Parrybowl & Warrior it is then:

[FoxForceFive]

[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=48335.msg1466233#msg1466233 date=1326910283]
The H&G design was not great, it looked interesting and different but a lot of things about it were hugely impractical, especially the amount of obstructed or non ideal viewing at a significant premium over the other designs.

Good architecture has to be really functional, it wasn't the most functional building and it was massively expensive, and some of that expense was pointless. It had a massive footprint for no apparent reason.

The "Parry Bowl" does actually have stands, it isn't a bowl in the normal sense of the word though it looks like one from outside. The original designs for it didn't even have filled in corners. It's the roof design that is most bowl like, and the curve on the seats.

The second design from AFL, although again not the most original building, is by far and away the best choice as far as I'm concerned, in terms of being functional, being decent value, and having a good atmosphere.
[/quote]

Agree with all this.

The G&H design was all hype with little substance. It was massively impractical, the amount of obstructed seats & wasted space was more then double that of any other ground.

This bowl is generic, seems to have little or no room for expansion & is the antithesis of Anfield. i don't want a stadium like this at the cost of Anfield.

I stood behind the goal in the Kop on Saturday before the match, mere yards from where I'd stood week after week as a child on the old standing Kop, & looked across the pitch at Anfield Road & was flooded with memories, if that experience is to be taken away from me & thousands of others it should be because we are moving onwards & upwards. This stadium doesn't seem to provide that on any level at all.

 

[Graham]

[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=48335.msg1466246#msg1466246 date=1326914591]
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=48335.msg1466233#msg1466233 date=1326910283]
The H&G design was not great, it looked interesting and different but a lot of things about it were hugely impractical, especially the amount of obstructed or non ideal viewing at a significant premium over the other designs.

Good architecture has to be really functional, it wasn't the most functional building and it was massively expensive, and some of that expense was pointless. It had a massive footprint for no apparent reason.

The "Parry Bowl" does actually have stands, it isn't a bowl in the normal sense of the word though it looks like one from outside. The original designs for it didn't even have filled in corners. It's the roof design that is most bowl like, and the curve on the seats.

The second design from AFL, although again not the most original building, is by far and away the best choice as far as I'm concerned, in terms of being functional, being decent value, and having a good atmosphere.
[/quote]


I stood behind the goal in the Kop on Saturday before the match, mere yards from where I'd stood week after week as a child on the old standing Kop, & looked across the pitch at Anfield Road & was flooded with memories, if that experience is to be taken away from me & thousands of others it should be because we are moving onwards & upwards. This stadium doesn't seem to provide that on any level at all.
[/quote]

I can relate to this. I would rather the style be provided by Liverpool on the field of play rather than from a fancy stadium however ideally it should include a defined Kop and the potential to seat more than just 60,000 fans.

 

[Fallon]

I cannot understand why, for a decision this important, the fans aren't polled? If done right, it would show precisely what we value in a stadium and tell them how to proceed.

 

[Woland]

Because the fans aren't important. We're just the dipshits that can be consistently relied on to prop up the business model.

 

[FoxForceFive]

[quote author=Woland link=topic=48335.msg1466295#msg1466295 date=1326922695]
Because the fans aren't important. We're just the dipshits that can be consistently relied on to prop up the business model.


[/quote]

Yep, people constantly refer to the club, the stadium, & the players as the commodities of a football club.

They're wrong, none of those raise money alone, we do. The fans are the commodities, we're the cash cows that bring in any revenue, we don't go the game, no ticket receipts, we don't watch, no tv revenue.

Yet we do, & always will, cos we're all fucking stupid.

And as Woland points out, we don't count, simply because we will always follow the club, no matter what stupid fucking decisions our owners and/or management team make.

 

[Farkmaster]

I recall a significant amount of supporters bitching about disabled access. So you'd have that sort of shit.


Regarding the subjective things like the style of stadium they want, there would not be wide agreement. Many people don't want to move at all.


I'm fairly certain they are aware that supporters want a unique stadium with a unified dominant kop. That's why both the redesign of the AFL stadium and the HKS stadium both incorporated them. There are unique features in the AFL designs, and they are not similar to highbury in that there are not large amounts of overlapping tiers which are counterproductive for atmosphere.


