Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

M154 - Hugo Chavez Memorial Motion Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Krollo)
    Even though I disagree with many of his policies, I shall say aye. What happened to de mortuis nil nisi bonum?
    Sentimentalist crap imho.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Hugo Chavez, the man whose deal with Ken Livingstone gave unemployed Londoners discounted bus travel. The late Mr Chavez helped chavs in London.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I think its fair to send a polite statement to Venezuela after their leader suddenly died.
    Far worse men exist in the world imo.

    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    What hapenned to to the socialist policy of every member must agree with an item or it gets released by the member who wrote it?

    Or have the far-left of the party decided to take after the authoratarianism that they see in Chavez's friends?

    This motion is just another confirmation my decision to leave was right.
    No policy ever such existed, we have nothing that binds the party at all in theory. Besides its internal malarky that doesn't concern yourself

    You were one of the most radical members, if not the most radical member of the party before you left my friend.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
    I think its fair to send a polite statement to Venezuela after their leader suddenly died.
    Far worse men exist in the world imo.



    No policy ever such existed, we have nothing that binds the party at all in theory. Besides its internal malarky that doesn't concern yourself

    You were one of the most radical members, if not the most radical member of the party before you left my friend.
    it may not have been written down but it was a precedent that went back years and was made clear as day like the parties no whipping policy. Whilst your perfectly entitled to change that precedent I am also entitled to notice it.

    And yes I used to hold radical views but people change political opinion as I am sure you can acknowledge. Unless you were born into a socialist family. In which case you might want to stop criticising religions for indoctrination until you get over your own.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    it may not have been written down but it was a precedent that went back years and was made clear as day like the parties no whipping policy. Whilst your perfectly entitled to change that precedent I am also entitled to notice it.

    And yes I used to hold radical views but people change political opinion as I am sure you can acknowledge. Unless you were born into a socialist family. In which case you might want to stop criticising religions for indoctrination until you get over your own.
    It hardly went back years if you had looked in the subforum before you left.

    Eh? what has religion got to do with this? :confused:
    As for the indoctrination thats pretty irrelevant as well :confused: I'd have a job on getting indoctrinated because i've got nothing or nobody to look up too as an influence for politics.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
    It hardly went back years if you had looked in the subforum before you left.
    It did indeed, and I know that because I was a Socialist Party MP years before you joined TSR.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    It did indeed, and I know that because I was a Socialist Party MP years before you joined TSR.
    From what I gathered it varied wildy but before we start playing games i'll take your word for it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    it may not have been written down but it was a precedent that went back years and was made clear as day like the parties no whipping policy. Whilst your perfectly entitled to change that precedent I am also entitled to notice it.

    And yes I used to hold radical views but people change political opinion as I am sure you can acknowledge. Unless you were born into a socialist family. In which case you might want to stop criticising religions for indoctrination until you get over your own.
    it's not really like that, there was a chance for members to express a view on the motion and the majority of MP's were in favour of it so it was decided to submit it as a party motion, individual members are more than entitled to disagree with this as always, we hold no ill will toward them for doing so because we are an inclusive and open party, as long as people are true to the central principles of the party all that an objection will incur is a debate and discussion upon it, which I believe is a system that is of great benefit rather than detriment to the party

    I doubt many of us were born into Socialist families I certainly wasn't! my mum voted for Thatcher ffs and my dad never even talks about politics I formed my own views through my education and through watching the news and stuff over several years, some of my own views have changed in recent years but the fact I am a committed Socialist has not and I can't imagine it will do as it's something I believe in very passionately I still think you didn't need to leave our party if it was over the discussions that were had just prior to your departure, you were more than welcome to stay and continue that debate, indeed several of us voiced support for your view on the issue you are always welcome back as well
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
    I think its fair to send a polite statement to Venezuela after their leader suddenly died.
    Far worse men exist in the world imo.
    I have no problem with a polite message to Venezuela on the death of its leader, but to glorify the late president within that message is unconscionable.

    Also, I was informed that this is a centre for debate. If this is so, why do so many people just state "aye" or "nay"?

    That isn't debate.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liftman)
    I have no problem with a polite message to Venezuela on the death of its leader, but to glorify the late president within that message is unconscionable.
    Fair enough I can see where your coming from
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    What hapenned to to the socialist policy of every member must agree with an item or it gets released by the member who wrote it?

