Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thats the problem good government requires good opposition. That has sadly been lacking for far too long. " Not really. That statement only holds up when a government does not have an overwhelming majority, that pretty much allows them to push anything through. The opposition at present can do nothing more than tut, they can't really stop or make it difficult for the government (which would mean them having to work harder in parliament to convince MPs to vote for their policies). I am not a fan of Starmer in the slightest, but he shows up Johnson on a weekly basis. It's about all he can do, but even this is airbrushed over by the MSM. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thats the problem good government requires good opposition. That has sadly been lacking for far too long." ain’t that the truth it’s very sad tbh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thats the problem good government requires good opposition. That has sadly been lacking for far too long.ain’t that the truth it’s very sad tbh" Agreed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thats the problem good government requires good opposition. That has sadly been lacking for far too long. Not really. That statement only holds up when a government does not have an overwhelming majority, that pretty much allows them to push anything through. The opposition at present can do nothing more than tut, they can't really stop or make it difficult for the government (which would mean them having to work harder in parliament to convince MPs to vote for their policies). I am not a fan of Starmer in the slightest, but he shows up Johnson on a weekly basis. It's about all he can do, but even this is airbrushed over by the MSM. " You're right... They can't do the right things, they can only say the right things. The problem with Labour is they're not even saying the right things...unless it's in hindsight. SKS has been leader for a year and a half now, and has not come up with one policy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"SKS has been leader for a year and a half now, and has not come up with one policy." ha yes, the tactic that ca-moron and osbourne successfully deployed in the 4 years leading up to the 2010 elections | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Brighton 2021 could be a re-run of Bournemouth 1985!" what happened at Bournemouth 1985? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Brighton 2021 could be a re-run of Bournemouth 1985! what happened at Bournemouth 1985? " Neil Kinnock had a rumble with the militants! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Frankly, the piss poor Tories have no worthwhile opposition that I can see... convince me otherwise" Nope I can't convince you, because you're right. Worst government in the history of the United Kingdom, and opposition that have just spent ten years fighting themselves. When the history books are written it will be unbelievable that a country did this to themselves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Brighton 2021 could be a re-run of Bournemouth 1985! what happened at Bournemouth 1985? Neil Kinnock had a rumble with the militants! " Neil Kinnock never looked like a prime minister, he was caught between Thatcher The miners & half of the labor party, ended up pleasing nobody. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Frankly, the piss poor Tories have no worthwhile opposition that I can see... convince me otherwise" No worthwhile opposition south of the border. You may consider the SNP not to be worthwhile, which is fair enough; but you cannot deny they are in definite opposition to the Tories - as are roughly 70% of Scots voters. Labour's problem - and it's a massive one - is that they'll have to convince enough English voters to vote for them, to win a UK GE without any real help from the Scots. They can only do that by doing the Blair thing and becoming Tory-lite; which is no opposition at all - and it's why we don't vote for them any more. They couldn't even form the official opposition up here, in Holyrood. I've said this before, as long as there's a Tory government in Westminster, there will be an SNP government in Holyrood. Long term, that's not healthy for the UK or for Scotland - and it's a circle Labour can't square. Too Tory for Scotland, not Tory enough for England. Eventually, good idea or not; it IS going to split the UK due to the democratic deficit that FPTP creates. The Tories have an 80 seat majority, on just 43% of the vote. That's not democracy - and it's only sustainable because most voters don't give a shit. In England, anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh and FPTP isn't remotely fit for purpose." Yet no labour govt sought to get rid... because it suited them at the time | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh and FPTP isn't remotely fit for purpose. Yet no labour govt sought to get rid... because it suited them at the time" Blair really should have pushed for PR. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The big problem with PR is it can give a lot of power to very small parties with few votes as they hold the balance of power " Whilst having one party able to do what they want with no negotiation or compromise is better? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The big problem with PR is it can give a lot of power to very small parties with few votes as they hold the balance of power Whilst having one party able to do what they want with no negotiation or compromise is better? " if a large proportion of the population has voted for them, yes, that is democracy, its not perfect but the alternatives' are worse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The big problem with PR is it can give a lot of power to very small parties with few votes as they hold the balance of power Whilst having one party able to do what they want with no negotiation or compromise is better? if a large proportion of the population has voted for them, yes, that is democracy, its not perfect but the alternatives' are worse. " But that is exactly how PR works? FPTP doesn't actually represent the true voting distribution. An example. A constituency of 10,001 people. 10 candidates stand. The voting is equal across all candidates, apart from one who picked up that extra vote. Times this by the 600 and odd seats. It is feasible (purely for this example) that a party could win every seat by only getting 600 votes more than any other party. That is not actually representing fairly how people voted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Frankly, the piss poor Tories have no worthwhile opposition that I can see... convince me otherwise" Why not compare like for like, each Member of the Cabinet with their opposite number in the Shadow Cabinet. Let’s start with Dominic Raab v Lisa Nandy. I’d give that to Nandy hands down. Shall we continue? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Frankly, the piss poor Tories have no worthwhile opposition that I can see... convince me otherwise Why not compare like for like, each Member of the Cabinet with their opposite number in the Shadow Cabinet. Let’s start with Dominic Raab v Lisa Nandy. I’d give that to Nandy hands down. Shall we continue?" Would you, whats her experience in the field? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Frankly, the piss poor Tories have no worthwhile opposition that I can see... convince me otherwise Why not compare like for like, each Member of the Cabinet with their opposite number in the Shadow Cabinet. Let’s start with Dominic Raab v Lisa Nandy. I’d give that to Nandy hands down. Shall we continue?Would you, whats her experience in the field?" . What is Raab's ??? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Frankly, the piss poor Tories have no worthwhile opposition that I can see... convince me otherwise Why not compare like for like, each Member of the Cabinet with their opposite number in the Shadow Cabinet. Let’s start with Dominic Raab v Lisa Nandy. I’d give that to Nandy hands down. Shall we continue?Would you, whats her experience in the field?. What is Raab's ???" Care to answer the question before posting another? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Frankly, the piss poor Tories have no worthwhile opposition that I can see... convince me otherwise Why not compare like for like, each Member of the Cabinet with their opposite number in the Shadow Cabinet. Let’s start with Dominic Raab v Lisa Nandy. I’d give that to Nandy hands down. Shall we continue?Would you, whats her experience in the field?. What is Raab's ???" He didn’t fully appreciate the importance of the Dover - Calais crossing, he didn’t accept that there would be trading restriction on Northern Ireland because of the NI Protocol and he thought nothing of fucking off on holiday without reaching out to foreign leaders who border with Afghanistan despite being briefed that the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan was imminent. In terms of levels of incompetence displayed by this Government - he is right up there flying the flag. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Frankly, the piss poor Tories have no worthwhile opposition that I can see... convince me otherwise Why not compare like for like, each Member of the Cabinet with their opposite number in the Shadow Cabinet. Let’s start with Dominic Raab v Lisa Nandy. I’d give that to Nandy hands down. Shall we continue?Would you, whats her experience in the field?" Unfortunately in our country it is possible to rise to the very highest levels of power without having any direct experience of your brief. In business you could not have a Finance Director or. HR Director sitting on the Board if they were not qualified, but in Government - anything goes. So we can only judge the Raab v Nandy performances on words and action (or inactions in Raab’s case). Nandy was on TV and radio throughout August commenting on the situation in Afghanistan whilst Raab was on holiday during the time of the UK’s biggest foreign crisis in decades. Nandy has spoken sense, she has done her job by holding Raab’s incompetence up to scrutiny and overall she comes across as an intelligent, articulate and pragmatic person. Raab on the other hand comes across as being out of his depth and in position solely because of an oath of allegiance to Johnson. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Frankly, the piss poor Tories have no worthwhile opposition that I can see... convince me otherwise Why not compare like for like, each Member of the Cabinet with their opposite number in the Shadow Cabinet. Let’s start with Dominic Raab v Lisa Nandy. I’d give that to Nandy hands down. Shall we continue?Would you, whats her experience in the field? Unfortunately in our country it is possible to rise to the very highest levels of power without having any direct experience of your brief. In business you could not have a Finance Director or. HR Director sitting on the Board if they were not qualified, but in Government - anything goes. So we can only judge the Raab v Nandy performances on words and action (or inactions in Raab’s case). Nandy was on TV and radio throughout August commenting on the situation in Afghanistan whilst Raab was on holiday during the time of the UK’s biggest foreign crisis in decades. Nandy has spoken sense, she has done her job by holding Raab’s incompetence up to scrutiny and overall she comes across as an intelligent, articulate and pragmatic person. Raab on the other hand comes across as being out of his depth and in position solely because of an oath of allegiance to Johnson. " . Although in fairness to Raab he isn't the worse Foreign Sec we have had in recent times,that badge is worn by his current boss | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Frankly, the piss poor Tories have no worthwhile opposition that I can see... convince me otherwise Why not compare like for like, each Member of the Cabinet with their opposite number in the Shadow Cabinet. Let’s start with Dominic Raab v Lisa Nandy. I’d give that to Nandy hands down. Shall we continue?Would you, whats her experience in the field? Unfortunately in our country it is possible to rise to the very highest levels of power without having any direct experience of your brief. In business you could not have a Finance Director or. HR Director sitting on the Board if they were not qualified, but in Government - anything goes. So we can only judge the Raab v Nandy performances on words and action (or inactions in Raab’s case). Nandy was on TV and radio throughout August commenting on the situation in Afghanistan whilst Raab was on holiday during the time of the UK’s biggest foreign crisis in decades. Nandy has spoken sense, she has done her job by holding Raab’s incompetence up to scrutiny and overall she comes across as an intelligent, articulate and pragmatic person. Raab on the other hand comes across as being out of his depth and in position solely because of an oath of allegiance to Johnson. " yes its very easy to be on tv all the time when you are not actually doing the job. I could have done that too and gave my opinion on what i thought was wrong but it doesnt mean i could actually do the job. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Labour Party was infiltrated (for want of a better word) in the late 80s/90s by centrist right elements. The Labour Party exists in name only these days. There is no left-wing, socialist alternative with any power left in this country and it will only get worse as the “centre window” slides evermore to the right." Labor party members tend to be more left wing than career politicians who seem to listen more to Rupert Murdock than their own party members | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Labour Party was infiltrated (for want of a better word) in the late 80s/90s by centrist right elements. The Labour Party exists in name only these days. There is no left-wing, socialist alternative with any power left in this country and it will only get worse as the “centre window” slides evermore to the right." Or maybe some on the left hold an idealised opinion about what a Labour Party should look like and therefore spend pointless energy arguing about the purity of the ideology. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Labour Party was infiltrated (for want of a better word) in the late 80s/90s by centrist right elements. The Labour Party exists in name only these days. There is no left-wing, socialist alternative with any power left in this country and it will only get worse as the “centre window” slides evermore to the right. Or maybe some on the left hold an idealised opinion about what a Labour Party should look like and therefore spend pointless energy arguing about the purity of the ideology." The Labour party was formed to uphold a socialist ideology. That ideology is the party. Some people on the left forget that and think it's like supporting a football team or something and the main aim is simply to get elected into power no matter the policies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Labour Party was infiltrated (for want of a better word) in the late 80s/90s by centrist right elements. The Labour Party exists in name only these days. There is no left-wing, socialist alternative with any power left in this country and it will only get worse as the “centre window” slides evermore to the right. Or maybe some on the left hold an idealised opinion about what a Labour Party should look like and therefore spend pointless energy arguing about the purity of the ideology." The present leadership seems to have a problem even using the term Socialist | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Labour Party