You do have to accept that stadia do tend toward the same sorts of designs, because they are the most efficient ways of delivering the same thing. The HKS design which was loved by many and hated by many, would have been hated once people went inside the thing, and there'd have been a billion shots from the obscure corners of the stadium complaining about the view. Supporters aren't qualified to judge architecture that effectively. I know that my initial reaction to the HKS stadium was positive, until I found out more about it. They should give basic design goals, and they have, and they have been incorporated into the designs. Perhaps not to the extent that people want, certainly not with the oldest design, but lets see what happens. [size=78%]If the original AFL design is the one that goes through, and it isn't altered significantly, then we can claim that the desires of supporters have been totally ignored. I suspect that that's a long way off.[/size]

 

[keniget]

Where do guys get such detailed information about the various designs?

Is it based on conjecture or do places like RAWK or wherever have actual solid info about each design?

 

[Woland]

If they just got the exact design of the Millenium and stuck a kop at one end that would rock my world.

 

[Mystic]

I don't know if its been mentioned in here, but why have we gone with the first AFL design instead of the second one which was pretty similar except it had a distinct and single tier kop?

 

[FoxForceFive]

[quote author=keniget link=topic=48335.msg1466306#msg1466306 date=1326923842]
Where do guys get such detailed information about the various designs?

Is it based on conjecture or do places like RAWK or wherever have actual solid info about each design?
[/quote]

When the architect's release the designs they do so with detailed plans, not unlike blueprints. One specific fan on RAWK works in arena design & ran each one through the CAD system they use. From that you can have the program choose to seat you anywhere & see the POV from there.

Also you can check view of the pitch, how many obstructed views, & calculate seat angles etc. I'm fairly sure the Kop in the Hicks design didn't meet our regulations for building regs or stadium health & safety.

 

[Farkmaster]

I found a forum where someone was posting viewing angle diagrams, cross sections of each stand, and comparing it to other stadia. I found it really illuminating. When I get back home I'll find it.

 

[Farkmaster]

HKS with optimal viewing angle superimposed:

Original AFL design, for comparison:

AFL's big, more continuous stands, note they are different from one another and other than disabled access behind both goals is single tier, though they are unfortunately almost identical:

Compare this to emirates, which is consistent throughout:

Internal view, not really a bowl, not really a kop either:

To underscore that it's not a bowl design entirely, here's the early design with no corners:

These are all from various pages of this thread: [size=78%]http://www.lfcreds.com/reds/index.php/topic,33422.300.html[/size]

 

[keniget]

Interesting stuff... thanks for the link Fark.

 

[Fallon]

Surely if the original design was approved, then they can just put corners for 3 sides and leave one end somewhat independent? At least give us the illusion of a kop.

 

[SaintGeorge67]

Warrior Sports Inc. and Liverpool Football Club today announced a deal which sees Warrior become the Club's Official Kit Supplier.



Celebrating the announcement of the Partnership between Liverpool FC and Warrior Sports were (L to R): Richard Wright (General Manager, Football - Warrior Sports), Ian Ayre (Managing Director, Liverpool FC) and Ben Haworth (Sports Marketing Manager, Football - Warrior Sports).


The deal, which will come into play from June 1st 2012, will see Warrior create the Liverpool FC home, away and third kits, as well as their training wear for the next six years.

Owned by Boston based New Balance Athletic Shoe Inc., the move represents the starting point in Warrior Sports' global football journey partnering with one of the biggest club sides in the history of world football. Warrior Sports recognises the heritage of Liverpool FC and has employed industry experts in design, development, marketing and implementation to ensure that the brand has the best people on hand to support the Partnership.

Richard Wright, General Manager for Warrior Sports comments: "At Warrior Sports we pride ourselves on high performance and an incredible desire to win. Our Partnership with Liverpool FC, a football institution and recognised brand name across the world, is the perfect fit. Warrior Sports has ventured into football to bring our knowledge of making top level product to a new playing field. We are not the sort of brand that is going to keep our head down. We are here to shake up the world of football and our Partnership with one of the most successful club teams of all time is just the start."

Ian Ayre, Managing Director of Liverpool Football Club, added: "Liverpool FC is thrilled to be able to announce this fantastic Partnership with Warrior Sports for the 2012-2013 Barclays Premier League season onwards. This is another landmark deal for Liverpool Football Club and once again shows the value of the Club's brand globally. Warrior Sports will bring its own unique brand and ideas to the Partnership, ensuring that they can assist us at the Club both on and off the field of play. Sharing the same focus of domination and winning will be an incredibly important part of this Partnership going forward. As with all our Partnerships we have taken time to form a relationship with the individuals behind this opportunity. I believe that Warrior have some outstanding people we can work closely with to continue to deliver quality products to our fans around the world."