    Or have the far-left of the party decided to take after the authoratarianism that they see in Chavez's friends?

    This motion is just another confirmation my decision to leave was right.
    There seemed to be an initial majority for the motion and it had to be released quickly after the corresponding real-life events to make sense. :yy:
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Despite his authoritarian tendencies Chavez did return a great deal of Venezuela's oil revenue to the people and he stood up to frequent American aggression. I support this motion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nay to this, not a fan personally
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
    It hardly went back years if you had looked in the subforum before you left.

    Eh? what has religion got to do with this
    As for the indoctrination thats pretty irrelevant as well :confused: I'd have a job on getting indoctrinated because i've got nothing or nobody to look up too as an influence for politics.
    :confused:[/QUOTE]

    It did go back years as Democracy pointed out, I'd thank you not to assume I'm suffering from severe dementia, and as for the indoctrination point you've took the wrong bit away from that paragraph. Partly my fault for digressing off on the irrelevant tangent. As you weren't born a socialist you can understand that peoples political opinions are not set in stone and on reflecting on them it is possible to change you're opinion so yes I may have been a very radical member of your party but it's not really fair to have debates if you're going to constantly refer to my previously held opinions. It's the equivalent of dragging up statements from Matthew_Lowson when he was a Liberal Democrat and using them to oppose his opinions now. We're not going to get very far in debate in this house if it becomes okay to take things people have said in the past and use it against them in arguments. I'm not going to defend my past radicalism to you when I can't even defend it too myself.

    (Original post by SciFiRory)
    it's not really like that, there was a chance for members to express a view on the motion and the majority of MP's were in favour of it so it was decided to submit it as a party motion, individual members are more than entitled to disagree with this as always, we hold no ill will toward them for doing so because we are an inclusive and open party, as long as people are true to the central principles of the party all that an objection will incur is a debate and discussion upon it, which I believe is a system that is of great benefit rather than detriment to the party
    You know as well as I do that this is a little economical with the truth. I'm not going to go into massively detail on the issue because I'd be straying into the realms of giving out internal party information but I'm sure you'll know what I'm referring to when I talk about the abortion bill and a single member. Although I'm sure the rule will have been used by different people in different fashions the general usage of it I took away was unanimity in decision making was valuable to the party.

    I doubt many of us were born into Socialist families I certainly wasn't! my mum voted for Thatcher ffs and my dad never even talks about politics I formed my own views through my education and through watching the news and stuff over several years, some of my own views have changed in recent years but the fact I am a committed Socialist has not and I can't imagine it will do as it's something I believe in very passionately I still think you didn't need to leave our party if it was over the discussions that were had just prior to your departure, you were more than welcome to stay and continue that debate, indeed several of us voiced support for your view on the issue you are always welcome back as well
    My point was that nixon using my past radicalism against me in a debate is pretty annoying given like all of you in the party, who having not been life-long socialists and having to have come to the decision to take your political opinions, I am capable of changing my opinion which I have recently done quite substantially. It's nothing to do with the religion issue that was just a side issue. I doubt the socialists party is an appropriate place for somebody who supports tuition fees at between 3k and 6k. To name on issue where I'm in disagreement with the party, I'm also not particularly comfortable in a party with members who walking around with the Marx quote "The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." My economic outlook has changed and thus staying in your party would be akin to joining the Lib Dems, it's just not right for me. I have no issue with any of you as individuals and I certainly didn't leave your party over a religion issue, I left it on the grounds I would be a blazing liar to continue calling myself a socialists. The Greens from what I've seen so far seem a better place for me on many counts. Given Green Party members take the opposite view to me on the religion issue you are referring to, I'd have been an idiot to move purely on that reason and would probably have had to join UKIP or the Tories to find an agreeable opinion there, which isn't going to happen as I disagree with them a lot.


