I was catapulted out of my post Christmas torpor this morning by the news that successful ‘e-petitions’ to No 10 are to be debated in parliament. My first thought was that this was another Government wheeze to ensure Parliament fiddles while the Government gets on with its business untrammelled by serious challenge. But then I realised it’s just the usual spin that recent Governments have indulged in to convince the Great British Public that they can be involved in the political process by cutting through the democratic process by shouting very loudly. Government by laziness. Followers of this blog will know that the blogosphere is populated by the sad, the obsessed, the eccentric, the fanatic and the ignorant; with a handful of thoughtful users fighting their way through to be heard while the majority of sane folk rarely contribute. Petitions are similar. I recommend anyone who thinks that serious matters will be debated this way should look at the old No.10 petitions website (currently shut down to new petitions). The range of single-interest, off the wall, loopy obsessions, is mingled with naïve requests that a junior civil servant could write a response to in 5 minutes, and indeed did. I note that page 404, where the responses used to be, has been moved or lost deep in Whitehall cyber space.
Engaging the public isn’t so facile as simply inviting opinions. To raise questions worthy of debate the public needs the context, the full facts and figures and a range of options from which to make choices. E-petitions are rubbish, however many millions of people sign them. They are rather like the mass letters we get sent in parliament from special interest groups who reflect minority fanatic opinion. People obviously think that the more the signatories on these petitions and letters the more we’ll be impressed. In fact all the numbers reflect is the organisational efficiency (and the funding sources) of the person leading the shout. I want to know about the opinions of people who never sign petitions just as much as those who do. I don’t underestimate the difficulties of organising processes of consultation on key issues but if we are going to do it we need to do it seriously not in this populist X factor way.
How arrogant can you get? There is no other way to summarise your position.
You have to ask why people are signing petitions in large numbers, and it is because of your attitude.
You just want to sit there are dictate. The public on the other hand want a direct say. You are preventing that. The public want a direct say, otherwise they wouldn’t sign them inspite of the futility because you just tear them up. They still carry on, because its about the only peaceful way of protesting left. You certainly won’t let them turn up round Parliament any more.
Hence the petition site is shut down because people use it.
What an arrogant attitude of lèse majesté I haven’t heard in a long time.
Lets hope you’re just eating cake for a short time.
It sounds very spin-like to me. Enough signatures and they promise a debate in Parliament. Presumably once the debate has taken place and the government has whipped the result they want, we’ll be ignored again.
What happens if there’s 15 million signatures on a petition? Will that get similarly swept under the carpet or would there be enough pressure on MPs of all parties to take notice and actually do something the people want?
There’s evidence that a lot of people want a referendum on the EU, and I suspect that one of the first such petitions will call for that. Regardless of the result, it would give a mandate – cut ties with Europe or go for closer integration. The only reason for not having one is that those in power want one result but think that they’ll lose the vote.
A large part of what was on the No. 10 site was a bit on the fringe, but there were a few that caught public attention – the road pricing one gathered over a million signatures, picked up some press coverage and the government took notice. Most of the time a petition would result in a patronising response from the government that basically said “tough luck, we’re going to do what we want anyway”. It was a bit like asking your MP to present a petition to Parliament – which is done at the end of the day when most people have gone home and won’t notice it’s happened unless they check Hansard and read that bit.
“The blogosphere is populated by the sad, the obsessed, the eccentric, the fanatic and the ignorant”.
Well, I don`t know which I am, possibly all in Baroness Murphy`s eyes but I do so admire her honesty. I have thought much about honesty and integrity over Christmas specifically that of Politicians after all I cry loud and often enough for more of it.
I make no bones of the fact the noble lady makes me cringe with some of her blogs, the ” I didn`t like him so I voted the other way knowing he`d win anyway”, “Had no idea what it was about so went on holiday early”. Trouble is the cringing is caused by complete honesty whilst most others remain quiet, diplomatically. There is much to be admired about the noble baroness.
My Lady is quite right most who sign petitions are generally ignorant of the full facts and it would be impossible to spend everyday explaining all to everyone.That doesn`t necessarily mean every petition is wrong either though. The question appears to be how much democracy do we require. The other place puts a great weight on the legitimacy given to them by the electorate. My Lady appears to be stating that most of the electorate are mad, bad or totally ignorant-I may not disagree- but since Parliament is designed to be a representation of the people, well you get my drift.
I appreciate the Lady`s blunt words, others will not, but I have to state here and now if she wants complete autonomy I`m with the revolution. Anything successful has tobe run from the top down but the top must not lose touch with the bottom or ignore it. A balance has to be sought and the public, the electorate have to have their issues addressed. Might I suggest that the Noble Baroness is possibly not the best person to address the public directly, the people may not like her honesty.
“To raise questions worthy of debate the public needs the context, the full facts and figures and a range of options from which to make choices.”
This is true but as we have seen, too much of late, Parliament is often deceived by being given facts that are wrong, figures designed to inflate and other type of evidence that knowledgeable people know to be lies. Parliament cannot consider itself to be expert in all matters, it has to allow the people to address it with the truth, with an alternate to that which it maybe being deliberately misled with for a miriad of reasons.
As a member of a totally undemocratic House it maybe unwise to totally dismiss the people whilst accepting the legitimacy of the other place comes from such.
“The range of single-interest, off the wall, loopy obsessions, is mingled with naïve requests that a junior civil servant could write a response to in 5 minutes, and indeed did.”
Sounds pretty much like a summery of MPs views to me!
The issue you don’t address – indeed parliament doesn’t address – is how on earth they expect public confidence in the political process unless parliament engages. There is clearly a perception that parliament treats the voters with contempt except for a few weeks every 4 years.
I wish I could find the laughter emoticons that work on this board!
Lets see if this works : – ( ) :-()
How about this : – ) 🙂
Well the direct route of just asking politicians to justify their stances doesn’t seem to work, so maybe shouting en masse will help?
This is a sop to the bloodied and beaten democrats still left in this country, but it’s rather too little and too late. I suspect that when the summer hits few people will pick the “let’s sign an e-petition” option over the “let’s go picket the Tory scum” when deciding how to register their displeasure with the looting and pillaging of government.
Incidentally, Baroness, did you ever come up with a plausible mechanism by which taking the UK to the bottom of the OECD league tables for public investment in Higher Education would help make us more competitive? Still waiting on that one.
Tory scum” when deciding how to register their displeasure with the looting and pillaging of government.
In rural England and Wales, it is not so much the looting and pillaging of government as being robbed by city types, again and again and again, which is so debilitating.
The government merely knows that to keep peace, they have to do something for those who are excluded from, fat wages and capital enhancements, for city slickers.
That usually takes the form of even more dosh for the underprivileged, from the DWP, mainly P, billions every year.
Levels of benefits and unemployment in the UK increase in proportion to the distance from the
centre to the locus on the circle.
Thus Cornwall, West Wales, Scotland get it bad,
with smaller circles around large cities but not so much.
“Followers of this blog will know that the blogosphere is populated by the sad, the obsessed, the eccentric, the fanatic and the ignorant”
If you mean the contributors, that’s no way to speak about your fellow noble Lords and Baronesses. Otherwise you may well have alienated a good number of your readers.
“Followers of this blog will know that the blogosphere is populated by the sad, the obsessed, the eccentric, the fanatic and the ignorant; with a handful of thoughtful users fighting their way through to be heard while the majority of sane folk rarely contribute”.