 

[peterhague]

[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=48335.msg1466246#msg1466246 date=1326914591]
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=48335.msg1466233#msg1466233 date=1326910283]
The H&G design was not great, it looked interesting and different but a lot of things about it were hugely impractical, especially the amount of obstructed or non ideal viewing at a significant premium over the other designs.

Good architecture has to be really functional, it wasn't the most functional building and it was massively expensive, and some of that expense was pointless. It had a massive footprint for no apparent reason.

The "Parry Bowl" does actually have stands, it isn't a bowl in the normal sense of the word though it looks like one from outside. The original designs for it didn't even have filled in corners. It's the roof design that is most bowl like, and the curve on the seats.

The second design from AFL, although again not the most original building, is by far and away the best choice as far as I'm concerned, in terms of being functional, being decent value, and having a good atmosphere.
[/quote]

Agree with all this.

The G&H design was all hype with little substance. It was massively impractical, the amount of obstructed seats & wasted space was more then double that of any other ground.

This bowl is generic, seems to have little or no room for expansion & is the antithesis of Anfield. i don't want a stadium like this at the cost of Anfield.

I stood behind the goal in the Kop on Saturday before the match, mere yards from where I'd stood week after week as a child on the old standing Kop, & looked across the pitch at Anfield Road & was flooded with memories, if that experience is to be taken away from me & thousands of others it should be because we are moving onwards & upwards. This stadium doesn't seem to provide that on any level at all.
[/quote]

this x1000.

i hope these FSG guys realise this. but, really, i'm not sure anything would really be a good move while british football's in the state it is: money-obsessed, foreign-owned, and completely indifferent to the concerns of ordinary fans.

i had a similar experience sitting in the main stand near the stoke fans: i looked over to the kop, still and apparently silent and just realised, once and for all, how wrong the game's gone in 20 years. this isn't what football should be about.

 

[RedZeppelin]

I don't really get adidas moaning that we priced ourselves out of a deal when someone else was willing to pay more . Why should we drop our price just for them ? Anyway whatever .

Guess these Warrior guys are willing to pay big as they are trying to break a market where all the big teams are either Adidas or Nike .

 

[Skullflower]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=48335.msg1466355#msg1466355 date=1326932696]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=48335.msg1466246#msg1466246 date=1326914591]
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=48335.msg1466233#msg1466233 date=1326910283]
The H&G design was not great, it looked interesting and different but a lot of things about it were hugely impractical, especially the amount of obstructed or non ideal viewing at a significant premium over the other designs.

Good architecture has to be really functional, it wasn't the most functional building and it was massively expensive, and some of that expense was pointless. It had a massive footprint for no apparent reason.

The "Parry Bowl" does actually have stands, it isn't a bowl in the normal sense of the word though it looks like one from outside. The original designs for it didn't even have filled in corners. It's the roof design that is most bowl like, and the curve on the seats.

The second design from AFL, although again not the most original building, is by far and away the best choice as far as I'm concerned, in terms of being functional, being decent value, and having a good atmosphere.
[/quote]

Agree with all this.

The G&H design was all hype with little substance. It was massively impractical, the amount of obstructed seats & wasted space was more then double that of any other ground.

This bowl is generic, seems to have little or no room for expansion & is the antithesis of Anfield. i don't want a stadium like this at the cost of Anfield.

I stood behind the goal in the Kop on Saturday before the match, mere yards from where I'd stood week after week as a child on the old standing Kop, & looked across the pitch at Anfield Road & was flooded with memories, if that experience is to be taken away from me & thousands of others it should be because we are moving onwards & upwards. This stadium doesn't seem to provide that on any level at all.
[/quote]

this x1000.

i hope these FSG guys realise this. but, really, i'm not sure anything would really be a good move while british football's in the state it is: money-obsessed, foreign-owned, and completely indifferent to the concerns of ordinary fans.

i had a similar experience sitting in the main stand near the stoke fans: i looked over to the kop, still and apparently silent and just realised, once and for all, how wrong the game's gone in 20 years. this isn't what football should be about.
[/quote]

i thought you said capitalism was sound?

