Anyone else watching Paxman destory Cameron?

Flamed Diving

I must say I am enjoying this.

BroomBurner

I missed it, just read some highlights from the Guardian liveblog. Any chance of a summary?

I'm looking forward to hearing how Brown and Clegg get on with Paxman aswell.

mike65

Malcolm Tucker election blog

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PeakOutput

i think he did ok not as impressive as his ted talk by a long shot which has dissapointed me but ill watch cleggs interview too and judge then

cm2000

Paxman is an excellent interviewer. I though Cameron did OK, but not great. Honestly I can see very little about him that is conservative at all. It is amazing how Labour and the Conservatives have morphed into one giant middle of the road party with virtually no divergence in their ideology.

PeakOutput

cm2000 wrote: »

Paxman is an excellent interviewer. I though Cameron did OK, but not great. Honestly I can see very little about him that is conservative at all. It is amazing how Labour and the Conservatives have morphed into one giant middle of the road party with virtually no divergence in their ideology.

well maybe thats because thats were the answer lies and they see that now? in the center

cm2000

PeakOutput wrote: »

well maybe thats because thats were the answer lies and they see that now? in the center

Yeah its worked out great for them, and us :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

PeakOutput wrote: »

well maybe thats because thats were the answer lies and they see that now? in the center

There's a general social democratic consensus these days, because that's what provides what the majority of people actually want. The UK is just a little slower following that trend, but that's where we are, and that's where Europe is. The days of extreme political experimentation are over for the moment.

Yeah its worked out great for them, and us

Yes, it has, in fact. The current round of troubles aren't anything much so far, compared to the effects of the rather more exciting policies pursued in the earlier half of the twentieth century, and it comes after a couple of decades of pretty much uninterrupted growth. At our current rates of recession, it would take a couple of decades to get back to the early Nineties - and the early Nineties were alright.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PeakOutput

cm2000 wrote: »

Yeah its worked out great for them, and us :rolleyes:

which way do you think it needs to be biased towards?

cm2000

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's a general social democratic consensus these days, because that's what provides what the majority of people actually want. The UK is just a little slower following that trend, but that's where we are, and that's where Europe is. The days of extreme political experimentation are over for the moment.



Yes, it has, in fact. People not being quite as well off as they were before is hardly disastrous.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A gradual drift of everyone to the center leads to the acceptance and implementation of unsustainable entitlements. It leads to a situation where politicians such as Fine Gael offer unconditional "contracts" of entitlements irrespective of future economic or fiscal reality. A debate of divergent ideology on the role and responsibility of government is essential to avoid policies which, when circumstances change, don't cripple countries like it is doing across the developed world.

cm2000

PeakOutput wrote: »

which way do you think it needs to be biased towards?

I think it should be biased toward very very careful consideration when any new entitlement is created. It is very easy to implement an entitlement but very difficult to pay for it when circumstances change

Scofflaw

cm2000 wrote: »

A gradual drift of everyone to the center leads to the acceptance and implementation of unsustainable entitlements. It leads to a situation where politicians such as Fine Gael offer unconditional "contracts" of entitlements irrespective of future economic or fiscal reality. A debate of divergent ideology on the role and responsibility of government is essential to avoid policies which, when circumstances change, don't cripple countries like it is doing across the developed world.

I don't think the issue of entitlement is related to the lack of ideology, except in the sense that, lacking vision to inspire, politicians fall back on simpler forms of voter bribery. However, the great political visions are also issues of entitlement - socialism offers the workers what they want (or are supposed to want), while libertarianism offers the rich what they want.

I suspect what you're actually alluding to here is that a centrist consensus tends to wind up offering a vision of plenty (and the fruits of plenty) to the majority, which leads in turn to a mass culture of entitlement - but I'm not sure that ideologies that involve depriving some part of the citizen body of a share are necessarily an improvement on that. The cure may be worse than the disease.

cordially,
Scofflaw

southsiderosie

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think the issue of entitlement is related to the lack of ideology, except in the sense that, lacking vision to inspire, politicians fall back on simpler forms of voter bribery. However, the great political visions are also issues of entitlement - socialism offers the workers what they want (or are supposed to want), while libertarianism offers the rich what they want.