The same has been said about every idea which strives to open up political discourse to a wider range of people. It is said by those in a position of influence, to imply that they know best, because they are in the position they are. It is a casually insulting, patronising and dismissive sentiment. See also: The MPs who make comments like, ‘Well, I haven’t met anyone on the doorstop who raised the issue of electoral reform etc.’. They affect to be representing their constituents’ real interests. They are in fact saying that such a rarified topic is beyond the ken of the general public. Go down any village pub on a friday evening, and they would meet plenty of people with interesting things to say on the matter. And so what if some of them are nerds, freaks whatever? We always need a sprinkling of such people in the system, anyway.
The rest of your argument is fair enough.
WE COUNTED THEM OUT AND WE COUNTED THEM BACK IN, BUT CAN WE COUNT ON THEM?
If “we, the people” were minded to set about exercising self-determination of the forms of governance best suited to our mutual needs – a tenet of both UN human rights declarations – by calling on full recognition, acknowledgement and provision for the sovereignty of our nations’ people being our individual, joint and several free wills and supreme above all save our elected head of state(s), judicial and legislative authorities at all levels of our self-governance, then yes, an e-petition alone won’t overwhelm the gatekeepers of little enthusiasm
But if it were to take the form of an affidavit inviting the elected and electors alike – as by definition would be one and the same then – to sign up to the declaration and affirm their commitment to our ownership of the process giving voice to our ideas, proposals and preferences as of natural right,
… and the declaration was part of the preamble to a fuller “People’s Sovereignty and Democratic Participation Bill”, wherein the body made provision for statutory assent to a full suite of measures enabling any repeat any cause for concern to be raised at any time with any public, private and/or voluntary body, by drawing attention to the nature and extent of deficiencies being unfit for the public purpose of the common good in seeking just remedy through resolution primarily by consensual means
– starting with a People’s Convention to debate, deliberate and determine direction and guidance on the owned process, including examples of such transformative measures –
to enable all such matters to be addressed through combinations of e.g. People’s Conventions and Initiatives, Petitions and Bills, non-binding Preferenda and binding Referenda,
… would you then think it perverse if the pervasive problem of the exclusive British political system, its elected and non-elected officials and representatives from the LabLibServative party political hegemony, their paymasters and fellow travellers – including the monopolistic public and private media in being part of the captivating Whitehall and Westminster village – might bestir themselves from being in thrall – albeit less enamoured than of late – to the City of London, once aka UK Plc (hah!) – and concentrate with us in serving the true debt we owe each other:
… namely, our just and so strong in being autonomous and harmonious societies and communities of interdependent interests emanating from our families, friends and fellows in a family of friendly fellow nations in which we Britons – English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Manx, Channel and Cornish – realise our personal and plural freedom, attendant duty and potential to do as we would be done by,
… in finally throwing off the Norman yoke and donning the inattentively unexamined for far too long not being our fully participative emancipation, culminating in a constitution or constitutions of, by and for the self-governance of our organically evolving societies instead of the high-handed imposition of corporate vested interest?
How else are we to be in anything other than our realm of highlands, lowlands and islands together in facing down the enfeebling tribalism that called in the IMF, fell out of the ERM, enabled Big Bang and failed to prevent Big Bust and Bankrupt Britain bailed out of administration by mortgaging our own and our children’s children’s future?
If it’s too big to fail, it’s too bloody big. And Big Society will go the same fuzzy wuzzy way unless it is defined by fully participative popular sovereignty in recognising what is at stake being masked by political parties on ever present manoeuvres with a four/five year horizon based on fudging issues and forecasts and passing bucks back and forth, to and fro, with the latest leveraged power that came with the never to be fully unpacked and put on display parcel.
If nothing else, an e-petition linked to an initiative or bill would be useful as a complementary signature counter, especially too in the case of both Unions when it comes to deciding in favour of incorporating federal or non-incorporating confederal versions. That said, self-determination from bottom up first, yes?
Cheers!
Aye Ours
Keith
Keith, you responded to the Norfolk broad in 677 words. Clearly you subscribe to the philosophy that in politics words are cheap. Here on this blog populated by the sad, the obsessed, the eccentric, the fanatic and the ignorant and me we like to see circa 250 words maximum.
However, given topics e-petitions, government, post Christmas torpor, Parliament, the Great British Public, No. 10, junior civil servants and the X factor were mentioned your budget could have been 8 x 250 or 2000 words.
Please try harder next time.
Are you planning on putting this hobby horse down at any point?
Merry christmas and happy new year.
I m from Lebanon and very interested for the England political regime.
I m a student in the doctoral center of political sciences at the lebanese university.
I would like to communicate with lords and get more information about the regime.
Thank u
u can write at: dippa686@hotmail.com
Deep, it’s always nice to hear from the Phoenicians.
There is a romantic view of the House of Lords; it’s a chamber with a King’s throne. The house represents the Albion of Arthur Pendragon. The seating arrangement is that of the round table where all are equal. The house is possessed of the Latin ‘dignitas’ from which peers derive their dignity and virtue.
To sit in the house one must be in possession of a written order to do so from the regent; people that sit are chosen for their life experience and knowledge to represent a balanced, diverse house both temporal and spiritual.
Please note ‘Comments Policy’ 9, 10 in the blog’s terms and conditions.
To translate this blog to Arabic;
Open a new web page tab and enter:
http://translate.google.com
In the box enter:
http://lordsoftheblog.net and press enter.
An Arabic version of the blog will present itself.
Ref: House of Lords Publications
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/house-of-lords-publications/
I see that the spirit of Christmas hasn’t lasted as long as the leftovers.
Petitions, like referendums, are a waste of tiime since a gvt is not bound by their results; UK gvts only give away our right for them to govern to the EU, USA, China…Rupert, identical twins, bankers…
Mind you, I suspect this gvt would be quite happy for parliament to spend its time on such stuff.
AOB: B Murphy, I agree with your observations on the blogosphere, most of which can be applied here at one time or another though, to paraphrase, one man’s inanity is another man’s manifesto.
“To raise questions worthy of debate the public needs the context, the full facts and figures and a range of options from which to make choices.”
Loading the dice, your Ladyship?
Nasty technocratic nonsense.
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss petitions. While any public access site is going to have a share of it’s crazies and wing-nuts there are still petitions that grab the attention of a more significant cross section of society. You may not be able to glean much from the appearance of someones name on a petition but it’s a starting point. Not everyone is comfortable writing letters to their representatives (maybe thinking it will do no good?) and many do not have the time for more concerted campaigning.
However may I suggest this compromise. On selection of the petition of the session all MPs write to their constituents who signed the petition (or write a blog on the subject). They use this initial communication to lay out their position on the matter. They crucially invite feedback from them via comments and letters. Hopefully both MPs and the public will be better informed by the end of the process. Then continue the public debate in Parliament not as a legislating device but to see if we have learnt anything from the process. After all I don’t expect my MP to be fully informed on every issue when I elect them so this presents an opportunity for issues of popular concern to get more debate going.
