What next?

[Saracen]

As for everyone else, we don't need a discussion and analysis of any faults Animus may or may not have either.

Keep this about debate, on both sides, and not about personal digs, veiled or otherwise.


The moderating team have asked, repeatedly, for people to not do this. We even had Tiggerai threatening to wield her club. And it worked for a while.

But if we start to go back to that type of personal dig again, I warn people here and now, I'm going to be wielding my club, and I don't have Tigg's patience.

So to everyone, cool it.

[SeriousSam]

But the beauty of it is that we'll all be in the same boat. Then we'll get to see who is worth what in real terms.

It's answers like this that only serve to reinforce the negative perception of you that exists within various quarters in these forums. Perhaps if you stopped to think for a second then maybe you might have something more interesting and constructive to add to the discussions. Personally I think that you're an idiot, but then again I work from the premise that everyones an idiot (including myself) it is just the degree of idiocy that varies. Oh and to be clear thats not an insult aimed at you as I'd be insulting myself as well. It's merely an attempt to use "emotive" language to try and get you to stop and think "why does he think I'm an idiot?". Then perhaps you'll try to look beyond your own staunchly held perceived view.

Anyway, starting out with a few baisc premises lets map out a potential future and one that is not even worst case.

1. Global population continues to rise inexorably towards 10 Billion
2. A significant proportion of governments continue to chase renewable technologies / biofuels
3. Our climate continues to change in terms of rainfall but not in regards to runaway greenhouse scenarios
4. The rate of consumption of oil continues to rise

All it will take to cause a collapse is the following and none are beyond the realms of probability. In fact in regards to no.1 there is already a body of evidence to suggest that this is the case.

1. The amount of energy / fuel avaiable from alternatives is limited below a level where it can support our population
2. Available i.e. extractable oil reserves are not as large as we believed
3. Water / Food requirements rise significantly beyond our capacity (we are already struggling)

Now this collapse will not be immediate but will become increasingly apparent. So what do you think will happen? If you think that everyone in the world will come together to solve these issues then I only have to point to China / Russia to show that key countries will look after themselves first. I'd also add in the US as they have an isolationist undercurrent as well, which further compounds the problem.

Where it gets difficult to predict is in terms of how far governments will go to protect the interests of their own people. Conventional wars over land that provides key resources is hardly a great stretch. Added to which certain governments have already started land grabs, e.g. China in Africa. Do you think the local people will accept that when they start to starve and die in large numbers?

Once peoples backs are against the walls human nature will kick in and whilst this will bring positives it will also bring some significant negatives. Most people don't think of survival in global species terms, it starts with self then family then friends extending out slowly out towards countrymen. In addition, in these circumstances people look towards those with power to protect them and their interests. Again it's not much of a stretch to say that this will concentrate power in the hands of those that have it for as long as they continue to protect those that gave them that power.

So we won't all be in the same boat. Those with power will be better off than those protected by those with power, who in turn will be better off than those without anyone powerful to protect them.

Do I believe that there is a solution to this then yes.

Do I believe we are enlightened enough to realise and accept the consequences of the solution then no.

[santa claus]

It's answers like this.....gibberish.....more gibberish.....some deep thinking....conclusion: we're all doomed.

Is it ok if as an idiot I ask an idiotic question please? (I'll assume yes. And that wasn't the question!).

Now I know I find it hard to grasp concepts and I'm not such a deep thinker as you but......

....just what are you rambling on about?

[Rave]

But the beauty of it is that we'll all be in the same boat. Then we'll get to see who is worth what in real terms.

Oh right....so presumably the ultimate aim of New Labour's "Meritocracy" was to completely collapse society so that the "meritorious" could rise to the top and rule unhindered over the plebs?

As someone who has posted once in this thread up until now, I'd like to say to Saracen, even at the risk of a sanction myself: I think your threat of sanctions to TheAnimus was very partial, especially as Santa Claus is, though I CBA to use the forum search function right now, a self confessed wind-up-merchant.

Edit:

You're a very greedy boy.

So that's an acceptable statement of fact is it, as opposed to TheAnimus' very personal attacks?

To Santa, referring to his suggestion that I should leave the union if I don't agree with collective action (This thread's too complicated to multiquote): I've paid my ~£10 a month union dues for the last five years for the sake of collective pay bargaining and because I'd like backup if I were ever subject to disciplinary proceedings. I don't exactly get great value for money, but then I don't get great value from the NHS since I'm never ill, and I don't object to paying for that. But if my union steps over the line from defending its members interests, to sabotaging the economy for reasons I profoundly disagree with, I'll leave on the spot. And woe betide the fool who attempts to hassle me on my way into work for being a scab.