 

[peterhague]

[quote author=Skullflower link=topic=48335.msg1466359#msg1466359 date=1326933216]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=48335.msg1466355#msg1466355 date=1326932696]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=48335.msg1466246#msg1466246 date=1326914591]
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=48335.msg1466233#msg1466233 date=1326910283]
The H&G design was not great, it looked interesting and different but a lot of things about it were hugely impractical, especially the amount of obstructed or non ideal viewing at a significant premium over the other designs.

Good architecture has to be really functional, it wasn't the most functional building and it was massively expensive, and some of that expense was pointless. It had a massive footprint for no apparent reason.

The "Parry Bowl" does actually have stands, it isn't a bowl in the normal sense of the word though it looks like one from outside. The original designs for it didn't even have filled in corners. It's the roof design that is most bowl like, and the curve on the seats.

The second design from AFL, although again not the most original building, is by far and away the best choice as far as I'm concerned, in terms of being functional, being decent value, and having a good atmosphere.
[/quote]

Agree with all this.

The G&H design was all hype with little substance. It was massively impractical, the amount of obstructed seats & wasted space was more then double that of any other ground.

This bowl is generic, seems to have little or no room for expansion & is the antithesis of Anfield. i don't want a stadium like this at the cost of Anfield.

I stood behind the goal in the Kop on Saturday before the match, mere yards from where I'd stood week after week as a child on the old standing Kop, & looked across the pitch at Anfield Road & was flooded with memories, if that experience is to be taken away from me & thousands of others it should be because we are moving onwards & upwards. This stadium doesn't seem to provide that on any level at all.
[/quote]

this x1000.

i hope these FSG guys realise this. but, really, i'm not sure anything would really be a good move while british football's in the state it is: money-obsessed, foreign-owned, and completely indifferent to the concerns of ordinary fans.

i had a similar experience sitting in the main stand near the stoke fans: i looked over to the kop, still and apparently silent and just realised, once and for all, how wrong the game's gone in 20 years. this isn't what football should be about.
[/quote]

i thought you said capitalism was sound?
[/quote]

i do think that, but no free-marketeer in the world (i hope!) thinks markets are suitable for all kinds of provision.

healthcare, education, armed forces, transport - you name it, some things, whether through expediency or them being a social 'good' are better provided publicly or at least given regulation for the greater good. i'd include football in this, because of its capacity to bring communities together and its almost unique, longstanding, place in the heart of the poorer parts of society.

in short, it's a cultural 'good', and imo, worth protecting as such. that doesn't mean subsidies, but it does mean sacrificing a little revenue and efficiency of resource allocation, and so fucking be it.

 

[Skullflower]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=48335.msg1466363#msg1466363 date=1326933678]
[quote author=Skullflower link=topic=48335.msg1466359#msg1466359 date=1326933216]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=48335.msg1466355#msg1466355 date=1326932696]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=48335.msg1466246#msg1466246 date=1326914591]
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=48335.msg1466233#msg1466233 date=1326910283]
The H&G design was not great, it looked interesting and different but a lot of things about it were hugely impractical, especially the amount of obstructed or non ideal viewing at a significant premium over the other designs.

Good architecture has to be really functional, it wasn't the most functional building and it was massively expensive, and some of that expense was pointless. It had a massive footprint for no apparent reason.

The "Parry Bowl" does actually have stands, it isn't a bowl in the normal sense of the word though it looks like one from outside. The original designs for it didn't even have filled in corners. It's the roof design that is most bowl like, and the curve on the seats.

The second design from AFL, although again not the most original building, is by far and away the best choice as far as I'm concerned, in terms of being functional, being decent value, and having a good atmosphere.
[/quote]

Agree with all this.

The G&H design was all hype with little substance. It was massively impractical, the amount of obstructed seats & wasted space was more then double that of any other ground.

This bowl is generic, seems to have little or no room for expansion & is the antithesis of Anfield. i don't want a stadium like this at the cost of Anfield.