Dave H, You’ve got it right, the Government response will be cooked up by fairly junior civil servants reading from their departmental script. Carl H I admit to being recklessly honest, other people have said the same in my previous academic and medical lives; ‘brave to the point of getting lynched’ was what another colleague said. It’s a terrible failing and that’s why I wouldn’t stand for election, even though given the chance I will be voting for a mainly elected upper chamber. Jonathan, I never did this Blog to create a fan club, nor I am pretty sure did most of my co-bloggers; of course I do look forward to the comments from old and new readers… I didn’t say they were ALL peculiar.
Returning to the petitions issue, I do quite understand that people want their views heard. So do I! But let’s take the road pricing one. “Ooh Orrible” everyone thinks, ie “I DON”T WANT TO PAY”. Well it’s just taken me an hour to follow the main threads of the pros and cons from various UK and Scandinavian websites; I’ve learnt a lot and modified by views as a result. We could as an alternative increase vehicle tax dramatically but that wouldn’t deal with congestion or pollution in a targeted way in areas where they are most prominent. But do we suppose that those million people who signed the anti road-pricing petition could give a fair view of the alternatives? Croft, surely the only way to engage people in the democratic process is right from childhood, to teach children why and how politics can change their lives. The problem seems to be that people are largely supine and inert about political issues until a decision is made that affects their own lives and then they all complain. Perhaps the political parties should invest more in growing local party groups again. How about the parties taking over those moribund pubs and turning them into pleasant clubs where the issues of the day, road pricing and e-petitions can be debated over a coffee or a pint?
McDuff, it’s a different issue but league table order of government investment tells us nothing about the value of the investment. It’s output that counts, not input. Same is true for the NHS where we now match Europe in investment but are probably not getting the outputs we hoped for.
David, could you expand your point? I didn’t get it.
BM: Seems rather a implicit assumption in your argument that the political class know best what’s good for people and therefore they can simply ignore public opinion (where it disagrees) as wrong. You can’t then it seems complain that ‘people are largely supine and inert’ if they correctly surmise that their views are ignored and no amount of education for ‘children [about] how politics can change their lives’ will undo that.
“But do we suppose that those million people who signed the anti road-pricing petition could give a fair view of the alternatives?”
Do we suppose that parliament will consider a fair view of the alternatives as I suggest it does nothing of the sort. A small number of key cabinet minsters will make the decision on a combination of the ideology of the party in power against the costs they can get past the treasury and the expected opposition both institutional and public. MPs will then vote on their whip.
In terms of the road pricing issue – I’m perfectly happy to give the public several options for tackling the issue and letting them choose. Right or wrong they make the decision and live with the consequences.
I’m not entirely sure what your point is re: healthcare compared to education spending.
Looking at the OECD figures for 2008 (the latest figures available) we’re firmly in the middle of the pack regarding percentage of GDP spend on healthcare @8.7%, more than Poland and Israel but less than Spain, Germany or France. Our total PPP USD spend is marginally higher than Spain, but $5-600 per capita behind France, Germany, the Netherlands etc.
We’re ahead of the curve as far as public percentage of total healthcare spend, but not drastically so in the EU – Germany, Austria and France’s healthcare system is 77% publicly funded wheras ours is 82.5%. The USA is the outlier with just over 50% publicly funded.
We are outperformed on some things, but by and large we are outperformed by the countries that spend more than us. The notable exception being, of course, the USA, which outspends every other country by a considerable margin and has significantly worse outcomes. The point about the kind of spending here is worth going back to, since the USA has a health system which relies on private insurance, profit-making institutions and policies pretty much designed to exclude income deciles 2-3 and provide the most expensive kinds of public subsidy to decile 1. Now, where does that look familiar…
Further, the kinds of places where the NHS falls down tend to reflect the kinds of priorities inherent in the system. Long-term, chronic conditions for older adults are not, for example, as well provided for as they are in countries where a plurality of elderly patients have good private health insurance policies. However, our juvenile results and our spending on prevention is rather good. We also tend to treat *all* elderly patients, not just the richest 60%, and as such have somewhat lower outcomes. This is rather what you would expect from a monolithic system such as the NHS, and does not suggest that radically altering the source of funding would improve outcomes as much as it would redistribute the positive and negative outcomes.
So, really, we’re not that good a match for the rest of Europe, and about where we should expect to be given global trends. Perhaps we would hope to be better, but we might also hope for a pony and an unlimited supply of gumdrops. Public policy, however, should not base itself on hope.
In HE our graduation rates and graduate premiums are all above OECD average, and we have the fourth highest level of graduate debt already. You mention outcomes, and I’ve already asked and not really been answered what outcomes you think we are not attaining that this system will help us attain, and what mechanisms will come into play by radically altering our funding system for HE?
You’ve mentioned attracting the best teachers and lecturers, but not stated how this would come about and what’s stopping them, nor what the new system will do. Since the Browne report, as I have said, specifically suggested a system that would encourage inter-university competition and foster “student choice”, what is preventing the stratification of the system into an even more multi-tiered system than we have now? Oxford and Cambridge can already attract top-level academics, Manchester has more Nobel Laureates on staff than it can shake an eccles cake at, we don’t seem to be doing badly in the top tier. But what is the mechanism by which the transfer of funding from public to private sources will assist, for example, Lincoln or Stafford or Nottingham Trent in attracting the top academics? And what is the social benefit to attracting those few “top” academics that attracting “pretty good” academics, but attracting more of them to more universities wouldn’t achieve? And what’s the policy difference?
What metrics do you think are the most important? What sources are you using to look at those metrics? What will the change from public funding to private funding *actually do* to improve these metrics?
Since you’re so keen on members of the public engaging in an informed way, it’s funny how you’re not really that keen to get into the details, Baroness. “We will improve outcomes by changing the process” is a description of a plan, not a plan. To move out of Underwear Gnome territory, you need some substance.
BM – I think the road pricing one was just a step too far. We’d had all the fuel taxes, including tax on tax, vehicle excise duty and then there was this proposal to charge people to use the roads. It was to ‘reduce congestion’, but no new alternatives were offered, which left people with the need to drive their cars and just pay more for doing so.
The number of buses that come through my village each day can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and I know that other places have even worse service. None of them go where I want to go, and in the time it would take me to walk to the next village, which does have a more reasonable service, take the bus, and then walk from the nearest stop at the other end to work, I would have spend ninety minutes on what is a 20-minute car journey in school holidays. Then the same in reverse to come home. That’s over two hours of my time wasted, and I’m sure other rural residents would have similar tales.
Even long-distance, there’s getting to a railway station, the per-person fare and general inconvenience and expense of getting from the station at the far end to your destination, which costs far more and takes much longer than piling four people in the car and just driving there.
The government solution to this was to increase the cost of driving the car, rather than working on ways to reduce the cost and inconvenience of the alternatives. I know it’s a catch-22 of needing money to do that, but none of us believed they’d spend the money on it once they’d gained a nice, new revenue stream. Government has a big credibility gap here and we don’t believe much that emanates from Whitehall.
Heh Dave feeling your pain there.
I was snowed in for several weeks (well I could get out but the post/rubbish collections had issues!) If I wanted to get to London without using a car I’d have to walk along steep/unmettaled/unlit tracks and roads probably in darkness to the nearest village where I can (having just looked) get a bus to the nearest geographic town on a Thursday 🙁
So I take a dim view of being told by the suburban chattering classes with excellent public transport that I should be driving a G-Whiz – I could lose that down the pot holes around here! – or else I should have to pay a massive tax disc fee designed to keep Chelsea Tractors off urban roads.