[peterb]

The Libdem story so far...

Chris Huhne, Libdem cabinet minister - detectives are expected to interview the Energy Secretary and his ex-wife Vicky Pryce amid allegations she was asked to accept penalty points on his behalf in 2003.

David Laws, former Chief Secretary to the Treasury - resigned following an investigation into his claiming of false expenses, for which he was suspended from parliament.

Vince Cable - said that widespread industrial action could ratchet up pressure on the Government to strengthen strike laws.

Nick Clegg - reneged on a flagship Libdem policy despite signing the Vote for Students pledge to oppose any increase in student tuition fees and was pounded by the AV result.

I suppose that when you're unexpectedly propelled into power, it comes as something of a shock but to be falling apart at the seams after just a few months of sharing the hotseat shows you can fool some of the people all of the time.

A real Government will return soon. In the meantime, can we just leave it to the Cons to govern please ?

To drag the thread back on topic, and in answer to "what next?",

My prediction is that there will be some leaked letters confirming the speculation that Ed Balls and Gordon Brown were back briefing against Tony Blair, and that Brown repeatedly ignored advice about the economy and embarked on a huge public spending plan that the country could not afford...

Oh noes - The telegraph beat me to it.

What next....?

As Christine Odine says

Labour supporters must wish they could go back under the duvet this morning

[santa claus]

I think your threat of sanctions to TheAnimus was very partial, especially as Santa Claus is, though I CBA to use the forum search function right now, a self confessed wind-up-merchant.

If you read the thread I think you'll find that TheAnimus wound himself up. I even apologised (I don't know why) to placate a potential row. Read what is said before choosing a side eh?

To Santa, referring to his suggestion that I should leave the union if I don't agree with collective action etc.

You are quite right to be in the Union for pay bargaining and chopper cover. But think carefully about the affect of having a selective approach in your continued Union support. If the Union isn't a union, you may lose the 2 fundamental expectations you have of it.

To drag the thread back on topic, and in answer to "what next?",

My prediction is that there will be some leaked letters confirming the speculation that Ed Balls and Gordon Brown were back briefing against Tony Blair, and that Brown repeatedly ignored advice about the economy and embarked on a huge public spending plan that the country could not afford...

Oh noes - The telegraph beat me to it.

What next....?

As Christine Odine says

Hmmm looks like the Tory rags are worried about the coalition's performance too, digging deep for old news on Labour.

And now we have an amateurish David Cameron quickly renouncing Archbishop Rowan Williams. What next? David Laws will declare himself Queen? Oops sorry, that is old 'news' too.

[Saracen]

....

As someone who has posted once in this thread up until now, I'd like to say to Saracen, even at the risk of a sanction myself: I think your threat of sanctions to TheAnimus was very partial, especially as Santa Claus is, though I CBA to use the forum search function right now, a self confessed wind-up-merchant.
.....

You are at no risk of sanction from me for thinking or saying that. You're entitled to your opinion, and it was a reasoned and politely expressed opinion at that. It doesn't change anything though, not least because you aren't in possession of all the facts, such as what may or may not have gone before this. But if you want to form an opinion on whether it's partial or not without the whole picture, that's up to you.

But really, it's this simple.

Time and again, I personally, and the mods team as a whole, have asked people to stick to debates and not to issue insults, not to personalise it, either overtly or obliquely. We put it in the rules, years ago, and it still gets ignored periodically. I have tried a jokey admonition, I've tried a firm one, I've tried a reasoned approach. I've tried private discussions by PM and I've tried public warnings. I've ended up suspending people, and sometimes, they have a huff and don't come back. Occasionally, and it's FAR more rare than I'd guess many will suspect, I've banned people.

What works best, Rave, is a shot across the bows. What works best is to stop it getting started before it ever gets started. That is what Animus got, a warning that he was getting very close to the mark. And it's not just a warning to Animus, but to everyone else reading the thread that :-

a) I (or the other mods) are watching, and have noticed, and
b) We will take action.

Experience tells me that if left alone, these situations end up descending into a flame war with mutual insult-hurling. One person feels insulted so they answer in kind, and off it kicks. Well, when I see it coming, as I did in that case, I give a clear warning.

And if it STILL kicks off, well, if people (be it Animus or anyone else) ignore a warning from an admin or a mod and carry on, they can hardly be surprised when they get suspended as a result.

The objective, Rave, is to keep the forums running smoothly. If people would only just avoid starting to get personal and stick to the subject matter, and not get very close to rule breaches, warnings would not be necessary, would they?