    (Original post by Abiraleft)
    There seemed to be an initial majority for the motion and it had to be released quickly after the corresponding real-life events to make sense. :yy:
    Fair enough, you can understand why it took me slightly by surprise to see open conflict on a party bill from the socialists though given that unwritten rule. Although I'm sensible enough to accept that real life events can move fast enough for things like this to occur occasionally. :smile:
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    Only if Kim Jong-Il gets a look-in too.
    What did Kim Jong-il Have in common with Hugo Chavez? One was elected through free and fair elections, the other inherited his title. One worked hard to successfully improve the quality of life for working class people in the developing world, the other did the opposite. One was a socialist, the other a staunch conservative. Come to think of it, I can see why you'd want to lionise Kim - he's your type of politician judging by that article linked to in your signature.

    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    What hapenned to to the socialist policy of every member must agree with an item or it gets released by the member who wrote it?

    Or have the far-left of the party decided to take after the authoratarianism that they see in Chavez's friends?

    This motion is just another confirmation my decision to leave was right.
    The policy is that every MP must agree, not necessarily every member. :rolleyes:

    Your behaviour since leaving confirms that your decision to leave was right.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    'Nay'.

    Whilst he was an improvement on the standard socialist in that he held elections deemed free and fair, the effects of his extremist policies were just as bad.
    Here's a list of the changes in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez:

    • The extreme poverty rate significantly fell from 42% in 1998 to 9.5%. General poverty was also significantly reduced, from 50.5% in 1998 to 33.4% in 2008.
    • Venezuela's Human Development Index also increased from a 0.69 (medium development) in 1998 to 0.84 (high development) in 2008.
    • Venezuela's Gini coefficient fell to 0.4099, the lowest in the country's history and in Latin America. In 1998 it was 0.4865.
    • In 2005, Venezuela achieved the goal set by UNESCO to declare a country an illiteracy-free territory; 96% of adults and elders know how to read and write.
    • Currently, the Venezuelan state spends 7% of the GDP on education, compared to 3.9% of Venezuela's GDP in 1998. Without including the socialist missions (social programs), school enrolment was 6.2 million students in 1998; now it is 7.5 million students both in public and private schools.
    • Venezuela invests 4.2% of its GDP in health and it continues deepening strategies to guarantee Venezuelans free access to health with the creation of the social programs Barrio Adentro I-II-III and IV. The public health policies developed by the Bolivarian Government have managed to reduce the children mortality rate (children under 5 years) to 13.7%. In 1990 this figure was 25.8%.
    • Unemployment has been reduced by 50% during President Chávez’s administration, falling from 12% to 6.1% by early 2009. In May 2007, the Venezuelan minimum wage became the highest in Latin America (US$372). In addition, workers receive a monthly bonus for food amounting to over US$139. Also, pensions have been increased to the minimum wage.
    • The Venezuelan economy has experienced 20 consecutive quarters of growth. The year 2004 stands out with an historical growth of 18.3%. The 2008 rate of growth was 4.9%. Our economy has grown by 526.98% compared to the Venezuelan economy in 1998.
    • In 1998, Venezuela produced 16,272,000 tons of vegetables. By 2008, Venezuela managed to produce 20,174,000 tons of food. This represents a 24% increase.
    • The public debt dropped from 73.5% of the GDP in 1998 to 14.4% in 2008, placing the national deficit as one of the lowest in the World. In 1998, a debt of $3 billion was paid off to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and to the World Bank (WB). By early 1999, the International Reserves amounted to US$14.3 billion. In January 2009, they amount to US$41.9 billion.
    • Before the Bolivarian government, there was practically no investment in science and technology. Today, 2.69% of Venezuela's GDP is aimed at science and technology.