was infiltrated (for want of a better word) in the late 80s/90s by centrist right elements. The Labour Party exists in name only these days. There is no left-wing, socialist alternative with any power left in this country and it will only get worse as the “centre window” slides evermore to the right. Or maybe some on the left hold an idealised opinion about what a Labour Party should look like and therefore spend pointless energy arguing about the purity of the ideology. The present leadership seems to have a problem even using the term Socialist " We have the wrong person leading too, starmer is the wrong man for us in my opinion. Nandy would have made a far better leader i think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Labour Party was infiltrated (for want of a better word) in the late 80s/90s by centrist right elements. The Labour Party exists in name only these days. There is no left-wing, socialist alternative with any power left in this country and it will only get worse as the “centre window” slides evermore to the right. Or maybe some on the left hold an idealised opinion about what a Labour Party should look like and therefore spend pointless energy arguing about the purity of the ideology. The present leadership seems to have a problem even using the term Socialist We have the wrong person leading too, starmer is the wrong man for us in my opinion. Nandy would have made a far better leader i think." You may be right, I worried the press might tear her to shreds. I voted for starmer because he said he would unite the party, that does not mean throwing out everyone who does not agree with you. I cant now see him uniting the party unless his conference speech is a cross between the sermon on the mount & I have a dream | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Labour Party was infiltrated (for want of a better word) in the late 80s/90s by centrist right elements. The Labour Party exists in name only these days. There is no left-wing, socialist alternative with any power left in this country and it will only get worse as the “centre window” slides evermore to the right. Or maybe some on the left hold an idealised opinion about what a Labour Party should look like and therefore spend pointless energy arguing about the purity of the ideology. The present leadership seems to have a problem even using the term Socialist We have the wrong person leading too, starmer is the wrong man for us in my opinion. Nandy would have made a far better leader i think. You may be right, I worried the press might tear her to shreds. I voted for starmer because he said he would unite the party, that does not mean throwing out everyone who does not agree with you. I cant now see him uniting the party unless his conference speech is a cross between the sermon on the mount & I have a dream " He needs to do something that's for sure, he has certainly splintered the Party more than reunite it in the last year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Labour Party was infiltrated (for want of a better word) in the late 80s/90s by centrist right elements. The Labour Party exists in name only these days. There is no left-wing, socialist alternative with any power left in this country and it will only get worse as the “centre window” slides evermore to the right. Or maybe some on the left hold an idealised opinion about what a Labour Party should look like and therefore spend pointless energy arguing about the purity of the ideology. The present leadership seems to have a problem even using the term Socialist We have the wrong person leading too, starmer is the wrong man for us in my opinion. Nandy would have made a far better leader i think. You may be right, I worried the press might tear her to shreds. I voted for starmer because he said he would unite the party, that does not mean throwing out everyone who does not agree with you. I cant now see him uniting the party unless his conference speech is a cross between the sermon on the mount & I have a dream He needs to do something that's for sure, he has certainly splintered the Party more than reunite it in the last year." I am a floating voter. I have voted Conservative more than I have voted Labour, but I did vote Labour in the Blair years and I haven’t been able to vote Conservative since 2010 - on principle. So today I ask myself who could lead this country best through these tumultuous times? A former journalist and pathological liar or a former Director of Public Prosecutions and man of high integrity and detail? The Labour Party arguing amongst itself over “the Party” is ignoring the needs of the country. If the country has not voted in a truly Socialist Prime Minister and Government for more than 40 years - it probably indicates that the people of this country don’t want it. But they might well accept a bit for fairness, decency and integrity. Why not just start with that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Labour Party was infiltrated (for want of a better word) in the late 80s/90s by centrist right elements. The Labour Party exists in name only these days. There is no left-wing, socialist alternative with any power left in this country and it will only get worse as the “centre window” slides evermore to the right. Or maybe some