I stood behind the goal in the Kop on Saturday before the match, mere yards from where I'd stood week after week as a child on the old standing Kop, & looked across the pitch at Anfield Road & was flooded with memories, if that experience is to be taken away from me & thousands of others it should be because we are moving onwards & upwards. This stadium doesn't seem to provide that on any level at all.
[/quote]

this x1000.

i hope these FSG guys realise this. but, really, i'm not sure anything would really be a good move while british football's in the state it is: money-obsessed, foreign-owned, and completely indifferent to the concerns of ordinary fans.

i had a similar experience sitting in the main stand near the stoke fans: i looked over to the kop, still and apparently silent and just realised, once and for all, how wrong the game's gone in 20 years. this isn't what football should be about.
[/quote]

i thought you said capitalism was sound?
[/quote]

i do think that, but no free-marketeer in the world (i hope!) thinks markets are suitable for all kinds of provision.

healthcare, education, armed forces, transport - you name it, some things, whether through expediency or them being a social 'good' are better provided publicly or at least given regulation for the greater good. i'd include football in this, because of its capacity to bring communities together and its almost unique, longstanding, place in the heart of the poorer parts of society.

in short, it's a cultural 'good', and imo, worth protecting as such. that doesn't mean subsidies, but it does mean sacrificing a little revenue and efficiency of resource allocation, and so fucking be it.
[/quote]

if you export that idea to the global community then it becomes quite clear that everything needs managing.

 

[peterhague]

by the state?

i always thought you were something of an anarchist?!?!

 

[Skullflower]

i'm not anything. i think something like socialism must eventually be achieved if the world's ever gonna be a place that doesn't make me feel ill.

 

[Skullflower]

and at this point in my life, i am as much an anarchist as i am a free-market capitalist.

 

[SummerOnions]

[quote author=Skullflower link=topic=48335.msg1466371#msg1466371 date=1326935656]
i'm not anything. i think something like socialism must eventually be achieved if the world's ever gonna be a place that doesn't make me feel ill.
[/quote]

I'd say i linger towards that too.

Seeing how much greed exists among most people makes me feel that there is never a chance though.

 

[Skullflower]

[quote author=SummerOnions link=topic=48335.msg1466374#msg1466374 date=1326936123]
[quote author=Skullflower link=topic=48335.msg1466371#msg1466371 date=1326935656]
i'm not anything. i think something like socialism must eventually be achieved if the world's ever gonna be a place that doesn't make me feel ill.
[/quote]

I'd say i linger towards that too.

Seeing how much greed exists among most people makes me feel that there is never a chance though.
[/quote]

the problem is that people think greed is human nature and therefore insurmountable -- when that is most likely not the case. the human psyche is very malleable and it just so happens that greed is part of the game right now.

 

[peterhague]

my basic (and perhaps it is too basic) is that economic progress can only be achieved by the brilliance of individuals, and that can only be achieved by allowing them the freedom to benefit from their brilliance and industry.

one might question whether economic progress is always desirable: i suspect those who are given to asking that forget the real upside of such progress. it's not about 'money' per se, but a series of improvements that make life more bearable and enjoyable. there was a good article i read recently by the Tory MEP (and acquaintance of our very own Richey) which puts this pretty well (it's an old one, but he's excellent at linking to his old stuff if it's releveant to his more recent blog posts):

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100009714/no-free-marketeer-thinks-that-money-is-the-sole-measure-of-happiness/

How are we to measure the success of a government? Is it simply a question of the material well-being of its population, or are there other, less empirical, ways to weigh the public weal? Nicolas Sarkozy has set up a commission to consider the question, looking beyond the GDP statistics at other metrics of contentment (hat tip, Richard Layard in The Guardian).

Lefties often say – and seem genuinely to believe - that free-marketeers are obsessed with economic data to the exclusion of all else. But I have yet to meet a conservative who thinks that you get more happiness from a bank account than from, say, listening to Beethoven, or walking in the English countryside, or watching your child take his first steps. The argument isn't about what makes people happy; it's about what governments can do about it.

As his 300th anniversary approaches, let me quote the greatest of all Tories: "How small of all that human hearts endure / That part which laws or kings can cause or cure". I'd say that pretty well sums it up, wouldn't you? Governments can't legislate to make us listen to Beethoven, or enjoy the landscape, or spend more time with our children. What governments can do is to provide a framework in which happiness can be pursued. Indeed, one way to think of economic progress is as a series of labour-saving developments. Because we can afford a car, and no longer have to queue for the tram, we have more time to listen to Beethoven. Because we have a dishwasher, we can switch it on and go for a walk instead of spending the afternoon in the kitchen. Because we no longer have to work on Saturdays to feed our children, we can spend more time playing with them.