We could as an alternative increase vehicle tax dramatically but that wouldn’t deal with congestion or pollution in a targeted way in areas where they are most prominent.
The only solution is to drive people off the roads. In this case you mean other people, not yourself, but you won’t come out and say it.
What is needed is hypothecation.
Car drivers pay for the roads.
Rail users pay for rail.
No subsidises and no penalties.
Croft, No I certainly do not think that the political classes know what’s good for people, rather the reverse, but as I think you know well, many public policies (not all I accept) have been devised after months or years of cilivil servants, policy wonks and cadres of political advisors looking at the evidence from here and abroad. Very few policies just arrive out of the blue. Our problem is surely how to ensure that the public who are going to be affected by these policies have a good understanding of the background. It is of course Ministers’ responsiblilities to do that but without a public educated to think about political issues as being susceptible to evidence testing I fear it’s a lost cause.
Dave H and Lord Blagger, Are you saying you prefer a general increase in fuel and vehicle tax to a targeted road pricing tax? Perfectly legitimate but how do you think we should address the congestion/pollution problems in busy city areas? I’m serious, it’s no good knocking a proposal unless you’ve got some constructive alternative or want to bury your head in the sand and hope the problems will go away. Dave H, I sympathise about the lack of bus services through your village, it’s much the same here but has it occurred to you that under a road pricing tax scheme you might be better off in a rural sparsely popular area than you would be if a more general tax increase were applied?
I’m afraid that I consider that enough tax is being extracted from those who use the roads that the government should be able to fund a decent public transport network and get us to the point where we do find it more cost-effective to pay reasonable fares on a service that does run on time. You won’t reduce congestion in cities and towns merely by charging motorists more, because for the most part they have no alternative but to keep driving and pay up. I do not trust the government to take more of my money with the promise of providing improved public transport later because they’ve been doing that for a long time and have failed to deliver. Why should I believe this time is any different?
I appreciate the catch-22 of buses, where providing frequent service in a cost-effective manner to many small towns and villages means that the bus takes too long to reach the destination and so is not popular. Perhaps the way to address this would be to use modern technology to let people book buses in the same way we book taxis – let the bus do a minimal but fast route, and respond to requests to detour to residential areas or outlying villages. There’s nothing to say we couldn’t have a system where I can go on-line to ask for a bus at a particular time, or send a text message from my mobile phone, or even just push a button at the bus stop if I want a bus right now. The system could then inform the driver of the next convenient bus to make the detour past that stop. The bus company would save money by only visiting some areas when there were paying passengers and we’d all be more willing to use the bus. New York has a good system, although they do have the advantage of a street grid so you can get close to anywhere on Manhattan by taking two buses, and their ticketing system copes with that quite nicely. They also have express buses (and subway trains) that only call at every fourth stop, so if you want to go a long way, you go one, two or three stops on a slow bus and wait for the fast one, which gets you close to your destination a lot faster.
Fuel tax has the advantage over road pricing that it encourages the use of more efficient vehicles – consume less, pay less. Road pricing would mean that we’d probably get more traffic through the village because they didn’t want to pay the fee for using the main road. We already see some of that when there’s an accident at rush-hour and vehicles divert off the main road. The M6 Toll Road shows what people think when it comes to paying more for a clearer road, because it’s losing money and people still use the old M6.
As for knocking a proposal, “do nothing” can be considered a valid alternative if you think the proposal will just make things worse.
“Have been devised after months or years of civil servants, policy wonks and cadres of political advisors looking at the evidence from here and abroad. Very few policies just arrive out of the blue.”
So why has prostitution never been sorted out, why does the drugs debate come back at us time and again and many more subjects.
Why is alcohol,a carcinogenic substance known to wreck lives and cost the Nation dearly been allowed it`s legality when marijuana isn`t ? Why has tobacco been taxed beyond belief yet alcohol escapes such taxation ?
Have policies been thought about or is it the manipulation that centres around me, me and me.
You go on to talk of cars and road pricing, the driver has been robbed by Government for years pretending the taxes are spent on roads and green plans, poppycock ! A back door tax yet again.
Address congestion ? Why so politicians can get their 3 litre motors into parliament easier ? It`s all on expenses you know.
Address polution with overcrowded trains and train tickets that cost more than a new car ? With buses that are infrequent and kick out so much muck they alone are worse than the third world at polluting.
Congestion charges keep congestion down by making it “rich only” in the city, the Chelsea tractors, the high end sports cars- the polluters in other words.
Civil servants always have the answer ” Tax the poor” it`s their consistent answer.
How does Japan reduce congestion ? By it`s Government making more profit from the workers? No it subsidises rail and bus and implements a regime where only certain cars are allowed on the road on certain days.
Has the Government ever sorted anything out without a buck being in it for them or their friends in certain industries ?
The 2.5% vat rise, who will affect ? People like me whose total income is used surviving weekly. Of course it won`t actually be 2.5% by the time it appears in my lap more like 10%.
The Government say`s we`ll make it more economical for people to work rather than be unemployed and local Authorities go thank you very much for every pound you earn more we`ll take 65p toward your rent and 20p toward your council tax. So for every pound incentive the Government are going to give the unemployed to work, Local Government will take back 85p before TAX. Work that one out Mr.Civil Servant. So if you pay 22p in the pound tax and local government take 85p…Dohhhh !
Governments don`t think, they don`t plan, they tax.
BM: Having observed the congestion charge in London it seems politics was very much at the core of the process.
Actually looking at car emissions figures over time that may well be a perfect case where doing little or nothing now is the best option. New car engine regulations combined with natural wastage of older vehicles combined with the rapid uptake of hybrids and their associated price drops will sort most of the city emission issues. An expensive and bureaucratic system will at great cost only marginally accelerate this. Obviously this doesn’t tackle the congestion issue though I have my doubts that provided emissions can be tackled that congestion is such an issue.
“New car engine regulations…will sort most of the city emission issues.” What would be helpful on emissions is for regulations to insist that ‘thermoplungers’ be fitted to ALL diesel engines?
Funny how when you invite comment from the public that they give it to you, isn’t it?
No. I want any taxes paid by road users to fund the road network and no more.
I want train users to pay for trains and not have subsidises from people who don’t use trains.
Ditto for buses. So for Dave without a decent service, he doesn’t have to fund you.
When it comes to congestion, lets target the real causes, councils who have blocked off roads and people like Ken Livingstone, who caused damage by changing the order of lights to make travel slower, only to reverse it when the congestion charge came in as proof his policies were working. A basic fraud.
The easy solution is this. Abolish Vehicle excise duty. Put it on petrol. We can get rid of huge numbers employed on make work. No need to check if people are avoiding VED. There isn’t any. It goes on fuel. Bigger cars pay more. Heavy users pay more.
Very simple.
The government spends about 4 billion on roads.
Fuel duty raised 25.7 billion. VED over 6 billion. That’s without including the VAT aspect and insurance tax.
So Motorists are pay nearly 32 billion for 4 billion worth of work. Do you honestly think they get value for money from people like yourself? You’re ripping them off.
You’re an idiot. Dave without his decent service wants a DECENT SERVICE. That can only be provided by subsidising things from general taxation.
You don’t want an infrastructure. You want an entirely privatised economy without any public service provision at all. In other worse, you want a stupid experimental system that won’t work and can’t work and will fail.