I suspect what you're actually alluding to here is that a centrist consensus tends to wind up offering a vision of plenty (and the fruits of plenty) to the majority, which leads in turn to a mass culture of entitlement - but I'm not sure that ideologies that involve depriving some part of the citizen body of a share are necessarily an improvement on that. The cure may be worse than the disease.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hm, but my question would be which workers? In much of continental Europe with social democratic policies, a two-tiered system has emerged over time: workers over 40 generally have good contracts and are well-protected, while young workers have double the rate of national unemployment and often can only get temporary work. In addition, with countries that have a significant pool of immigrant labor, native workers are highly protected while immigrant workers are not...and that is where the problems with the second generation emerge, since they are not willing to do the menial work that their parents did in the secondary labor market, but are often still locked out of the primary (i.e. safe and stable) sector.

As an 'under 35' I am extremely alarmed by the kinds of expensive benefits and programs that older generations vote for themselves, with seemingly little thought as to how society is going to pay for it. And as an earlier poster noted, once an entitlement program is in place it is almost impossible to dismantle, as it creates its own constituency which will defend it politically. Politicians need to have some vision of the 'greater good' beyond the so-called 'Greatest Generation' who consistently agitated for more government services and less government taxes.

Scofflaw

southsiderosie wrote: »

Hm, but my question would be which workers? In much of continental Europe with social democratic policies, a two-tiered system has emerged over time: workers over 40 generally have good contracts and are well-protected, while young workers have double the rate of national unemployment and often can only get temporary work. In addition, with countries that have a significant pool of immigrant labor, native workers are highly protected while immigrant workers are not...and that is where the problems with the second generation emerge, since they are not willing to do the menial work that their parents did in the secondary labor market, but are often still locked out of the primary (i.e. safe and stable) sector.

As an 'under 35' I am extremely alarmed by the kinds of expensive benefits and programs that older generations vote for themselves, with seemingly little thought as to how society is going to pay for it. And as an earlier poster noted, once an entitlement program is in place it is almost impossible to dismantle, as it creates its own constituency which will defend it politically. Politicians need to have some vision of the 'greater good' beyond the so-called 'Greatest Generation' who consistently agitated for more government services and less government taxes.

The question of who socialism offers benefits to is irrelevant to any discussion of the European consensus, though, because none of the European countries are socialist...have I taken you up wrong?

slightly puzzled,
Scofflaw

BroomBurner

Thanks donegalfella or posting up those links.

I'm about half way through the Cameron interview. Paxman is excellent as usual, picking up on the little slips and lack of exact detail given by Cameron. In fairness to the Conservative leader, he's not doing too badly. He is focusing on how to make savings and who to do this through. However, people might not be prone to trust that they will do it properly, seeing that they are Tories.

On the Paxman set, I'm glad to see how neutral it is. It makes it more likely that the dirty tricks Sky got up to on Thursday night won't happen next week for the final debate on BBC.

BroomBurner

Just watching the Clegg Paxman interview. Paxman is very rightly picking through the LibDem policies. However, Clegg hasn't switched his beliefs on anything, stuck to his guns on what he's saying, which helps to show how committed he is to the party's policies. Makes him helluva lot more believable than Cameron.

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's a general social democratic consensus these days, because that's what provides what the majority of people actually want. The UK is just a little slower following that trend, but that's where we are, and that's where Europe is. The days of extreme political experimentation are over for the moment...

I think that is broadly true, and it provokes two thoughts:
1. It appears to me that much of the centrist consensus is not ideological in a positive sense, but rather a rejection of right or left wing positions which tend to be ideologically based. I regret this, because I want those who seek my vote to be able to say "I believe in <whatever> because <rationale>". I am not inspired by those who effectively say "We will do what the other lot have been doing, only better".
2. Anybody whose view of political sentiment in Ireland is based on reading this forum would be surprised to hear the centrism is the consensus. [They might be equally surprised to learn that Ireland is a rabies-free zone.]

BroomBurner

I don't want to cause offence, but there is a political theory forum on Boards, this is meant to be about the Paxman interviews, I've clicked in to this thread a few times only to read threads about centrist politicising, when I was expecting other's feedback.

Would it be possible for the on-topic posts to be merged with the UK debate thread in to a mega-thread on the UK election for anyone who wants to discuss the elements of the UK election only?

loldog

cm2000 wrote: »

Paxman is an excellent interviewer. I though Cameron did OK, but not great. Honestly I can see very little about him that is conservative at all. It is amazing how Labour and the Conservatives have morphed into one giant middle of the road party with virtually no divergence in their ideology.

Remember he's just the guy they've put out in front, the Tory party is still full of libertarian ideologues and people who think like Norman Tebbitt.

.