That said, there is a legitimate argument about the extent to which governments should strive for equality – or "social justice" as Lefties call it. Again, it is important to be clear about what we small-government types want. We don't see inequality as a desirable in itself. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Nordic-type homogenous societies are happier, more orderly and more cohesive than societies with yawning wealth gaps. Our argument is simply that the forcible redistribution of wealth by the state tends to involve a disproportionate diminution of net freedom and net prosperity.

Roy Hattersley once remarked that, if he had to choose between five per cent more equality and ten per cent more prosperity, he'd choose the equality – an unusually pithy and honest statement of the Left's aims. Any Rightist, surely, would make the opposite choice. Similarly, if the options were framed as five per cent more equality or ten per cent more liberty, he'd choose liberty.

To put it another way, the state's ability to make us happy is limited, but its capacity to make us miserable is not. For most of human history, most people were oppressed by their rulers, often in the form of actual slavery. Although state coercion has not vanished – every regulation, every tax demand, is a small diminution of freedom – we are fortunate to live at a time when most governments are, in some sense, answerable to their peoples. We are fortunate, likewise, to have been freed from the constant quest for food, warmth and shelter. And what freed us from daily drudgey? The Left's old bugbear, our obsession with GDP.

 

[6TimesaRed]

I see the mirror is jumping on the anti liverpool bandwagon again..

Pure sensationalism..

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...not-giving-value-for-money-article855129.html

 

[Farkmaster]

So we've gone from a report from one reporter about a stadium design that isn't finalized, in the context of a choice that isn't finalized, about a stadium that has been on the cusp of being built for over a decade...


... to the abandonment of hope in humanity.


Sounds about right for this stage in the season.

 

[Skullflower]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=48335.msg1466377#msg1466377 date=1326936588]
my basic (and perhaps it is too basic) is that economic progress can only be achieved by the brilliance of individuals, and that can only be achieved by allowing them the freedom to benefit from their brilliance and industry.

one might question whether economic progress is always desirable: i suspect those who are given to asking that forget the real upside of such progress. it's not about 'money' per se, but a series of improvements that make life more bearable and enjoyable. there was a good article i read recently by the Tory MEP (and acquaintance of our very own Richey) which puts this pretty well (it's an old one, but he's excellent at linking to his old stuff if it's releveant to his more recent blog posts):

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100009714/no-free-marketeer-thinks-that-money-is-the-sole-measure-of-happiness/

How are we to measure the success of a government? Is it simply a question of the material well-being of its population, or are there other, less empirical, ways to weigh the public weal? Nicolas Sarkozy has set up a commission to consider the question, looking beyond the GDP statistics at other metrics of contentment (hat tip, Richard Layard in The Guardian).

Lefties often say – and seem genuinely to believe - that free-marketeers are obsessed with economic data to the exclusion of all else. But I have yet to meet a conservative who thinks that you get more happiness from a bank account than from, say, listening to Beethoven, or walking in the English countryside, or watching your child take his first steps. The argument isn't about what makes people happy; it's about what governments can do about it.

As his 300th anniversary approaches, let me quote the greatest of all Tories: "How small of all that human hearts endure / That part which laws or kings can cause or cure". I'd say that pretty well sums it up, wouldn't you? Governments can't legislate to make us listen to Beethoven, or enjoy the landscape, or spend more time with our children. What governments can do is to provide a framework in which happiness can be pursued. Indeed, one way to think of economic progress is as a series of labour-saving developments. Because we can afford a car, and no longer have to queue for the tram, we have more time to listen to Beethoven. Because we have a dishwasher, we can switch it on and go for a walk instead of spending the afternoon in the kitchen. Because we no longer have to work on Saturdays to feed our children, we can spend more time playing with them.

That said, there is a legitimate argument about the extent to which governments should strive for equality – or "social justice" as Lefties call it. Again, it is important to be clear about what we small-government types want. We don't see inequality as a desirable in itself. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Nordic-type homogenous societies are happier, more orderly and more cohesive than societies with yawning wealth gaps. Our argument is simply that the forcible redistribution of wealth by the state tends to involve a disproportionate diminution of net freedom and net prosperity.

Roy Hattersley once remarked that, if he had to choose between five per cent more equality and ten per cent more prosperity, he'd choose the equality – an unusually pithy and honest statement of the Left's aims. Any Rightist, surely, would make the opposite choice. Similarly, if the options were framed as five per cent more equality or ten per cent more liberty, he'd choose liberty.