on the left hold an idealised opinion about what a Labour Party should look like and therefore spend pointless energy arguing about the purity of the ideology. The present leadership seems to have a problem even using the term Socialist We have the wrong person leading too, starmer is the wrong man for us in my opinion. Nandy would have made a far better leader i think. You may be right, I worried the press might tear her to shreds. I voted for starmer because he said he would unite the party, that does not mean throwing out everyone who does not agree with you. I cant now see him uniting the party unless his conference speech is a cross between the sermon on the mount & I have a dream He needs to do something that's for sure, he has certainly splintered the Party more than reunite it in the last year. I am a floating voter. I have voted Conservative more than I have voted Labour, but I did vote Labour in the Blair years and I haven’t been able to vote Conservative since 2010 - on principle. So today I ask myself who could lead this country best through these tumultuous times? A former journalist and pathological liar or a former Director of Public Prosecutions and man of high integrity and detail? The Labour Party arguing amongst itself over “the Party” is ignoring the needs of the country. If the country has not voted in a truly Socialist Prime Minister and Government for more than 40 years - it probably indicates that the people of this country don’t want it. But they might well accept a bit for fairness, decency and integrity. Why not just start with that?" You speak sense. I can't see the UK ever wanting a socialist governement but something in the middle would work for most. The problem I see when it comes to voting debates is that people want what works for them. There doesn't seem to be much compromise from the left or right. The only way Labour get back in is getting rid of Labour and becoming 'New Labour' again. That appears to be what Starmer is attempting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I argue this line a lot in here. The majority are actually quite happy with socialist policies, when not presented by a socialist. They have been trained to be suspicious of "the left" by our media for decades. However, when you give them a list, like that if the Labour Parties last manifesto under Corbyn, they are generally positive about them. Things like: Taking utilities back into public ownership. Building more social housing. Properly funding the NHS. Taxing wealth rather than earnings. There are very few people dislike all of the above, but you stick a red rosette on it and they refuse to vote for it... "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I argue this line a lot in here. The majority are actually quite happy with socialist policies, when not presented by a socialist. They have been trained to be suspicious of "the left" by our media for decades. However, when you give them a list, like that if the Labour Parties last manifesto under Corbyn, they are generally positive about them. Things like: Taking utilities back into public ownership. Building more social housing. Properly funding the NHS. Taxing wealth rather than earnings. There are very few people dislike all of the above, but you stick a red rosette on it and they refuse to vote for it... " Its a fair arguement. Most were concerned on how it was all going to be paid for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I argue this line a lot in here. The majority are actually quite happy with socialist policies, when not presented by a socialist. They have been trained to be suspicious of "the left" by our media for decades. However, when you give them a list, like that if the Labour Parties last manifesto under Corbyn, they are generally positive about them. Things like: Taking utilities back into public ownership. Building more social housing. Properly funding the NHS. Taxing wealth rather than earnings. There are very few people dislike all of the above, but you stick a red rosette on it and they refuse to vote for it... Its a fair arguement. Most were concerned on how it was all going to be paid for. " Which is really a false fear. Firstly since decoupling our currency from the gold standard, debt isn't really the same. Most of our debt is in the form of bonds held by the banks which gives them security, which they are happy with, i.e. it's not needing to be paid back anytime soon. Also things like building housing stimulates the economy, employs, people, gets supply chains moving etc. which result in greater tax takings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are very few people dislike all of the above, but you stick a red rosette on it and they refuse to vote for it... Its a fair arguement. Most were concerned on how it was all going to be paid for. " A line trotted out by the tories since the year dot but when asked how they plan to fund their manifestos the answer is “growth”…an utterly meaningless term but people just accept it. SMH. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I argue this line a lot in here. The majority are actually quite happy with socialist policies, when not presented by a socialist. They have been trained to be suspicious of "the left" by our media for decades. However, when you give them a list, like that if the Labour Parties last manifesto under Corbyn, they are generally positive about them. Things like: Taking utilities back into public ownership. Building more social housing. Properly funding the NHS. Taxing wealth rather than earnings. There are very few people dislike all of the above, but you stick a red rosette on it and they refuse to vote for it... Its a fair arguement. Most were concerned on how it was all going to be paid for. Which is really a false fear. Firstly since decoupling our currency from the gold standard, debt isn't really the same. Most of our debt is in the form of bonds held by the banks which gives them security, which they are happy with, i.e. it's not needing to be paid back anytime soon. Also things like building housing stimulates the economy, employs, people, gets supply chains moving etc. which result in greater tax takings. "
Over a third of our debt is owed to ourselves, The Bank of England.
We're also in a stronger position with debt payments, our economy and affordability than perhaps for 200 years.  . Debt payments to tax income are something like 3%, so somewhat negligible.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I argue this line a lot in here. The majority are actually quite happy with socialist policies, when not presented by a socialist. They have been trained to be suspicious of "the left" by our media for decades. However, when you give them a list, like that if the Labour Parties last manifesto under Corbyn, they are generally positive about them. Things like: Taking utilities back into public ownership. Building more social housing. Properly funding the NHS. Taxing wealth rather than earnings. There are very few people dislike all of the above, but you stick a red rosette on it and they refuse to vote for it... " just been reading where this kinda happened with telling people trump's policies were Clinton's ... We see colour first and the policies. And it works all ways. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I argue this line a lot in here. The majority are actually quite happy with socialist policies, when not presented by a socialist. They have been trained to be suspicious of "the left" by our media for decades. However, when you give them a list, like that if the Labour Parties last manifesto under Corbyn, they are generally positive about them. Things like: Taking utilities back into public ownership. Building more social housing. Properly funding the NHS. Taxing wealth rather than earnings. There are very few people dislike all of the above, but you stick a red rosette on it and they refuse to vote for it... just been reading where this kinda happened with telling people trump's policies were Clinton's ... We see colour first and the policies. And it works all ways. " I think I'd spot the difference between a Tory and Labour policy, though there is always a little pinching of ideas. However, I can see this being more difficult in the US, the Dems are, if anything, historically right of centre by nature, rather than of the left. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are very few people dislike all of the above, but you stick a red rosette on it and they refuse to vote for it... Its a fair arguement. Most were concerned on how it was all going to be paid for. A line trotted out by the tories since the year dot but when asked how they plan to fund their manifestos the answer is “growth”…an utterly meaningless term but people just accept it. SMH." There has been repeated growth and yet the money seems to be more concentrated in the wealthy elites hands than ever. The idea that wealth filters down is a nonsense in the U.K. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They make the tory gang look good thou "They really don't, though. At this stage, only a murderous dictator might make the Tories look good by comparison. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are very few people dislike all of the above, but you stick a red rosette on it and they refuse to vote for it... Its a fair arguement. Most were concerned on how it was all going to be paid for. A line trotted out by the tories since the year dot but when asked how they plan to fund their manifestos the answer is “growth”…an utterly meaningless term but people just accept it. SMH. There has been repeated growth and yet the money seems to be more concentrated in the wealthy elites hands than ever. The idea that wealth filters down is a nonsense in the U.K. " Growth, just for growth's sake is not really a good model. It's really only come about due to how businesses are founded and funded. The power of the shareholder, demanding more return, over-riding every other consideration. I liken it to allowing a species to out grow it's habitat, ultimately it's bad for the whole eco-system. What you want are businesses that grow to fill their niche, employ people, generate taxes, and continue to return for years and years to come. Even if it's the exact same number every year. Instead what we get are companies that grow beyond their natural boundaries, but to do that they need to kill off all the competition and create a mono-culture. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are very few people dislike all of the above, but you stick a red rosette on it and they refuse to vote for it... Its a fair arguement. Most were concerned on how it was all going to be paid for. A line trotted out by the tories since the year dot but when asked how they plan to fund their manifestos the answer is “growth”…an utterly meaningless term but people just accept it. SMH. There has been repeated growth and yet the money seems to be more concentrated in the wealthy elites hands than ever. The idea that wealth filters down is a nonsense in the U.K. Growth, just for growth's sake is not really a good model. It's really only come about due to how businesses are founded and funded. The power of the shareholder, demanding more return, over-riding every other consideration. I liken it to allowing a species to out grow it's habitat, ultimately it's bad for the whole eco-system. What you want are businesses that grow to fill their niche, employ people, generate taxes, and continue to return for years and years to come. Even if it's the exact same number every year. Instead what we get are companies that grow beyond their natural boundaries, but to do that they need to kill off all the competition and create a mono-culture." Growth in general can create employment and those wages lift the very lowest out of negative scenarios such as food and housing poverty. I agree a lot of growth is wasted and is just churning the same on dross . What is sad is that when some companies grow they move into dividend and tax avoidance territory which pushes the wealth being generated by that company away from the workers and society. The fact that 25% of the FTSE 100 have pension deficits and yet still pay dividends shows the mentality that is encouraged in this country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The big problem with PR is it can give a lot of power to very small parties with few votes as they hold the balance of power Whilst having one party able to do what they want with no negotiation or compromise is better? if a large proportion of the population has voted for them, yes, that is democracy, its not perfect but the alternatives' are worse. " It is not democracy. 43% of the vote should not give any party a majority in Parliament that allows them to tell the 57% who did not consent to their rule, "Too bad, we're doing this." PR, as an alternative, is not worse. It works in Germany, New Zealand and Israel, etc. And it actually is democracy because the people get what they vote for - not what the majority of them didn't vote for; as happens in UK general elections. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Listening to the latest exchanges, I'm still struggling to see what the Labour party alternative is" None so blind as those who choose not to see. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I argue this line a lot in here. The majority are actually quite happy with socialist policies, when not presented by a socialist. They have been trained to be suspicious of "the left" by our media for decades. However, when you give them a list, like that if the Labour Parties last manifesto under Corbyn, they are generally positive about them. Things like: Taking utilities back into public ownership. Building more social housing. Properly funding the NHS. Taxing wealth rather than earnings. There are very few people dislike all of the above, but you stick a red rosette on it and they refuse to vote for it... " Agreed; though, again, this is the case in England. In Scotland, we are not opposed to such policies. It's interesting to note just how much socialist activity the pandemic has forced the current govermnent - about as Tory as it gets - into. Most of them hate it, I'm sure; but even they realised what was at stake. As you mention - and I've stated before - this is leaving Labour with very little room for manoeuvre. After all, if the Tories are drifting back to the centre, back from the far right (forced to, or not) doing lots of what Labour would be doing anyway, that makes it a lot harder for Labour to be distinct enough in their opposition. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I argue this line a lot in here. The majority are actually quite happy with socialist policies, when not presented by a socialist. They have been trained to be suspicious of "the left" by our media for decades. However, when you give them a list, like that if the Labour Parties last manifesto under Corbyn, they are generally positive about them. Things like: Taking utilities back into public ownership. Building more social housing. Properly funding the NHS. Taxing wealth rather than earnings. There are very few people dislike all of the above, but you stick a red rosette on it and they refuse to vote for it... Agreed; though, again, this is the case in England. In Scotland, we are not opposed to such policies. It's interesting to note just how much socialist activity the pandemic has forced the current govermnent - about as Tory as it gets - into. Most of them hate it, I'm sure; but even they realised what was at stake. As you mention - and I've stated before - this is leaving Labour with very little room for manoeuvre. After all, if the Tories are drifting back to the centre, back from the far right (forced to, or not) doing lots of