Re: Safeism : Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:03 am  

Ornery Optimist wrote:

They are free and reckless.
They can do what they want.

B&Q and Taylor Wimpey must be lefties? Thanks to companies like these we will definitely get a second spike.

Re: Safeism : Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:17 am  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Government has chosen to prevent these businesses from trading so government is responsible for taking care of the economic impacts.

I completely agree with that - but if you can't provide security for your 20% then do you really have a viable business - lockdown or no lockdown?

Re: Safeism : Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:26 am  

DaveO wrote: If you want to use other examples as people wanting total support you need to cite what they are because each case is obviously different. It won't be possible or practical for some to be anticipated to catered for and others it will be (with a pandemic falling into the latter category). There is no generalised answer to the question unless you are some libertarian loon who thinks as a matter of dogma it's every man for himself on everything and the government has next to no role to play (which hopefully the point I made about its duty above deals with). As to Hunt there is no need to speculate what the motives were to excuse him, it was just to save cash, and he wasn't blocking the purchase of perishable vaccines but PPE (specifically eye protection): Advice on protective gear for NHS staff was rejected owing to cost He's now got the brass neck as chairmen of the health select committee to complain about the pack of PPE for NHS staff. Of course Hunt was saving cash in one area so it could be focused on spending elsewhere - that is just being responsible and managing the money. Maybe I have missed it but I haven't seen any mention of a shortage of eye visors so perhaps Hunt was right not to spend unnecessary monies. The delivery of PPE has gone from c28k outlets to c500k no wonder there are issues - combine that will the public sector and you have issues. Let's broaden this out a little - is it the government's responsibility to provide everyone with a job, a roof over their head, food, alcohol, cigarettes or should their be a degree of personal responsibility?

DaveO wrote: If you want to use other examples as people wanting total support you need to cite what they are because each case is obviously different. It won't be possible or practical for some to be anticipated to catered for and others it will be (with a pandemic falling into the latter category). There is no generalised answer to the question unless you are some libertarian loon who thinks as a matter of dogma it's every man for himself on everything and the government has next to no role to play (which hopefully the point I made about its duty above deals with). As to Hunt there is no need to speculate what the motives were to excuse him, it was just to save cash, and he wasn't blocking the purchase of perishable vaccines but PPE (specifically eye protection): Advice on protective gear for NHS staff was rejected owing to cost He's now got the brass neck as chairmen of the health select committee to complain about the pack of PPE for NHS staff. Of course Hunt was saving cash in one area so it could be focused on spending elsewhere - that is just being responsible and managing the money. Maybe I have missed it but I haven't seen any mention of a shortage of eye visors so perhaps Hunt was right not to spend unnecessary monies. The delivery of PPE has gone from c28k outlets to c500k no wonder there are issues - combine that will the public sector and you have issues. Let's broaden this out a little - is it the government's responsibility to provide everyone with a job, a roof over their head, food, alcohol, cigarettes or should their be a degree of personal responsibility?

Re: Safeism : Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:53 am  

It's the governments job to ensure the public are educated and to eliminate the influence of privilege. The gulf between private and public funded education should be minimal - and then, with a near to level playing field, we should be expected to take more personal responsibility.

Re: Safeism : Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:25 am  

silver2 wrote:

It's the governments job to ensure the public are educated and to eliminate the influence of privilege. The gulf between private and public funded education should be minimal - and then, with a near to level playing field, we should be expected to take more personal responsibility.

No its not - I agree its the state's job to provide an appropriate standard of education to anyone who wants to access it - similar to health care and the NHS. If the government increased the standard of education within the public sector perhaps demand for the private sector might drop. What the state cannot do is dictate to its citizens how they spend their money - surely.

Re: Safeism : Fri Apr 24, 2020 12:32 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

No its not - I agree its the state's job to provide an appropriate standard of education to anyone who wants to access it - similar to health care and the NHS. If the government increased the standard of education within the public sector perhaps demand for the private sector might drop. What the state cannot do is dictate to its citizens how they spend their money - surely.

We're almost there. I'm thinking that public sector education should be improved to a level that makes private education unattractive. As before, we need to see what the best countries (Finland, Switzerland etc) are doing and adopt some of their methodology.

Re: Safeism : Mon Apr 27, 2020 8:42 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If the government increased the standard of education within the public sector perhaps demand for the private sector might drop.

I'm enjoying the gradual Damascene conversion of Sal Paradise as it unfolds, in an achingly modern way, on social media; it's quite poetic.

If you allow that thought to expand to its logical conclusion, you'll be one step closer to enlightenment; free you mind comrade...

Re: Safeism : Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:40 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Given recent events and the rise of woke on the left of politics do we think we have a bad case of safeism in this country

No.

Re: Safeism : Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:09 am  

bren2k wrote:

I'm enjoying the gradual Damascene conversion of Sal Paradise as it unfolds, in an achingly modern way, on social media; it's quite poetic.

If you allow that thought to expand to its logical conclusion, you'll be one step closer to enlightenment; free you mind comrade...

Once you understand why people send their kids to private school then you begin to understand why the public sector can never compete. There are plenty of private schools where the standards of education are below that of the better public sector schools yet they are still full!!

What is interesting when debating with the those on the left like yourself is you allow your ideology to restrict your thought processes to such a simplistic point that the real point is easily lost on you. As you have illustrated above.

Re: Safeism : Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:15 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If the government increased the standard of education within the public sector perhaps demand for the private sector might drop

Almost there...

Once you understand why people send their kids to private school then you begin to understand why the public sector can never compete

...but like a neophyte hurdler taking its first tentative jumps, he pulls away at the last moment.