You talk nonsense, sir.
Totally off topic
My Lady, can I please ask that you do a blog on why you would vote for an elected House. We hear often from Lord Norton on the subject and at times from Labour members but rarely from a cross bencher.
I am intrigued by why you think it would be a better system.
Having covered 2888 possible bills in 28 messages, I find it difficult to make any further comment than the sheer good humour of the Baroness
“being brave to the point of being lynched”.
As for Senex’s observation about the Phenecians, the Western Welsh and Southern Irish are descended from them too; that is why the Pyramids were so well built………….
MURPHY was there!
use modern technology to let people book buses in the same way we book taxis – let the bus do a minimal but fast route, and respond to requests to detour to residential areas or outlying villages.
Combine it with post delivery would make the Royal mail profitable, or an on request bus service would eliminate the handsome profits made by the bus companies on unused routes.
Their morning and evening schools service makes it a profitable business in any case, even using the double deckers.
It is not then, very practical to change to Taxi style service for the rest of the day.
Both taxi style and time table services are used in many country areas, and where the bus service is no longer viable the call-taxi service comes in to action.
In my area there is also a service for the old and frail/disabled using tax breaks, for regular private people to provide
taxi style service too, at very low cost indeed.
If you are fit enough/young enough to ride a bike, the folding bike and bus/train service can get you any place in the country, without difficulty.
When there is snow and no bus service, and bike riding is dodgy,and no grocery delivery and no heating oil delivery either, then you are indeed, stuck!
Too many points to respond very satisfactorily here, keep them up, I’m learning, honestly McDuff it’s true. I agree with much of your analysis about health and educational outcomes but as you know it depends how you measure inputs and outputs but in the health area I am not entirely sceptical about the real possibilities of spending less and getting a better service in some specific areas. It’s the fine detail of research evidence that must be examined.
I’m going to move on to another topic but I guess we’ll come back to road pricing…there you go, I’d already forgotten we started here with e-petitions.
I appreciate your candour, Baroness, but with all due respect you happen to be in government while I happen to be some dude sitting here chucking spitballs. Agreeing with my analysis after the fact is rather akin to locking the stable door once the horse has not only bolted, but booked a ticket to Brazil and established a small beachside bar.
I don’t disagree that in some specific areas of the healthcare system it may, indeed, possible that we can spend less and get more. Once again, though, I fail to see how that is an argument that cutting the public funding by 80% in Higher Education will improve outcomes. You have so far offered “it will help us attract the best teachers” without stating why you think the abolition of the block grant and the introduction of a competition-based system will do this. And, further, you haven’t offered your thoughts as to why how that will improve either the delivery of HE to our population and our “competitiveness” in the world.
The academics I know, when they are not drinking angrily or shouting denunciations of the government on the street (yes, the “student protest” was filled up with lecturers and teachers too) are complaining that their work has altered from “teaching” to, in the words of one historian, “pimping out our department’s Big Name so we can get money to keep our department open.” Is that what you mean by “attracting the best teachers”? Is that the mechanism you anticipated would improve education in the UK?
If, as your last comment seems to indicate, you haven’t actually thought that through, and voted for the changes without asking yourself the question “what is the mechanism by which the government’s proposals will do what the government says they will do, and is that a reasonable expectation?” then I find that really very disappointing. If you have thought it through, I would invite you to assuage my disappointment by answering the questions I asked. For a member of the House of Lords who has publicly stated her emphatic support of these changes, I really do not think that is a lot to ask.
I do amuse myself with this thread. Baroness Murphy seems to not like the Blogsphere and thinks Epetitions are wrong. Yet she’s a Blogger. I wonder if she’s the ignorant type, or the hateful, or the fanatic?
I also wonder if she really can’t comprehend my beliefs like she said before, when I note how bizzarre it is that one would want to promote democracy then shut it down when its not going her own way.
So which is it? Democracy, or no?
As one of those fanatics and ignorant types myself, no doubt because I am religiosu and thus can’t possibly be Rational, I’m sure what I say will be ignroed, though, whislt you vote to strip me of further rights int he name of reason, tolerance, and freethought.
“As one of those fanatics and ignorant types myself”
Got it in one. That’s not the conclusion we’ve come to because you’re religious, though. It’s because you’re an ignorant fanatic.
Please, also, note that your right to be a religious fanatic is not visibly curtailed so far. Catholics are not this century’s religious bogeyman, Zarove.
Has it occurred to you that, with trends putting a majority of the UK in the “nonsecular” camp, that your constant bleating about having your rights curtailed might just be that the rest of us aren’t being sufficiently obsequious? Not doing the hateful and discriminatory things you want us to do isn’t stripping you of rights. It’s stripping you of privilege. Big difference. Buy a dictionary.
Mcduff, you are also Religious. I’m simply playing with the words the “Rationalist” Baroness Murphy herself used. She is not Religious because she likens belief in God to fairies at the bottom of gardens and the earth being flat. Apparently, being Religious simply means you believe in God, and being an Agnostic, I did not say Atheists, means you are not Religious, and being not Religious means you use reason.
Its all rather trite.
Its especially troublesome when she hurls insults at “religious people” by saying Religious education is an oxymoron and Faith schools need to be closed down because they threaten social cohesion all based on the usual drivel spouted by Militant Secularists who simply want to instill their own beliefs and values in Children but aren’t honest enough to say so. Baroness Murphy also wants to impose her view of Homosexuality onto others without considering why people find it morally wrong, she instead uses the “Its like a race” card in order to pretend no one should have the right to discriminate on an unproven thing like sexual orientation. Forcing people to act against their moral conscience is not wrong if you are a Rationalist promoting tolerance and equality, apparently, and its not really intolerance on her part because she’s taken the Politically correct stand. All others who disagree must be forced into compliance, but because hey are wrong, this is good. No discussion is held on it, they are wrong because the Rationalists like Murphy said so!
Oh and lets not forget how she wants to up taxes on thinks like drink because she thinks economics is what drives people to the bottle.
She also condemns the United States of America for having a death penalty, but when I pointed out she’s pro abortion and people find this morally repugnant, she acts like we shouldn’t judge her and says that she has an Ontologically different point of view, and should somehow be respected. This is right after saying she’s lost respect of the Americans. Basically, people who disagree with her need to show her respect, but she can mock, berate, and condemn them for not sharing her personal convictions or believing in the same Hypothesis of our existence as she does. That’s fair, balanced, and reasonable I’d say…
All of this is of course imposing her own beliefs onto others, but hey, she’s not Religious, so its OK. its only wrong to impose a religion onto others, but Imposing reason onto them is OK, and we all know that since she’s a Rationalist she’s not Religious but uses Reason…
No one can question this, at all!
That’s the Freedom she brings, the Freedom of blind conformity to her “Mine is not a Religion” beliefs, with no one able to question the “Its not Dogma” tenets of her moral Philosophy.
By the way, it should be evident that I am not Catholic. I have stated “I am not Catholic” before, and use the Authorised Version of the Bible.
So, please tell me again about speaking in ignorance, I should ever like to learn for you on it.
If you use the AV, you are the least persecuted religion ever. Nobody’s stopping you doing anything. They’re just saying you can’t run the government like you want, because your way is idiotic and nobody likes it except your rump group of ideologues. Feel free to go live on an island and run it however you like. As long as you don’t take any women or children over there and you compose the population entirely of the kind of ignorant pale skinned men who gravitate to such authoritarian ideas, I’ve got no problem with it.