    While no one is saying that Chavez was a perfect leader, to say that he hasn't achieved anything is sheer obstinacy.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    What did Kim Jong-il Have in common with Hugo Chavez? One was elected through free and fair elections, the other inherited his title. One worked hard to successfully improve the quality of life for working class people in the developing world, the other did the opposite. One was a socialist, the other a staunch conservative. Come to think of it, I can see why you'd want to lionise Kim - he's your type of politician judging by that article linked to in your signature.
    I was, of course, exaggerating for effect. Nonetheless I find it rather amusing how self-professed leftists can idealise someone who, despite causing some betterment of the condition of the poor, managed to stifle opposition and oversee a dramatic rise in inflation, whilst in the meantime championing the "oppressed" leaders of the world (Ahmedinejad, Putin, Hussein) in some kind of two-fingers-to-America show. If a Friedmanite had submitted a proposal recommending that we all recognise Pinochet's huge successes in revitalising his economy and bringing stability to Chile, no doubt you would have been among the first to point out that this scarcely matters when it was done under an atmosphere of intimidation and autocracy. As for your ludicrous suggestion that the Kim family are conservatives - just because one wishes to conserve their power does not make them a conservative. Either you're extremely ignorant of the meaning of conservatism (and its relation to a narrative to the past, the rule of law, the sanctity of societal institutions separate from the state), or you're afraid to bite the bullet and just admit that Kim was clearly a communist with a profoundly totalitarian impulse.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    I was, of course, exaggerating for effect. Nonetheless I find it rather amusing how self-professed leftists can idealise someone who, despite causing some betterment of the condition of the poor, managed to stifle opposition and oversee a dramatic rise in inflation, whilst in the meantime championing the "oppressed" leaders of the world (Ahmedinejad, Putin, Hussein) in some kind of two-fingers-to-America show. If a Friedmanite had submitted a proposal recommending that we all recognise Pinochet's huge successes in revitalising his economy and bringing stability to Chile, no doubt you would have been among the first to point out that this scarcely matters when it was done under an atmosphere of intimidation and autocracy. As for your ludicrous suggestion that the Kim family are conservatives - just because one wishes to conserve their power does not make them a conservative. Either you're extremely ignorant of the meaning of conservatism (and its relation to a narrative to the past, the rule of law, the sanctity of societal institutions separate from the state), or you're afraid to bite the bullet and just admit that Kim was clearly a communist with a profoundly totalitarian impulse.
    That effect was somewhat undermined by the lack of any tangible parallels between Chavez and Kim. Out of all your objections to the former, the only one with any basis is your charge that inflation rates are high in Venezuela because of his policies - which is quite true. It's a damn annoyance to the upper class. The Caracas bourgeois with their accumated capital. However, the fact that he has won majorities in three elections since those policies began to take effect diminishes the accusation that he's inflicting something on the public without their knowledge or consent.

    And I think you've fundamentally misunderstood conservatism. It's not an ideology with principles, axioms, and solemn tenets like liberalism or socialism. If anything it's an 'anti-ideology'. An attitude that rails against the idea of political philosophies transforming society. As a cynical Marxist, I'd define a conservative as being a person intent on preserving the pre-existing balance of power in any given society; if that society is socialist, then obviously the conservatives of that society will use the arguments of socialism to preserve the status quo - in the same way that you cons frequently adopt libertarian stances to argue for the preservation of the present capitalist power structure. In layman's terms, Chavez certainly wanted to make a difference in the world (and did) - can the same be said of Kim?

    Anyhow, for what it's worth, I did appreciate your essay on the monarchy. It's written and argued well.
    Offline

    15
    No, G-d no. He was a Socialist so no.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Okie dokie Mr InternetGuru



    That effect was somewhat undermined by the lack of any tangible parallels between Chavez and Kim. Out of all your objections to the former, the only one with any basis is your charge that inflation rates are high in Venezuela because of his policies - which is quite true. It's a damn annoyance to the upper class. The Caracas bourgeois with their accumated capital. However, the fact that he has won majorities in three elections since those policies began to take effect diminishes the accusation that he's inflicting something on the public without their knowledge or consent.

    And I think you've fundamentally misunderstood conservatism. It's not an ideology with principles, axioms, and solemn tenets like liberalism or socialism. If anything it's an 'anti-ideology'. An attitude that rails against the idea of political philosophies transforming society. As a cynical Marxist, I'd define a conservative as being a person intent on preserving the pre-existing balance of power in any given society; if that society is socialist, then obviously the conservatives of that society will use the arguments of socialism to preserve the status quo - in the same way that you cons frequently adopt libertarian stances to argue for the preservation of the present capitalist power structure. In layman's terms, Chavez certainly wanted to make a difference in the world (and did) - can the same be said of Kim?

    Anyhow, for what it's worth, I did appreciate your essay on the monarchy. It's written and argued well.
    Nice job on (once again) ignoring the point about Chavez buddying up with various dictators and mass-murderers. A career in politics beckons for you, I think.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 17, 2013
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.