what Labour would be doing anyway, that makes it a lot harder for Labour to be distinct enough in their opposition." Yes, the Thatcher years drift right, gave Blair's centrists opportunity. The Tories then drifted back again, until Brexit where they were dragged right by UKIP. Now, as you say, they have had to make policy similar to what Labour would have. So Labour have been in a tricky place for a while. I think that's why the Starmer led centrist purges against the left going on are badly timed. They are leaving themselves stuck in land fought over by all three main parties. It's likely the Greens that will reap the benefit of this, but with out system of FPTP they are screwed of ever having meaning (or representative) power in Parliament. Looking at where the country is now, I really fear for another 10 years of Tory Governments! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The big problem with PR is it can give a lot of power to very small parties with few votes as they hold the balance of power Whilst having one party able to do what they want with no negotiation or compromise is better? if a large proportion of the population has voted for them, yes, that is democracy, its not perfect but the alternatives' are worse. It is not democracy. 43% of the vote should not give any party a majority in Parliament that allows them to tell the 57% who did not consent to their rule, "Too bad, we're doing this." PR, as an alternative, is not worse. It works in Germany, New Zealand and Israel, etc. And it actually is democracy because the people get what they vote for - not what the majority of them didn't vote for; as happens in UK general elections." Germany got Hitler under PR, Israel got Netenyaho , dodgy coalitions are not good for democracy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The big problem with PR is it can give a lot of power to very small parties with few votes as they hold the balance of power Whilst having one party able to do what they want with no negotiation or compromise is better? if a large proportion of the population has voted for them, yes, that is democracy, its not perfect but the alternatives' are worse. It is not democracy. 43% of the vote should not give any party a majority in Parliament that allows them to tell the 57% who did not consent to their rule, "Too bad, we're doing this." PR, as an alternative, is not worse. It works in Germany, New Zealand and Israel, etc. And it actually is democracy because the people get what they vote for - not what the majority of them didn't vote for; as happens in UK general elections. Germany got Hitler under PR, Israel got Netenyaho , dodgy coalitions are not good for democracy. " Two examples in history. We can all cherry pick the worst things and say that's what always happens. Are you actually saying FPTP is a better mechanism for democracy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The big problem with PR is it can give a lot of power to very small parties with few votes as they hold the balance of power Whilst having one party able to do what they want with no negotiation or compromise is better? if a large proportion of the population has voted for them, yes, that is democracy, its not perfect but the alternatives' are worse. It is not democracy. 43% of the vote should not give any party a majority in Parliament that allows them to tell the 57% who did not consent to their rule, "Too bad, we're doing this." PR, as an alternative, is not worse. It works in Germany, New Zealand and Israel, etc. And it actually is democracy because the people get what they vote for - not what the majority of them didn't vote for; as happens in UK general elections." Agree
The opposition parties need to work together for a fairer and more representative democracy…they almost did in 1996/7 but Blair reneged on his deal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The big problem with PR is it can give a lot of power to very small parties with few votes as they hold the balance of power Whilst having one party able to do what they want with no negotiation or compromise is better? if a large proportion of the population has voted for them, yes, that is democracy, its not perfect but the alternatives' are worse. It is not democracy. 43% of the vote should not give any party a majority in Parliament that allows them to tell the 57% who did not consent to their rule, "Too bad, we're doing this." PR, as an alternative, is not worse. It works in Germany, New Zealand and Israel, etc. And it actually is democracy because the people get what they vote for - not what the majority of them didn't vote for; as happens in UK general elections. Germany got Hitler under PR, Israel got Netenyaho , dodgy coalitions are not good for democracy. Two examples in history. We can all cherry pick the worst things and say that's what always happens. Are you actually saying FPTP is a better mechanism for democracy? " That is true enough though they are still valid examples and I think its fair to say at least 1 had quite an impact on the world. I like PR myself but its true that had we had PR in the past the old UKIP would have done well at general elections. They also won the European elections with that system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