I give you a week.
McDuff, you must be joking.
If you use the AV, you are the least persecuted religion ever. Nobody’s stopping you doing anything.
So apparently you haven’t been keeping up with the news. I’ll assume you mean in Britain the least persecuted Religion ever, because globally Christians are routinely killed. Not that it matters, as my point is not what you assert it is. I suppose your just seeing it through your own Ideological Filter.
its hard to believe that in a society in which no one is permitted to even question is Sexual Orientation is an innate and immutable Trait, and can be prosecuted for Hate Crimes should they dare open their mouths about it. we’ve had such cases.
If I can do anything I like, can I deny my services to a Homosexual or refuse to hire them because I don’t approve of their “Sexual Orientation”? If not, you are not letting me do anything I like. Instead, your imposing a Moral Code, forcing me to act against my conscience. Saying its needed to create equality and tolerance doesn’t make the fundamental problem disappear, you would be forcing me to act against my own moral Convictions so that I would live by the Moral Convictions you hold. That’s wrong.
Before I’m accused of Homophobia, I also advocated for letting Ministers perform same sex unions if they liked, I’m actually a Libertarian. But that part of my argument was ignored last time, to focus on how I said store owners should have the right to refuse Homosexuals employment or services, because its their store.
That would be letting people do anything they like. Forcing them to hire or do business with Homosexuals is not.
Conversely, Murphy also wants to force people to send their Children to a State School. She opposes both Faith Schools and Homeschool because she wants to Brainwash Children into her beliefs.
How is forcing people to send their Children to a School which will teach them things they oppose, whilst forcing them to fund said schools, allowing them freedom? Its just another example of how your Religious Beliefs are being privileged above everyone else’s. Oh that’s right, you and Murphy have no Religion, so its OK to contradict what the parents believe in and teach.
In today’s Britain Nurses have been fired for offering to pray for patients. Freedom and tolerance?
Its pretty obvious the “Anti-Religious” sentiment (At least if aimed at Christians) is a feature in modern British Society and the Powers-that-be want everyone to be as Secular as they are. I offer that this secularism is simply a Rival Religion trying to crush its competition.
They’re just saying you can’t run the government like you want, because your way is idiotic and nobody likes it except your rump group of ideologues.
So what you’re saying is that people who do not believe exactly the same things you do are idiotic and should have no voice in Government.
Gee, that doesn’t come off as Arrogant at all.
This is why I don’t take the whole Modern Atheist movement seriously. I’m honestly expected to believe all Religion is irrational and only the Nonreligious beliefs held by people like you or Baroness Murphy, are Valid; even when I see obvious flaws.
I’ve seen glaring flaws in most the arguments you’ve made, and Baroness Murphy’s arguments are often just as full of Holes.
Meanwhile, when I read something from Vatican, or from Archbishop of Canterbury, or from NT Wright, I am confronted by what is said is actually highly intelligent and actually does come off as Reasonable. What’s worse is calling “Religious belief” idiotic ideology but refuse to even see my point; your beliefs are Ideological. Its obvious that you lot interpret the information by a pre-existing standard which colours your perception on what is right. Why should your Ideology be the only one considered in legislation? Especially when you are imposing said Ideology onto everyone Else?
I’m sorry but that’s the whole point of my protest here. You are forcing your Religion onto everyone else.
” I’ll assume you mean in Britain the least persecuted Religion ever, because globally Christians are routinely killed.”
But they kill an awful lot more. They’ve got bigger guns, you see, not to mention all those empires they use to starve people to death.
“So what you’re saying is that people who do not believe exactly the same things you do are idiotic and should have no voice in Government.”
No, I’m saying that people who DO believe exactly the same things YOU do are idiotic and should have only the voice in government that proportionately represents their rump population.
Do try to keep up. It’s not “religion” that’s the problem. It’s crazy b*****ds like you. Specifically like you. Not “different from me”. “The same as you”. And unless you’re pretending to be representative of all religious people which HO BOY HOWDY are you EVER not, you should be able to figure this out all by youself without a diagram. Try to work out the difference in those sets, please, because you’re coming across like someone whose nurse is going to have to wipe the drool off their chin any moment now.
If I can do anything I like, can I deny my services to a Jew or refuse to hire them because I don’t approve of their “religion”? If not, you are not letting me do anything I like. Instead, your imposing a Moral Code, forcing me to act against my conscience. Saying its needed to create equality and tolerance doesn’t make the fundamental problem disappear, you would be forcing me to act against my own moral Convictions so that I would live by the Moral Convictions you hold. That’s wrong.
Gee, it sounds so reasonable when you put it like that.
“If I can do anything I like, can I deny my services to a Jew or refuse to hire them because I don’t approve of their “religion”? If not, you are not letting me do anything I like.”
How would you like we get all Jews to live in the same place/area, we can even build a wall around them. We`ll stop their interaction with others because we don`t like their religion. We can call it the Warsaw ghetto.
Zarove be careful of your words, what you wrote was the nearest thing to Nazi-ism I have heard.
No one is imposing anything on you, you are free to debate as we are. Our democratic systems though imperfect are the will of the people, the majority. What it is coming across as is that you would like something akin to what the Taliban also would like. Be careful what you wish for.
Carl, you bring up the same trope I get tired of often. I mean, you even brought up the whole “If the Church really cared hwy not dell all its land to feed the poor” argument before, ignoring the reality that if the Church did that (By which I mean Catholic, no idea why its singled out so much) they’d not really feed all the poor and have no means to raise more money because all their resources were gone. The idea is basically polemic, because it is built on the need to show Christianity as some sort of hypocritical evil rather than look at economic and structural realities that any organisation will need basic things like land and buildings to facilitate their functions.
But the point is to make people think the Church is wealthy and hoards is money, and that’s why such arguments appeal.
Well, the same thing happens here.
You want to equate being Homosexual to being Jewish. That’s what Baroness Murphy did too. But my point is that its not like being Jewish. it’s a behaviour. That’s why saying that discrimination on the basis of Sexual orientation is just like Racism is Daft nonsense to begin with, since you are basically trying to equate how someone lives with what they look lie or what their heritage is. Being Jewish is equitable to being English or Scottish, not to being Homosexual. One can actually be Homosexual and Jewish, but one really can’ be both Jewish and Chinese. (Well, unless you mean by Religion.)
Also, comparing heat I’ve said to NAZIism is absurd. I want people to have absolute right over their own lives and complete free association, and that somehow equates to being a National Socialist.
How? If we did things as I wanted, people would be free to do as they like with their own resources. This doesn’t send all Homosexuals to concentration camps, it just means that they won’t get all the special privileges the new protections offer them. It also, however, free’s up sympathetic Ministers.
See, all this would do is say “If a Minister wants to perform a Same Sex Union, he can, provided his Church allows it. If his Church allows it, then the State will also recognise it. But no one will force said Minister to perform such a Union if it is a violation of his Moral Conscience.”
I simply apply the same standard to everyone else. You’d be free to rent rooms to Homosexual couples if you want. You’d be free to hire them if you want. You’d be free to choose to do business with them if you like. If you own a printing press and they wanted fliers for a gay event you’d be free to take their money and print those fliers.
