New Diesel & Petrol Ban

[Phil Pascoe]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-vehicles-prices-diesel-cars-uk-b2623668.html

 

[woodieallen]

To be fair they are a long way off reaching the sleaze level of the Tories, Michelle Mone springs to mind.

But they have also badly let down those who had hoped they would set a better example.

Great opportunity as an incoming government with a massive majority to simply ban these practices outright.
I really cannot see any justification for them.

More worrying is the fact that we have senior figures in government who have so little common sense that they can make such stupid decisions.

Did we see the back of such buffoons as Truss and Johnson, to replace them with more clueless idiots, just flying a red rather than a blue flag?

Hopefully not, but the early signs are not promising.

I used to think that there could be no PM worse than Liz Truss. Starmer is trying very hard to prove me wrong. It's stupid decision after stupid decision. Latest being giving the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. True, we're still keeping Diego Garcia but for how long since Mauritius is hand-in-glove with China ? Look how nicely China play in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

 

[woodieallen]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-vehicles-prices-diesel-cars-uk-b2623668.html

Good post, Phil.. That should satisfy the naysayers here.

 

[NickDReed]

Precisely. He was repeating something from a probably propaganda source (note he refused to identify the person) which was seeking to promote (true) authoritarianism by exploiting racial division. Spectric was not saying that he was promoting it or agreed with it, but at the same time he was regurgitating and spreading it while saying it would be wrong not to have an open mind to it. No. Really no need for an open mind to fascist propaganda dung. That's a really basic 'just asking questions' approach to promoting poisonous ideas (cf Joe Rogan etc).

Part of post #8 is anecdote about an interview in which an individual made a link between communities living somewhat harmoniously under a certain style of authority, and subsequently under a differing style of authority being at odds/conflict with each other.

I do not see how looking at something critically and making a link that is seemingly factual (the Balkan states/ethnic groups were not in a state of war whilst part of the Soviet Union, and not long after the collapse of the Union were at war) is promoting any type of social structure.

From the detail in post #8 no case is made for or against authoritarian rule, it simple states there is a perceived link.

It seems from your post that what you would like to do is censor people who see links that you do not agree with, or see as threatening. You have decided that repeating the link made in this interview is somehow dangerous and people need to be protected from it. If this is the case you are acting as the arbiter of what is or is not acceptable information, something I imagine you would consider outrageous if it was information you agreed with that someone else suggested needed suppressing.

Your position here is essentially the modern equivalent of burning books.

 

[Jacob]

....

Starmer was especially sanctimonious,

That's it in a word. He is totally lacking in self awareness and political nous.
He was in the news making excuses and was actually talking of needing "new principles" now he is PM, as though you can pick-n-mix your principles to suit the occasion.
This is very consistent with the whole string of pledges he has abandoned on his way up the greasy pole, not least the betrayal of his erstwhile colleagues.
Supposedly a "human rights lawyer" but a supporter of the genocide and brutality of the Israeli regime. What a horrid little man he really is, and becoming less popular by the minute, which is good to hear - all hope is not lost!
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...r-hits-new-low-in-personal-popularity-ratings

 

[Jake]

It seems from your post that what you would like to do is censor people who see links that you do not agree with, or see as threatening. ...

Your position here is essentially the modern equivalent of burning books.

I'm not censoring anyone.

Spectric spread some authoritarian promoting carp, I said so, he told me I had to keep an open mind to such tosh, and I said I think there is absolutely no need to keep an open mind to that sort of thing. I've since been forced to explain my own position as to why I do not want to waste any of my own time on that sort of poisonous nonsense, over and over again, to you.

Me refusing to read Mein Kampf is not the same as burning it or any other book. You (and Spectric) have no right to insist that I do, whether in the interests of being open-minded or otherwise.

 

[NorthernSteve]

Yep, not corruption at all unless a link can be shown between acceptance of gifts and policy decisions.
When BBC reported the gifts issue initially, it wasn't anything to do with rules etc, is was seen as a sign there was division in the ranks (which we all know) leading to the information.
Just people getting over excited.

How does one show a correlation between donations and policy decisions? If a policy decision pre bribe is a finely balanced binary decision, it is near impossible to prove external influence. For this reason most companies have a blanket policy of no gifts. And where gifts are given, they are treated as taxable benefits. As a minimum, gifts to politicians should classed as taxable benefits. Better still - no personal gifts. We have let politicians get away with far too much for far too long. Time for an overhaul.

 

[Jake]

Part of post #8 is anecdote about an interview in which an individual made a link between communities living somewhat harmoniously under a certain style of authority, and subsequently under a differing style of authority being at odds/conflict with each other.

I do not see how looking at something critically and making a link that is seemingly factual (the Balkan states/ethnic groups were not in a state of war whilst part of the Soviet Union, and not long after the collapse of the Union were at war) is promoting any type of social structure.

From the detail in post #8 no case is made for or against authoritarian rule, it simple states there is a perceived link.

