Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 March 27

= March 27 =

China in the US?
Just curious. Do the Chinese follow the Soviet model of funding anti-nuclear, anti-war and peace organizations in the US? Is there any study on this topic? I searched in google, but did not find reliable sources except some blog opinions. Given China's quest for global influence and the international relations in today's world, I think it is possible, just a guess though. --Reference Desker (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They are basically the landlords of the US. Would they engage in covert operations which diminished the value of their property? Is the US more valuable without nukes, and with the resulting rolling blackouts? Just asking. Edison (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard of a few things. At the very, very beginning the Black Panther Party got funding by selling boxes and boxes of copies of Mao's Little Red Book that it had gotten from somewhere or other.  And it seems like Bob Avakian's Revolutionary Communist Party, USA at least puts on airs of association with the Chinese.  But in terms of serious impact?  It's hard to tell.  There was a huge flap over John Huang in the Clinton White House, but was it Chinese influence or merely "track II diplomacy"?  If there's one thing people give the Chinese credit for, it's being discreet. Wnt (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was anything sinister about distributing the Little Red Book. That link tells us "By May 1967, bookstores in 117 countries and territories around the world...were distributing Mao's Quotations." I bought a copy myself at a public bookstore in Melbourne, Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems interesting that they came across a large number of copies of it very cheaply. Wnt (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find the LRB I acquired some years back in a second-hand bookshop, though I recall that it was mass-produced, but well made (unlike the Soviet-printed Communist Manifesto I got at about the same time, which has since fallen apart... Oh, the irony ;-) ). I suspect that like Gideon Bibles they were given away free by the publishers. Whether they expected the Black Panthers to sell them, or hand them out for free, I don't know, but that wasn't the point. You don't charge for advertising/propaganda, you just pump it out. As it happens, as far as propaganda goes, it was an abysmal failure for anyone who could actually read, rather than merely recite passages. Banal excerpts from speeches, with no coherence, and less political analysis than I'd expect to see in an episode of Trumpton. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see/hear "LRB" and I think Little River Band. The LRB meaning "Little Red Book" was not even listed among our LRB acronyms, so I've now added it. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin Van Ruin
Does Martin Van Buren's nickname "Ruin" mean the English word "ruin" or Dutch word "gelding"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henswick (talk • contribs) 09:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The English word. He was President during a time of economic hardship, when many businesses failed... hence "ruin". Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A book / short story I recall from my youth
I've been trying to work out the identity of a book I recall from my youth. It's either a book or (less likely) a short story. In it someone wakes up to find that they're in a white featureless room, abducted by aliens. In due course the walls of the room disappear one by one, each time revealing someone else in a similar room, until I think there were four characters in total, two men and two women. In due course all the walls disappear to reveal that they're on a beach on a probably alien world.

Any thoughts as to the identity of the book concerned?

Thanks! Bobby P Chambers (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and given that "my youth" isn't very precise, I'm pretty certain the book would be over 15 or 20 years old by now. Bobby P Chambers (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

US Healthcare: HMOs tried for insufficient treatment?
Hello again! First of all thanks to Marco Polo and the rest that've answered my questions on healthcare as of late. Now, on another healthcare subject:

I'm looking for legal cases where a HMO has denied certain life-saving treatments, but ended up being sued. I'm sure I've hard of some, but after googling about a bit, and rummaging through our articles on healthcare here, I couldn't find a satisfactory reference. Would any of you know of one? 80.213.11.105 (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit: Oh hello. I guess I had already found what I was looking for, just had to find the right tab in my browser. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That article is from 10 years ago. It would be interesting to know how those suits turned out. One thing to keep in mind is that HMO's don't make doctors' decisions for them. Those suits seem to be about denial of coverage, i.e. money. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Technically right, but many doctors and hospitals will change their decisions based on whether they will be paid, so effectively the HMOs do deny treatment. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In those cases, it's the doctors who should be sued. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So they should be expected to take the loss when the HMO doesn't pay up ? Why ? StuRat (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It depends on whether the doctor's top priority is care for the patient, or care for his bank account. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In poor areas hospitals can go bankrupt from this, resulting in less care for the poor in the long run. StuRat (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So what's the solution? Cover a lot more, and raise the premiums a lot higher? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Some form of price controls seem to be needed. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Call me Mr. Radical, but have you thought about having a pubicly funded healthcare infrastructure that provides essential care to everyone who needs it, regardless of their ability to pay ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, in my experience, whatever the HMO doesn't cover gets billed to the patient. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * They can try, but there are some bills that obviously can never be paid by some patients. StuRat (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "They" being the doctor, of course. It's the doctor who bills the patient for the balance no convered by the HMO. So the doctor has to decide what his priorities are. Another factor, though, is whether the procedure is, to be blunt, "worth the effort". For example, if a guy is 99 years old and needs a heart transplant, are they going to give him one? I wouldn't count on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the hospital does the billing, in most cases. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, you'll get various bills, including typically a separate one from the anesthetist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Phrase for Napoleon tactic
I can't remember what it is, but I'm pretty sure there was a (French) phrase for Napoleon's battlefield practice of concentrating dispersed units or batteries on a single point, with the intention (I think) of eventually advancing on it and breaking through that point in an enemy's line. I think it starts with an "f". Alexius Horatius  17:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Force concentration?Sjö (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the basic concept, but I'm looking particularly for the French phrase (I've heard it a couple times, I think in the movie Gettysburg for one.) The mangled/muddled anglicized pronunciation is something like "foot-on-far" or "foot-on-fire" or something like that. Alexius  Horatius  18:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the phrase you're looking for is feu d'enfer (literally "fire of hell"), the name given, as you say, to Napoleon's tactic of concentrating artillery fire on one weak point of the enemy's line, also used by Lee at Gettysburg. There's a short essay on it here. --Antiquary (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC) EDIT: IMDb confirms your memory of the movie Gettysburg: "We'll concentrate all our guns on that one small area. A feu d'enfer, as Napoleon would call it."
 * That must be it - thanks! Alexius  Horatius  20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

POV of an immortal
If a person somehow became immortal when early modern humans were still living in nomadic groups, and he or she lived through to the modern era, what do you think their views on politics, religion, war etc. would be? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Since most such views develop during childhood and adolescence, they might retain some rather old beliefs, like animism. On the other hand, perhaps the exposure to many different views might allow them to pick-and-choose. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you been reading The Boat of a Million Years? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, but I was thinking about writing a story with an almost identical plot, minus the multiple immortals. I guess everything truly has been done before. I originally wanted some type of space travel as well, but decided to drop that in favor of a post-nuclear war type of future. I wanted to use it as a vehicle to showcase my love of history. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * His point of view can be anything that you'd like, really; 10000 years would give someone a lot of time to change his mind about things. The first thing you'd need to decide is how he feels about the fact that he continues living.  that would give you a sense for his attitude, and help you figure out how he looks at the rest of the world.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a good idea on how his outlook would be, I'm just trying to gauge if others have similar thoughts. He absolutely cannot die. It's not like on Highlander when they just revive after healing, or die because they have their head cut off. The prospect of living until the end of time would make me a pretty depressed guy, so that is the angle I am approaching it from. I would also like to focus on his thoughts on seeing civilzations rise, and the crazy amount of things that one could learn (and share with others) during an immortal life. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The depression angle has also been covered, in the character of Nathan Brazil in Jack Chalker's Well World series. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also Lazarus Long and his desire to end it all in Time Enough for Love, and a short story by Jack Vance, "When Hesperus Falls", in which the protagonist attempts a very elaborate suicide when the rest of humanity refuses to let him die. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For the almost unendurable tedium of immortality, see also Borges's "The Immortal". Deor (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a reference desk, not a debating forum, so I'm afraid we can't help you. --Tango (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Monarchist. 2.97.210.137 (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should explain for those who havnt twigged yet, the Immortal would be monarchist because they'd be the monarch. 92.15.14.4 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ghostexorcist, You might want to take a look at The Gnarly Man by L. Sprague de Camp. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the recommendation. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a Star Trek episode on the subject. I think there was a Twilight Zone also. On the humorous side, there was Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner in their bit about the "2,000 Year Old Man". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Requiem for Methuselah is the Star Trek episode. Dru of Id (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A reporter visits a 100-year-old farmer in New England. The reporter asks, "You've seen a lot of changes in your life, haven't you?" The farmer answers, "Yep. And I was against every one of them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

British Asian#Communities
In your article, Burton upon Trent, Milton Keynes, Newport, Oxford, Pendle, Rugby, Southampton, Sunderland and Wakefield have not mentioned whether the South Asians are Pakistani, Indian or Bangladeshi or all. Do all three south asians groups in these cities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.17 (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The vast majority will be British by nationality - probably second or even third generation. In terms of ethnicity (rather than nationality), the statistics can be found (as a downloadable spreadsheet) here: . It gives numbers, rather than percentages, so you'll probably have to work these out for yourself. As an example, the figures for East Staffordshire (which includes Burton upon Trent) are as follows:


 * People in ethnic groups: Mixed: White and Asian: 265
 * People in ethnic groups: Asian or Asian British: Indian 426
 * People in ethnic groups: Asian or Asian British: Pakistani 3,862
 * People in ethnic groups: Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi 86
 * People in ethnic groups: Asian or Asian British: Other Asian 112


 * No doubt the proportions will be very different in the other places you name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure that "British Asian" even means all that much by itself anymore, since the typical experiences of Muslims and non-Muslims have often diverged in several respects, and nowadays a significant number of non-Muslims don't really want to be indiscriminately lumped together with Muslims in some supposedly homogeneous and undifferentiated "Asian" group. AnonMoos (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

NATO support for Libya efforts
I notice several countries within NATO are vocally supporting the 2011 military intervention in Libya, whereas several are against it. The lineup is a very odd one, and I'm trying to figure out why certain groups are supporting it, and why aren't. Here are my hypotheses:
 * United States (easiest one, as I live here, and follow the news) - initially against, due to having a dovish leader (Obama) and being really sick of using its military in primarily Islamic nations; moved for, due to arguments by internal recommendations, notably Hillary Clinton (has always been more hawkish). Done also out of fear of losing any weak prestige it has among Islamic nations ("the US didn't support us against Gaddafi, but it had no problem invading Iraq and Afghanistan for oil"), and out of fear for losing its place as the "go-to" country for military issues, worldwide and especially in NATO.
 * France - for; a bit of a surprise here; France is notoriously dovish, to the point of mockery. However, they have a more hawkish leader, who is interested in regaining the prestige of the French in the international field (especially in light of USA's ambivalance). Also, leader (Sarkozy) may be embarrassed by former support for Gaddafi. I cannot say whether the actions have much domestic support.
 * United Kingdom - for; the British are the anti-French: they've traditionally been more hawkish, and have supported the US in the past. It currently has a conservative leader; is acting exactly as the US would, had it a more hawkish leadership.
 * Germany - has come out against participation. With the conservative leadership of Germany, its strident stance is again a bit surprising. My only theory is that the German populace has traditionally been very dovish on military matters (post WWII, obviously); the country is already against participation in the Afghan war, despite its international nature.
 * Turkey - has come out against participation. This is another confusing one, as even the Arab League initially spoke more strongly in favor. My only theories are a) Turkey doesn't like mass uprisings, in view of its own history of putting down such uprisings. However, this doesn't hold much water, as they recognized the independence of Kosovo just two years ago, b) the Turkish leader (Recep Tayyip Erdoğan) is known to be close to Gaddafi (e.g., Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights), and c) A modern pro-Islamic Turkey (as opposed to its secular past) really dislikes the West putting its nose anywhere near an Islamic nation (c.f., its support of Iran against western hostility).
 * Australia (not strictly speaking NATO, although closely aligned) - against because it has a dovish leader.
 * Canada, Denmark, Belgium - for: all have hawkish leaders.
 * Italy - for, a hawkish leader, perhaps embarrassed by former support for Gaddafi.
 * Norway - for, but with a left-leaning leader. I have no idea why they support this.

Anyway, sorry about the textwall, but I wanted to get some of your impressions of this, as I can't figure out why certain countries are acting certain ways. Can anyone verify or debunk any of this? I'm especially interested in Turkey and Germany. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you think Turkey would tend to follow the lead of the Arab League... AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