However, many people don’t want to accommodate this lifestyle, and would not be forced to with their time and resources. If someone else is morally opposed to Homosexuality, they’d not be forced to use their printing pres to run fliers of them. They’d not be forced to rent rooms to Homosexual couples who will violate their own moral Standards. They’ not be forced to hire Homosexuals if this is their desire.
How is that anything at all like NAZI’ism?
Really the whole Pro-gay arguments these days try to demonise anyone who is not 100% behind the Gay Rights campaign.
Calling me a NAZI though won’t really make me as horrible or murderous as all that would entail.
As I said, I am a Libertarian and a Monarchist, which wouldn’t really work in terms of National Socialism.
McDuff-
” I’ll assume you mean in Britain the least persecuted Religion ever, because globally Christians are routinely killed.”
But they kill an awful lot more. They’ve got bigger guns, you see, not to mention all those empires they use to starve people to death.
Not this old lie again.
Can you show me a single instance in today’s world in which an explicitly Christian Empire is going about killing folks in the name of Christianity?
This isn’t even really True Historically, and yes I know all about the Crusades. That’s why I dismiss this sort of idiot statement.
Christians aren’t killing a lot more people than are being killed in today’s world, and the depiction you present also leads some to conclude that Christians start the fithrs, which is lunacy.
Stop being such a hatefilled bigot.
>I?
“So what you’re saying is that people who do not believe exactly the same things you do are idiotic and should have no voice in Government.”
No, I’m saying that people who DO believe exactly the same things YOU do are idiotic and should have only the voice in government that proportionately represents their rump population.
But, you never even asked me what it is I actually believe in, and calling it idiotic seems more like a mean to disparage others into silence and seek a dominance over them. In other words, you are being a bully.
Do try to keep up. It’s not “religion” that’s the problem. It’s crazy b*****ds like you.
Oh? And how, exactly, am I a problem?
Specifically like you. Not “different from me”. “The same as you”.
And, you have any sort of real evidence for this?
One can always say people like you are the real problem. What does that prove? At least if I said that I can cite your vindictiveness and readiness to condemn others who do disagree with you, such as Lord Bates, and your rather obvious tendency to misrepresent what they have said, and present a slanted view.
And unless you’re pretending to be representative of all religious people which HO BOY HOWDY are you EVER not, you should be able to figure this out all by youself without a diagram. Try to work out the difference in those sets, please, because you’re coming across like someone whose nurse is going to have to wipe the drool off their chin any moment now.
I never said I spoke for anyone, but it dos seem you haven’t said anything that relates to specifically how people exactly like me are a social problem other than by bravado and a display of disdain.
If I can do anything I like, can I deny my services to a Jew or refuse to hire them because I don’t approve of their “religion”? If not, you are not letting me do anything I like. Instead, your imposing a Moral Code, forcing me to act against my conscience. Saying its needed to create equality and tolerance doesn’t make the fundamental problem disappear, you would be forcing me to act against my own moral Convictions so that I would live by the Moral Convictions you hold. That’s wrong.
Gee, it sounds so reasonable when you put it like that.
Except, Sexual Orientation is not like being a Jew. The argument that sexual orientation Is just like Race is a really silly one that exists for the sake of Political Correctness.
No ones Race is Homosexuality. No ones religion is Homosexuality, either. Homosexuality Is a behaviour, which can be criticised on moral grounds, and as such really shouldn’t be given any special protections.
That said, given your attacks on “Religion” I’d say you come off rather hypocritically here. After all, you haven’t been too kindly disposed in the past to those who hold any sort of Theistic beliefs.
So you’re not a bigot because it’s totally different, no backsies?
Every argument against homosexuals has been made against Jews, gypsies and people of colour. Just saying “it’s a behaviour” doesn’t count, because religion is a behaviour too. Would you discriminate against a Catholic? Against a white muslim? Against a single mother? Against a woman?
You say it’s different because you want to justify being a hateful little bigot, but you can’t actually give anything that shows that other than “because I said so.”
And that petty little vindictiveness is precisely why you’re a dangerous troll who needs to be prevented from returning to power. Those of us who like a world where petty-minded cretins don’t get to enforce their sexual hang ups onto everyone else would rather not go back to the 19th century where more than 50% of the human race was defined as subhuman by privileged white men. It’s only people like you who think it was better back in the day, but, as I keep pointing out, that’s because you’re a minority who used to be able to lord it over everyone else. Now you have to treat other people as if they’re people, and it chafes your pasty white ass. That’s not the same as “discriminating” against you, that’s just you being the world’s whiniest baby.
Oh one last Carl, I read your post before I read McDuffs, so I may need to apologise to you.
It seems you Quoted me from a post by Mcduff, but McDuff had altered my actual words. I never mentioned Jews, I only mentioned Homosexuals. My point wasn’t even really about Homosexuality, it was about the rights people should have to make moral choices base don conscience. McDuff altered my quote to change “Homosexual” to “Jew” in order to try to make my argument look horrible, using the old “One form of discrimination is like another” routine and using Jews because of the NAZI connotation.
But I never said anything about Jews in my original post.
Sorry about coming down on you, but I advise you to rea dmy earlier post, and see where the confusion lay.
Zarove, why do you particularly pick out Homosexuals ? Why are they so abhorrent and others not ? Those who practice bestiality, swingers, doggers, sodomites, BDSM`ers et al.?
What has their sexual preferences to do with you providing them a service or not ? What about murderers, rapists, wife/husband beaters, priest paedophiles ? Why single out one type ?
As you should know I work partly in the prostitution industry and my life has revolved around sexuality due to sexual abuse in my childhood, this is not unusual. I have not come across ANY person who doesn`t have a deviance, a fetish of somekind (though some hide from it and pay a price). What`s yours and do I really want to know ? No because it shouldn`t matter.
If a heterosexual wifebeater books a room in your hotel is that ok ? I expect it is provided you don`t see it !
Isn`t loving your fellow man part of biblical teaching, I believe a lot more touching goes on in churches than it would in my local. I`ll go as far as to say somethings you may consider normal would be called “gay” in my local pub.
Do you really want to police everyones sexual acts ?
What about hermaphrodites, where do you stand on those ? Or the boys who because of disease maybe bought up as girls ?
You are extremely naive if you think homosexuality between two consenting partners is the most perverse thing on this earth.
My nephew is homosexual what do you suggest I do ? Not have him in my home ? Don`t conduct business with him ? Force him to change his behaviour and beg forgiveness from God knowing my sins are far greater ? His sexuality has no bearing on my life, why should it ?
Your moral crusade is no different to that of the Taliban and the Christian Church has a very long history assiciated with sexual deviance of many kinds.
Carl, its hard to take you seriously, when you say things like you did above. The statement that I’m just like the Taliban is just rubbish of course, but its Rubbish that works because I am Religious like they are and thus want to force my Religion onto everyone else. Good thing people like you, or McDuff, or Baroness Murphy aren’t Religious, because that way you can’t force anything on to us and are just trying o be Fair and create a society of Equals… of course those of us who don’t go along with your Rational beliefs must be Irrational fanatics…
The Truth is the opposite of course. You are like the Taliban, and so is Baroness Murphy. You do have a Religion; you simply don’t believe In God. The two are distinct. You have beliefs abut our world and what is and Is not right, and want to force everyone else into compliance with your moral Standards, even to the point that you force them to act against their own moral convictions simply because you personally disagree. That’s what you’re accusing me of, and that’s why this whole “I have no Religion” angle really comes off as a Smokescreen.