I find it hard not to see this as anything other disingenuous weaselling. The interview as described by Spectric is clearly advocating a choice between accepting the need for authoritarian rule or accepting racial strife. It's complete poppycock, but 100% aligned with Putinist anti-Western propaganda lines.

Still waiting to hear who the interviewee was (and the interviewer and the platform would be interesting to know too, don't you think? Got to keep your eyes open as well as (indeed before) minds.

 

[Delaney]

I believe corruption, fraud, lying and dishonesty are rife in most jobs involving any form of power or authority from local councils all the way to the government and backhanders and brown envelopes make the decisions whether they are wearing a tory badge or a labour one they all are the same trying to get their snouts in the trough.

Mp’s spend a lot of time trying to convince the public that they're ‘really good people’ - “my colleagues on the most part are really good decent hard working people” ~ Politician ‘x'

I suspect that in reality the selection process you go through requires and encourages people who are narcissistic, amoral and entitled. The ‘really good people’ are weeded out long before that. That’s why the parliament now mostly consists of lawyers, PPE’s, Uni to spad types and other political professionals. Almost the very last people you want in power.

The product of this is thinking it's perfectly fine to accept handouts and ‘gifts’ when you've been elected as an MP, or leader of the country. That’s actually the exact time when it's not ok.
Imagine walking down the street and asking some blokes GF if you could buy her a dress! You’d probably get punched in the mouth. Or walking up to some stranger and asking if you can buy them a suit, or pair of glasses! They would look at you very suspiciously.

Narcissists always rise to the top. because they are amoral and intelligent. They have a track record of being very successful. I think what's happened to the west and why it is in such rapid decline, is because too many narcissists for too long, have gathered at the top of our institutions and turned a generally sane world, into an asylum.

The fact that the term gaslighting has become one of the zeitgeist words of today, is not an anomaly. If anyone doesn't know, gaslighting is the most common tactic used by narcissists as a form of manipulative abuse.
We should be educating our children in schools to spot narcissists but we don't, which is strange, given that they are so damaging to individuals and society at large.
Kier Stammer for example shows typical narcissistic behaviour. He’s dishonest to his core, manipulative, highly irritated when caught out, self serving and authoritarian.

 

[Jacob]

I find it hard not to see this as anything other disingenuous weaselling, it is clearly advocating a choice between accepting the need for authoritarian rule or accepting racial strife. It's complete poppycock, but 100% aligned with Putinist anti-Western propaganda lines.

Malign and misinformed comments and opinions, such as those coming from racists, climate change sceptics, anti vaxxers and other lunatics, have consequences, particularly when their nonsense is so easily disseminated by social media and the right wing press.
They are potentially much more than merely harmless incitements to stupidity.

 

[NickDReed]

I've since been forced to explain my own position as to why I do not want to waste any of my own time on that sort of poisonous nonsense, over and over again, to you.

Me refusing to read Mein Kampf is not the same as burning it or any other book. You (and Spectric) have no right to insist that I do, whether in the interests of being open-minded or otherwise.

1. No one has insisted you read anything.

2. No posts other than yours have suggested what information or musings should or shouldn't be available for someone to read, should they choose to.

3. The Mein Kampf analogy does not reflect your position as I understand it in this thread. Your position has been that certain information should not be in, or spread throughout the public domain. Not one of refusal to read such information. Reading Mein Kampf would not make you anti semitic, or fascist anymore than reading the Das Kapital or The Wealth of Nations would would make you believe in the benefits of Communism or Capitalism. They simply provide information for the reader to then make their own conclusions.

4. I am curious about your position as it seems to be anti authoritarian while at the same time promoting an authoritarian stand point when it comes to certain information. As a result of my curiosity I am challenging that, without any force whatsoever you are choosing to engage with me and explain yourself.

 

[Jake]

1. No one has insisted you read anything.

I was criticised for not being open minded to that sort of rubbish.

2. No posts other than yours have suggested what information or musings should or shouldn't be available for someone to read, should they choose

No-one is going to be able to prevent the push side of authoritarian propaganda - there's a bloc of the world which is opposed to our fundamental values and will always ensure it is available.

3. The Mein Kampf analogy does not reflect your position as I understand it in this thread. Your position has been that certain information should not be in, or spread throughout the public domain. Not one of refusal to read such information. Reading Mein Kampf would not make you anti semitic, or fascist anymore than reading the Das Kapital or The Wealth of Nations would would make you believe in the benefits of Communism or Capitalism. They simply provide information for the reader to then make their own conclusions.

Oh back to vacuous 'just be open minded'. See sadistic murderers and cannibals - I have heard there are specialist forums for the latter at least (where some German guy is said to have found a volunteer to be eaten). All good right, imbibing a bit of that will just make one better educated and with a broader spectrum of views to take into account?

We are in the cold phase of a war to preserve western democracy against the rise of authoritarian power, and I do think it is incumbent on good citizens to think about what (mis and dis) information they are listening to and spreading. However, no-one is actually going to censor it out of existence (and who could, unless perhaps they had moderator powers I suppose).

4. I am curious about your position as it seems to be anti authoritarian while at the same time promoting an authoritarian stand point when it comes to certain information. As a result of my curiosity I am challenging that, without any force whatsoever you are choosing to engage with me and explain yourself.