They are a country torn between the Middle East and Europe. Europe appears to be mostly for the action, the Middle East also for it. Thus the cultural considerations give no clue as to their non-support. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Look up the decline of the Ottoman empire for the sometimes-checkered history of Turkish-Arab relations. Anyway, many of the differences in alignment from 2003 are because this is not widely viewed as U.S. aggressive unilateralism...  AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course the Turkish have terrible relations with the Arabs (I even mention this on my userpage). But lot of the traditional has been changing as of late (c.f., the Gaza flotilla raid). Also, I wasn't comparing this to just 2003 - I'm wondering why some leaders support it while others don't. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also for Turkey, just because their leader was granted an award by Gaddafi, doesn't mean they are allies, whilst the recognition of new countries is a complex diplomatic area  (for example, back in 1908 or whenever Russia offered to unrecognise Bosnia in exchange for Austrian support against Turkey, and more recently Turkey and Russia seemingly exchanged recognition  of Northern Cyprus and South Ossetia.) Meanwhile, perhaps  the Germans and  others don't want to see lots of their people killed, or to get involved in a potentially expensive campaign in  the midst of a recession, quite reasonable interests they seem to me. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It might be useful to compare with the US bombing of Libya (1986). There the reason was terrorist activities alleged to have been performed by Libya and Qaddafi's claim to the waters in the Gulf of Sidra.  In that case the liberals argued "innocent until proven guilty" and that the bombing would just lead to a further spiral of violence (which it did, including the Lockerbie bombing), and that this would further antagonize the Arab world, whereas conservatives supported the action.  However, the present situation doesn't lead to a clear-cut liberal/conservative divide like that, for several reasons:


 * 1) The Arab League actually supports some action against Qaddafi. Thus some liberals may support action this time around.


 * 2) In this case the benefit, in terms of saving civilian lives, isn't theoretical and eventual, it's clear and immediate. But, of course, some lives will also be lost in the process of protecting others, so this could lead to a divide between most liberals (who put protecting innocent civilians as the highest goal) and pacifists.


 * So, those are some reasons why liberals might be divided. Conservatives might be divided because, while they generally support the use of force to remove historic enemies, in this case it could lead to a reduction in the oil supply and possibly a victory for Islamic fundamentalists.  Conservatives also like to act unilaterally rather than in a coalition. StuRat (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding Germany, it is too simple to say that Germany has a conservative government; conservatives support military intervention; therefore we would expect Germany's government to support military intervention in Libya. Actually, no German party unambiguously supports military intervention anywhere.  In fact, the German decision to take part in the war in Afghanistan was made by the government of Gerhard Schröder, a Social Democrat.  The Angela Merkel, the current chancellor, is from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the traditional opponents of the Social Democrats.  The CDU are a conservative party in the sense that they tend to represent the interests of businesses and the better off; however, the CDU have never taken a position in support of the military projection of German power.  Such a stance is practically taboo in Germany because of its Nazi history.  In fact, Germany's Afghan engagement is quite unpopular among Germans, who tend toward pacifism and tend to abhor the non-defensive use of military power, again because of the Nazi past.  Meanwhile, Merkel has faced widespread opposition at home to Germany's assumption of a large share of the financial burden for rescuing the euro and supporting the finances of peripheral European nations in the current European debt crisis.  I think, in this context, the German government calculated that they could not afford politically to undertake yet another unpopular action in support of Western allies.