To put it another way, the state's ability to make us happy is limited, but its capacity to make us miserable is not. For most of human history, most people were oppressed by their rulers, often in the form of actual slavery. Although state coercion has not vanished – every regulation, every tax demand, is a small diminution of freedom – we are fortunate to live at a time when most governments are, in some sense, answerable to their peoples. We are fortunate, likewise, to have been freed from the constant quest for food, warmth and shelter. And what freed us from daily drudgey? The Left's old bugbear, our obsession with GDP.

[/quote]

i'll respond to this when i get a chance. i'm well aware of the arguments that you're making but, obviously, i don't abelieve that they are sufficient.

 

[SummerOnions]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=48335.msg1466377#msg1466377 date=1326936588]
my basic (and perhaps it is too basic) is that economic progress can only be achieved by the brilliance of individuals, and that can only be achieved by allowing them the freedom to benefit from their brilliance and industry.

one might question whether economic progress is always desirable: i suspect those who are given to asking that forget the real upside of such progress. it's not about 'money' per se, but a series of improvements that make life more bearable and enjoyable. there was a good article i read recently by the Tory MEP (and acquaintance of our very own Richey) which puts this pretty well (it's an old one, but he's excellent at linking to his old stuff if it's releveant to his more recent blog posts):

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100009714/no-free-marketeer-thinks-that-money-is-the-sole-measure-of-happiness/

How are we to measure the success of a government? Is it simply a question of the material well-being of its population, or are there other, less empirical, ways to weigh the public weal? Nicolas Sarkozy has set up a commission to consider the question, looking beyond the GDP statistics at other metrics of contentment (hat tip, Richard Layard in The Guardian).

Lefties often say – and seem genuinely to believe - that free-marketeers are obsessed with economic data to the exclusion of all else. But I have yet to meet a conservative who thinks that you get more happiness from a bank account than from, say, listening to Beethoven, or walking in the English countryside, or watching your child take his first steps. The argument isn't about what makes people happy; it's about what governments can do about it.

As his 300th anniversary approaches, let me quote the greatest of all Tories: "How small of all that human hearts endure / That part which laws or kings can cause or cure". I'd say that pretty well sums it up, wouldn't you? Governments can't legislate to make us listen to Beethoven, or enjoy the landscape, or spend more time with our children. What governments can do is to provide a framework in which happiness can be pursued. Indeed, one way to think of economic progress is as a series of labour-saving developments. Because we can afford a car, and no longer have to queue for the tram, we have more time to listen to Beethoven. Because we have a dishwasher, we can switch it on and go for a walk instead of spending the afternoon in the kitchen. Because we no longer have to work on Saturdays to feed our children, we can spend more time playing with them.

That said, there is a legitimate argument about the extent to which governments should strive for equality – or "social justice" as Lefties call it. Again, it is important to be clear about what we small-government types want. We don't see inequality as a desirable in itself. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Nordic-type homogenous societies are happier, more orderly and more cohesive than societies with yawning wealth gaps. Our argument is simply that the forcible redistribution of wealth by the state tends to involve a disproportionate diminution of net freedom and net prosperity.

Roy Hattersley once remarked that, if he had to choose between five per cent more equality and ten per cent more prosperity, he'd choose the equality – an unusually pithy and honest statement of the Left's aims. Any Rightist, surely, would make the opposite choice. Similarly, if the options were framed as five per cent more equality or ten per cent more liberty, he'd choose liberty.

To put it another way, the state's ability to make us happy is limited, but its capacity to make us miserable is not. For most of human history, most people were oppressed by their rulers, often in the form of actual slavery. Although state coercion has not vanished – every regulation, every tax demand, is a small diminution of freedom – we are fortunate to live at a time when most governments are, in some sense, answerable to their peoples. We are fortunate, likewise, to have been freed from the constant quest for food, warmth and shelter. And what freed us from daily drudgey? The Left's old bugbear, our obsession with GDP.

[/quote]

I think I agree with some of that, and one of the issues i have about equality is that you could have someone whose mum made millions and let her son live off it, doing fuck-all with his existance other than wasting oxygen compared to a kid who could be the next Einstein, but whose opportunities are limited if they have to leave school at 16 to support their family, or the feel they cannot afford to get the kid through University.