There is nothing authoritarian about my views, you are back to a silly interpretation of authoritarianism which amounts to no more than anything which suggests any individual should do anything other than the first thing that comes into their head is authoritarian because it impinges on liberty.

 

[Chris152]

There is nothing authoritarian about my views, you are back to a silly interpretation of authoritarianism which amounts to no more than anything which suggests any individual should do anything other than the first thing that comes into their head is authoritarian because it impinges on liberty.

Aye, the suggestion that a democratically elected govt stopping production of certain types of engine for the health of the planet and its people is authoritarian is simply a mis-use of the word 'authoritarian'. It's a Social Contract.

eta - Wiki sums it up nicely - 'Social contract arguments typically are that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order.'

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Not you as well. It is not authoritarian for a democratically elected government to implement a policy for which it has a mandate even if that restricts peoples' freedom to choose. We know better than cannibals and mass murderers, right? We think we know better and that it is in their (and our) best interest not to be able to eat and sadistically kill some of the rest of us. They obviously disagree but there is a democratic consensus that they should not be able to exercise their freedom of choice.

There is a fundamental difference between those rules that are imposed to protect the reasonable rights of others, compared with those rules which imposed upon an individual substantially on the basis of "we know best".

Rules preventing and enforcing anti-social behaviours - theft, violence, speeding, protection of children etc etc - are that which a society should rightly impose upon all.

We tend to regard certain behaviours as "bad" and want to limit freedoms - eg: drugs, alcohol, smoking. Other behaviours also risk injury or death - rock climbing, mountain biking, rugby, deep sea diving, boxing, even working excessive hours etc. Yet we generally applaud those who indulge.

That which is largely a personal choice and has limited impact on others should be left to individual choice. A decent society should provide support to those who may otherwise make personally damaging or foolish choices - but ultimately folk should be free to choose.

 

[Jacob]

Aye, the suggestion that a democratically elected govt stopping production of certain types of engine for the health of the planet and its people is authoritarian is simply a mis-use of the word 'authoritarian'.

It's authoritarian not unlike ordering kids not to tread on thin ice on a pond, or to keep away from the edge of a cliff. Saving them from their childishness innocence, or stupidity in the case of some adults!

 

[Jacob]

...... A decent society should provide support to those who may otherwise make personally damaging or foolish choices - but ultimately folk should be free to choose.

......with due regard to how it impacts on others. And people sometimes need protecting from themselves.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

There is a fundamental difference between those rules that are imposed to protect the reasonable rights of others, compared with those rules which imposed upon an individual substantially on the basis of "we know best".

Rules preventing and enforcing anti-social behaviours - theft, violence, speeding, protection of children etc etc - are that which a society should rightly impose upon all.

We tend to regard certain behaviours as "bad" and want to limit freedoms - eg: drugs, alcohol, smoking. Other behaviours also risk injury or death - rock climbing, mountain biking, rugby, deep sea diving, boxing, even working excessive hours etc. Yet we generally applaud those who indulge.

That which is largely a personal choice and has limited impact on others should be left to individual choice. A decent society should provide support to those who may otherwise make personally damaging or foolish choices - but ultimately folk should be free to choose.

Agreed.

Except, of course, that "speeding" per se, harms nobody.

The thing about having a strong opinion about ICE being banned, as an "authoritarian" evil, is verging on the silly - since we'll still have cars and personal freedom to travel. The motive force for said cars will just be delivered by an alternative means...

I welcomed the indoor smoking ban, seen by many as "authoritarian", because smoking damages other people. We know intrinsically that laws against common assault are not authoritarian. Banning smoking indoors is simply an extension of that ethos.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Quick cursory check in the past 10 mins has confirmed to me that commitments to being "green", "greener", "combat climate change", and "net zero" appear in all of the pre-election (winning party) manifestos back to at least 2010...

 

[Jake]

There is a fundamental difference between those rules that are imposed to protect the reasonable rights of others, compared with those rules which imposed upon an individual substantially on the basis of "we know best".

I could probably take issue with that if I was feeling like engaging with the premises, but if I just accept that as the premise, this is not an argument about authoritarianism. It's an argument about what the parameters of the social contract should be and where the balance should be struck between individual (self-perceived) interests and wider societal interests.

You could have that argument in democratic society or in an authoritarian one (although the latter might lead to more unpleasant consequences depending on whether your views coincide or not with those of the authoritarian leader).

 

[Jacob]

Agreed.

Except, of course, that "speeding" per se, harms nobody.

Well neither does charging about waving a samurai sword, per se!

The thing about having a strong opinion about ICE being banned, as an "authoritarian" evil, is verging on the silly - since we'll still have cars and personal freedom to travel. The motive force for said cars will just be delivered by an alternative means...

yep

I welcomed the indoor smoking ban, seen by many as "authoritarian", because smoking damages other people. We know intrinsically that laws against common assault are not authoritarian. Banning smoking indoors is simply an extension of that ethos.

yep