 * As for Turkey, it is important to remember that the Arab League and the UN Security Council called for only the creation of a no-fly zone to protect civilians in Libya, not for the more expansive intervention on behalf of the Libyan rebels that NATO has undertaken. My understanding is that Turkey supports only the limited action requested by the Arab League and the Security Council and that they object to the more expansive NATO intervention.  This makes perfect sense in terms of the Turkish population's general suspicion of Western intervention in oil-rich Muslim countries and in terms of the efforts of the present Turkish government to build stronger relations with Arab governments, many of which have also voiced opposition to  NATO's movement beyond mere imposition of a no-fly zone.  Marco polo (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'd say for Germany this is still too simple. While Germany is generally very sceptical towards military involvement across party lines, things have changed slightly and generally Germany will support UN backed military action for humanitarian causes. Indeed Germany has supported (and actively contributed) to the Kosovo war (even without UN backing). A large portion of the German media blames the incompetence and amateurism of the foreign secretary Westerwelle for the German stance. Indeed both former chancellor Kohl (Conservative) and former foreign secretary Fischer (Green - traditionally pacifist) have strongly criticised Westerwelle for his (non-)action at the UN. At last weekends regional elections the share of the votes of Westerwelle's party (FDP, free democrats) was halved (probably not solely related to Libya, but likely a contributing factor). I don't believe the cost associated with the EURO stability pact has anything to do with it. 86.161.102.123 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say Canada has a "hawkish" leader; the troops in Afghanistan are supposed to come back this year, I think (and they were sent there by the previous Liberal governments, which I wouldn't describe as hawkish either - they sensibly stayed out of Iraq, at least). Canada has lost a relatively large number of soldiers in Afghanistan though, and Canadians are generally wary of sending more soldiers into combat zones, but I think in this case the chances of actual combat are very slim (aren't there only something like six Canadian planes involved in Libya?). For France, I get the impression that, even though Libya was never a French colony, France sees itself as the protector of Africa. They sent some troops to the Ivory Coast recently (though that was a former colony). Also, once Obama was on board, the French were much happier to join in - if Bush was still president, I don't think they would be involved. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure it is fair to call France 'notoriously dovish': have a look at List of French wars and battles. Presumably the actions of Michèle Alliot-Marie, and Sarkozy's current unpopularity, have something to do with their position.  In Britain, the action has cross-party support; the fact that a conservative(-led) government is in charge is irrelevant.  More generally, I don't think you can explain governments' stances on this intervention simply by placing them on a left/right or hawkish/dovish scale.  They will also be taking into account things like the level of popular support for intervention, the popularity of previous military interventions, and relations with other countries. 130.88.134.121 (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dividing the world governments into hawkish and dovish is at best a misleading and inaccurate simplification of how international politics work. Decisions by head of states cannot be predicted by the mere facts of their labels (left, right, conservative...). Such big decisions are influenced by a complex array of factors distinct to each country: economics, treaties, internal politics, international credibility, leadership ambitions... If you really want to understand why each state behaved in the way it did, you should drop the labels and start studying the complex causes and conditions behind their politics. 89.82.190.163 (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In this case, Libya was an Italian colony until after Word War 2, and France has a long colonial history in North Africa. Libya also is right across the Mediterranean from Italy, and it receives the brunt of refugees. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd hazard a guess that general population of Australia isn't too fond of it's military involvement in Middle Eastern affairs, based on my experiences of living in Perth and studying politics at Murdoch University. Since current minority Labor government has recently lost state elections in NSW they are doing their very best to cling onto power meaning they don't want to aggravate their electorate any further by involving themselves into Libya situation. Australia sees itself as regional power and will gladly conduct military and peacekeeper missions in the region but I think it does not perceive Libya as it's responsibility.  Melmann (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is easy to be a regional power when you are the only one in the region. Googlemeister (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. We'll just ignore 400 000 of active Indonesian military personnel and 62 million fit for service compared to 57 000 active Australian military personnel and some 4 million fit for service. Indonesia also has slightly larger economy, but not for much.  Melmann (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

MPs expenses scandal, UK
How much per capita per year have dishonest MPs taken in false expenses claims from the British public, before it was stopped? Thanks 2.97.210.137 (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal for general background; there are some figures mentioned there. List of expenses claims in the United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal has a table showing how much was required to be paid back.  Gwinva (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Less than 1p each - why all the fuss? Surely its worth paying 1p to have democraxcy? 92.15.14.99 (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, people react in terms of principles, rather than reason. 1p is nothing, and given the waste of time that this scandal has produced, it has cost the country much more than it tries to save. But there you go, that is politics for you. --Lgriot (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Democracy is surely worth more than 1p per person. But the 1p was expended on corruption and not on democracy. Let them steal 1p and next year they steal 2 and on and on and on... The price of leadership is to be held to higher standards. Flamarande (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet our dear Windsor family pocket a great many times that, and as they are outrageously wealthy already may I suggest they don't need it, so why is it bad for MPs but luvvy-dovey gawd bless er me awld china for The Firm? 92.15.14.4 (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You miss the point entirely. It's not bad for MPs to be paid public money to cover legitimate expenses.  But it is bad when they claim for "expenses" they never incurred at all.  That is outright fraud, dishonesty, lying, you name it.  If that's the sort of people you want representing you, that says as much about you as it does about them.  Namely, not much.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not even that - in many cases they claimed for expenses they had incurred (a famous example being moat-cleaning), and were, at least arguably, staying within the rules, as witnessed by the fact that they were reimbursed; so (again arguably) there was (in most cases) no dishonesty and no "false expenses". The main problem was that MPs were taking advantage of a rotten system. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But you can say exactly the same with the Windsors. 92.15.14.4 (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So, it appears the general public is content with one set of royalty, but draws the line at spontaneously developing any extra royals in the form of MPs with stately homes and inflated stipends. (By the way, the libertarian point of view is that the MPs are worse than the royals, who at least are decorative and tend not to interfere.) 213.122.54.179 (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. Part of the point of an effectively powerless monarch is that it prevents anyone else moving into the position with actual power. 86.164.73.72 (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)