So we legalise heroin, then what? You're honestly going to tell me that Britain will miraculously become crime free because we legalised Drugs? :lol:

I think you need to think through the ramifications. Don't get me wrong, I agree in personal use legalisation, but thence using the freed up police resources to battle against the actual criminals, the dealers and such like.

Reason wrote: Politicians aren't people who you, individually choose to pay and who help you, they take your money and interfere. Also with politicians you can't opt out, choose the people you want as an individual, or have more than 1/60,000,000th of a choice. Nice.

Under the current system I totally agree, but its not set in concrete. Reform is the order of the day, more democratic and definately more directly democratic. I don't know if you check the EU section of this forum but I express my sentiments about "Swissernising" European democracies.

Reason wrote: On the photo you posted it says wafer thin and roasted reformed chicken....... not the chicken that people cook, I assume since you bought it you know this...shame on you.

What can I say, we're poor students? :lol:

Reason wrote: The goverment is about protection, but our goverment attacks people within our society. Everyone has money extorted, people are banned from large numbers of activities that are no-one elses business. The goverment is there is reduce aggression, but instead it's the biggest aggressor.

Again to an extent I agree, especially concerning Labour's current anti-civil liberties binge. But there's nothing that stops us from changing that, we had a Nightwatchmen state before, we can have it again.

Reason wrote: 2nd year, and it's only one in Queens, sorry typo. I was going to do history and politics.

And you do that at Nottingham now? Nice medical school there, I'm going to help some year 12/13 college students decide if they want to do some Medicine at Nottingham Med school, its for this Conference called Medlink, very cool.