You aren’t even really reading what I’ve said. You’re just focusing on the whole perceived Homophobia. The thing is, I’m not fixated on the Gay issue at all, I’m fixated on the issue that Baroness Murphy wants to force people to act against their Will in how they use their own Property and Time, and wants to force people to do things as she see’s fit.
That’s why your statement about your Gay Nephew is meaningless. Its not like I’m asking to outlaw all gay people or have them arrested, I simply don’t think a Hotel run by a Private Party should be compelled to rent a room to a Homosexual Couple if this is against his own moral convictions. This is not the same as saying the Hotel Owner should be forced by law not to rent a Homosexual Couple a Room, and in fact it’s so obviously not the same thing that I do wonder if you’re actually reading what I’ve said.
Then again, you also say that what happens in my Church would seem far more gay that what happens in your Pub, so apparently Handshakes are very gay to you. I do happen to go to Church, but no real Physical Contact happens in the course of the services. Its not like we’re Pentecostals or anything. We go in, have a Study, listen to a Sermon, and then sit whilst the Lords Supper is delivered to us on platters, while we wait in our Pews.
Its not an overly touchy feely event.
This sort of stupidity of course is mentioned to somehow depict Christians as more gay and I’m not even sure hwy since the whole matter I’m discussing is one of Law. I could be an Atheist and still hold the same basic principles. This is because I am a Libertarian.
I really just want people to be free to make their own choices over their own property. That’s it. I want people o be Free to make their own Choices in how hey spend their own time and resources, and who they associate with, and think its none of the Governments Business whether or not they approve of Homosexuality.
At the same time, its also none of the Governments Business on how you Treat your Nephew.
Oh, and please do stop making insulting assumptions about me that I’d rent rooms to Paedophile Priests and Wife Beaters but not to gays. That sort of comment is degrading. I don’t have any regard for those who would harm others, and would only rent a room to a Wife Beater if I planned on calling the Police and having him picked up rather easily because they know exactly where he is. Wife Beaters, Paedophile Priests, any other Violent Criminal, they’d simply be arrested.
That said, why Is your Hatred of Christianity so thorough that you’d mention Paedophile Priest specifically? Is a Paedophile Priest worse than a Paedophile Schoolteacher or a Paedophile Construction Worker? Of course not, but you want o depict “The Christian Church” as evil. It gets old. Its as stupid as the oft repeated refrain about the Churches Fabulous wealth and how the Church doesn’t care about the Poor, or the Refrain you used above on how the Christian Church has produced all sorts of evils. Why is Anti-Christian Bigotry and Discrimination right, Carl? Why is It OK to depict all Christians as somehow degenerate and “The Christian Church”, all apparently one organisation, as a cruel and oppressive force? Don’t you think that undercuts your whole argument?
“This is because I am a Libertarian.”
I’ve never met a libertarian who wasn’t a white male with social issues. Some of them have been quite *nice* white males with social issues, but still.
I’m sure that somewhere out there there are female and black libertarians. It’s just that, in general, it seems to attract a very particular kind of person. Someone for whom the idea that they might be privileged by accident of birth strikes them as monstrously insulting, for example.
McDuff, your rude comments illustrate why your Socialism and godlessness don’t tend to make your beliefs particularly attractive.
All I ask for is simple. People should have absolute control over that which they personally own. They should be able to educate their Children however they like, inducing in the Religion they belong to as opposed to the Religion you and Baroness Murphy belong to. They should be able to make Moral and Ethical Choices on their own.
They also shouldn’t be subjected to the regular Insults by people like you who want to say they are all Irrational as if you have some sort of Monopoly on Reason.
I don’t see this as being a Racial Issue, and fail to see hwy you need to bring up Race at all.
The reason it’s an issue involving race, Zarove, is that a racist private bus owner could quite easily say that if black people wanted to ride on his busses they would either have to sit at the back, or walk. And if they didn’t like it, well, private property rights, yeah?
Of course, you’ll probably have a really good excuse for why that thing that actually happened can’t possibly happen. I’d love to hear it.
Or I could ask why its the Governments business and be accused of Racism, because we all know if you think Private Property owners should be allowed to be Racist you are Racist yourself.
Nice Try McDuff, but you still don’t win, because that’s sort of the point. If a Black Bus Company Owner hated white people he’d have the same right, wouldn’t he?
And again, how does this really equate to “Sexual Orientation’ which itself can’t even be proven to exist and which is solely defined by ones behaviour?
Further, how does it sit when you want to force people to accept someone’s sexual conduct on the basis that its a “Sexual Orientation” and like Race, but want to “Remove the privileged place Religion has in society”? Doesn’t it seem contradictive? Apparently all Religion must be shut away into private Homes and Churches, so the “Nonreligious” people like you and Baroness Murphy can do as you please, make all the laws according to your beliefs, which aren’t Religious, and teach Children, all because Religion prevents you from thinking for yourself and making Rational decisions. That’s the basis for closing Faith Schools isn’t it? Religion causes social division and prevents Children from getting a Proper grip on ideas.
Yet Religion is Fundamental, it deals with the totality of life, and as it is defined, it is the very way in which we understand our existence, which is why the Nonreligious like you and Baroness Murphy seem like Liars, as you apparently have beliefs about our existence you want to force everyone else into compliance with. And that’s OK. its OK to force everyone into the Rationalism that Baroness Murphy possesses, or you use, but somehow its wrong also to say to someone ” I don’t think what you do sexually, which only effects your sex life, is unhealthy’???
Why not Remove the Privileges gay people have like you do the Religious?
oh that’s right, because your a total hypocrite.
It really boils down to this: You and baroness Murphy want to close down that which you personally disagree with, and force compliance with that which you personally accept.
There isn’t an ounce of Logic in this, nor Freedom, just polemic about “removing the Privileged place religion Has” and “Defending someone Rights”, which amounts to people being favoured whom you’re “Nonreligion’ favours and shunned and oppressed whom you find in contempt of hose selfsame beliefs.
That’s the Lie.
If a Black Bus Company Owner hated white people he’d have the same right, wouldn’t he?
You lose. You lose very, very hard. You lost in Montgomery, Alabama, fifty years ago. And your ignorance has lost you this argument now.
Argument from nonsensical “all things being equal” flights of imagination loses because all things are not equal, and when your ideas are tried in history they result in massive discrimination and disadvantage. That you are so *ignorant* of history that you couldn’t even recognise a reference to one of the most famous and pivotal moments of the Civil Rights movement speaks absolute volumes about how people like you, if ever given the chance, would be dangerous. Not because you’re bad or evil, but because you are deliberately stupid, and keep yourselves ignorant in order to maintain belief in a set of philosophies that cannot work except in a world that is not this one.
If you were just uneducated or unprivileged I would have some sympathy. But you drip privilege. You exude it. And everything about you speaks to the fact that any fact, anything that really happened, any person in history whose biography can tell you that your ideas fail when tried, any observed unintended — or intended — consequence, should be discounted if it would mean you’d ever have to examine your glass-fragile beliefs. Yours is not the idiocy of those who cannot help it, sir, but the mendacious stupidity of those who have to work very, very hard to stop themselves from learning.
You lose.