As for Santa being a wind-up merchant, well, I'm sure he'd be the first to admit he can, erm, be a bit provocative with his posts. But it takes two to tango, and whether he's winding someone up or responding in kind to being would up is hard to tell. Suffice it to say that, if push comes to shove, I'm quite capable of suspending Santa too.

It is also not against forum rules to play devil's advocate, or to take an argument to an extreme to illustrate a point. But there are a number of people who walk a fine line as to whether something is a rule breach or not sufficiently frequently to make it virtually a certainty that they're doing it quite deliberately. If they do that and trouble kicks off, I'm quite happy to deal with both offending parties equally, based on my assessment of intent.

And, ultimately, the mods and admins are here to exercise our judgement. My judgement is that a warning shot in those circumstances was both justified and appropriate. If it works and the tone calms down, then job done and flame war averted. If it doesn't and a flame war kicks off, then the participants can't say they weren't warned. It's all about exercising judgement to keep the forums flowing as smoothly as possible with the minimum of interference from us, the mods.

You're welcome to disagree with that judgement, but it doesn't change the judgement, I'm afraid. I still think it was the appropriate thing, and utterly necessary.

[santa claus]

You are at no risk of sanction.....cut......I still think it was the appropriate thing, and utterly necessary.

All of which seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me .

My opinions are what they are; no-one should feel personally affronted by them. Unlike poor old me who has been directly called 'ignorant' and an 'idiot' in this thread alone.

It hurts so .

[opel80uk]

I think this thread seems to have skewed off topic somewhat, and the Lib Dems seemed to have got off without a great deal of scrutiny. But seeing as striking (along with the rules) has become a bit of a main topic, I thought I'd put my 2 pennies in.

Like most conversations on strikes I've ever had, it didn't take very long for the tube drivers to be brought in to it, but I doubt that was what Mr Cable was explicitly referring to at the conference. There will probably be widespread strikes throughout the public sector, and before the unions and strikers are decried as being ungrateful, or greedy or selfish, we need to understand that it is not just about pay for many of the people who will vote for, and (probably) go on strike.

Take me for example. I'm an NHS worker, I have a degree and would like to consider myself skilled. I have turned down better paid work in the private sector far too many times then I care to remember, and I can honestly say the sole reason for that is not the pay (I could earn more elsewhere), not the final salary pension (which as I'm 30, am fully aware that it will have been significantly reduced by the time I retire) or the job security (which is pretty much a myth, certainly in the NHS anyway) but to make a difference in my own local community. I'm on what I consider a decent (for London) salary of 30k per annum and all in all I am content with my lot as it were, yet if balloted by my union I will vote to go on strike. It's not as some would have you believe, because I'm coming at this from a self preservation point of view as I work in my local hospitals cancer department and as such have been informed that my job is safe (far too much of a political hot potato), but because recently we were told that we would have to lose 115 members of staff, as we need to make a saving of 19M next year. Of those 115, we will be losing 26 Doctors, and as anyone in the know will tell you, that will impact patient care immensely. I don't live in an affluent part of London, and we all know, it tends to be the poorest sections of society that rely the most on the NHS. If these 26 Doctor posts (and the issue is not the 26 individual doctors, as they rotate every 6 months anyway, but the actual posts) are got rid of, patients will be seen slower, patients won't be treated as quick and ultimately, as dramatic as it sounds, patients will die, directly as a result of these cuts. It's as simple as that. I repeat that I, personally, have absolutely nothing to gain by going on strike and in fact have far more to lose, not least a probable career running opinion formed of me by senior management, by doing so. Now I do happen to know the vast majority of union members in my trust, like me, do not want to go on strike, Yet the vast majority will vote for it if these cuts go ahead because they, like me, do not see an alternative option especially given the consequences that they will have for the poorest in my community.

[santa claus]

I think this thread seems to have skewed off topic somewhat......cut.....the consequences that they will have for the poorest in my community.

What an absolutely brilliant post. If Rave sets up a new political party, might I suggest opel80uk as Health Secretary?

Ok, there you have it in a nutshell. A person prepared to stick his/her neck out because they know how important it is to properly fund the NHS. This is my experience of the public sector too. It is not full of pen-pushing tea-drinking layabouts it is blessed with intelligent, hard-working people who will put others before themselves to provide a public service we should be proud of and not hacking to bits.

There are contributors here who moan that these people want to strike and jeopardise the economy; nothing could be further from the truth.

And they deserve every penny of the pittance pension they receive because they have earned it.