Guest Kopfkino Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 Apologies for missing this. Among my social circle, there isn't a man or woman who are not better off in terms of personal finances under the Tories. None of us are dependant on benefits, we all have well paid jobs, all own our own homes. Yet all of us would rather eat shit than vote Tory because we care about the kind of society we live in. We don't want to live in a society where people are left destitute because they are inadequate, or sick, or just plain unlucky. We can't accept that in one of the richest nations, we have people dependant on food banks. We absolutely reject austerity, because although we are not affected personally, millions of the most disadvantaged are. And that diminshes us all. So is that not you voting still voting with self interest in mind?
Rincewind Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-34266659?post_id=10153581589642289_10153955773507289
leicsmac Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 I like the Matrix and I know a lot about the changing North American social policies - thus the whole political corectness rant; because it's bonkers over there. If we're talking philosophy, I personally don't think how you work, what work it is, or what background your from necessarily defines your political allegiance and your beliefs. I believe humans tend to be selfish via human nature. I don't particulalry believe in her views, but Ayn Rand's writings on individualism and objectivism go hand in hand with capitalism and greed. Even though a lot of it just doesn't work with most capitalists especially in modern day capitalist societies; it's Adam Smith's self-interest which correlates more with the common man. You need competition, you need goals, this is what drives us. I see that you do know and understand a lot about it, but please for the love of all known or unknown deities steer clear of the fora I mentioned. They're full of angry mid-class white guys pissed off that their skin colour and gender no longer confers the same advantages it once did, and they apparently aren't very happy about it. They'd be reasonably harmless and indeed I'd have some sympathy for them (they're just pissed off at the wrong people) if one or two of them (flush on the echo chamber effect that such fora have and looking to tip the scales) didn't suddenly decide to get tooled up and shoot up a school before cowardly turning the gun on themselves. That rather removes the sympathy for them, even though it is just a fringe minority of them who go off the rails like that. In any case, outside of university campuses the last time I checked PC wasn't a massive thing Stateside...? I do in fact agree with your second paragraph, particularly regarding human nature. We are hardwired to be selfish and look after ourselves and those around us only, because of the way evolution works. That belief goes into economics and society in general on a massive scale, and you're right - competition does lead to advances. However, based on everything that's happened to life in the past, in the long term that philosophy (just like a lot of other species who have inhabited the planet) will end up getting humanity to one place only. Extinction.
leicsmac Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 For something vaguely related, I also found this recently. 'If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.' Prof Hawking Science can create equality and a Utopia if we let it. This is why Tories irritate me so much, they act like there is a need for everyone to work and a need for poverty... When in reality the more people work in pointless jobs the quicker we waste the planets resources, how many trees must be destroyed to make pointless forms for people's pointless jobs? Why should the rich get richer when creating toys for them is so cheap? Why should anyone go hungry when we create temperatures hotter then the sun and colder then deep space right here on earth, we can collide particles so hard we make new ones that only exist in dense stars.... Yet people live in poverty and act like animals. I'm not saying Labour are much better (they're not), but it's the lack of well educated scientific solutions to problems, not economics that are to blame. It's about time politicians swapped the philosophy in PPE for Physics, if robots and computers are going to be such a big part of the future of the human race, shouldn't we have leaders that understand them? We could have a perfect society if everyone stopped thinking like we did a thousand years ago and started thinking renewably, wind, wave and solar power CAN produce enough for everyone, we just need to invest time and resources into it rather then seeing worthless £££ everywhere. So please stop thinking that money is important people, robots and mass production will make money redundant one day if we let them. Plenty of rich and powerful people will try and keep us in the 18th century and try to make us all slaves, but only if you let them. If the human race is to survive, we need electric cars, we need solar panels and windmills, but most of all we need well educated people that don't have to work pointless jobs just to keep the economy going for the sake of it, we need those people to eat healthily and renewably, to recycle their litter and keep their communities free of man-made waste but green and free for animals to live and plants to grow. All I ask when people vote, is that they please just think about if they are voting for the future or voting for the past. With a growing population fighting for resources we really have no choice but to look forward, unless you want war and the collapse of civilisation. I don't say this to bully, but because it keeps me up at night and frustrates me every day.' I don't necessarily agree with the heavy idealism in some parts of it, but it's pretty on point.
RedSoxUK Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 I see that you do know and understand a lot about it, but please for the love of all known or unknown deities steer clear of the fora I mentioned. They're full of angry mid-class white guys pissed off that their skin colour and gender no longer confers the same advantages it once did, and they apparently aren't very happy about it. They'd be reasonably harmless and indeed I'd have some sympathy for them (they're just pissed off at the wrong people) if one or two of them (flush on the echo chamber effect that such fora have and looking to tip the scales) didn't suddenly decide to get tooled up and shoot up a school before cowardly turning the gun on themselves. That rather removes the sympathy for them, even though it is just a fringe minority of them who go off the rails like that. In any case, outside of university campuses the last time I checked PC wasn't a massive thing Stateside...? I do in fact agree with your second paragraph, particularly regarding human nature. We are hardwired to be selfish and look after ourselves and those around us only, because of the way evolution works. That belief goes into economics and society in general on a massive scale, and you're right - competition does lead to advances. However, based on everything that's happened to life in the past, in the long term that philosophy (just like a lot of other species who have inhabited the planet) will end up getting humanity to one place only. Extinction. I've never posted on or even viewed that reddit page - or reddit in general, i only use r/soccerstreams to watch the City games. But I took a look and yeah, it's borderline right extremism which goes way too far just from a glance. I don't want to know what the left's perspective of those sites would be.. There's banter, and then there's hate.
Buce Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 Yes they should be. Do you think people who smear others should apologise? Thought it was one of your pet hates ? Where did I state otherwise?
MooseBreath Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 The daily leicsmac extinction post with a but of luddite thrown in for good measure. So pessimistic leicsmac.
leicsmac Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 Where'd you get the Luddite idea Moosey? I thought it was pretty clear from the second post that I want to see more and more tech. In fact, I want to see it to the point that humans might actually not have to do pointless jobs for the sake of the work ethic and actually have the freedom to choose other pursuits if they like. And maybe around the same time we might stop paying attention to the importance of of lines written on a map or written by a dead guy (or several) in books thousands of years ago and actually think of each other as human beings, without any other labels attached. Anyway, I know this is a derail so let's get back to politics. According to the Beeb the Labour meeting last night regarding some economic policy turned into a bloodbath. Seems like there's some pretty serious divisions there, reminds me more and more of the early 2000s Tories. At least they're not up against anyone as charismatic and smarmy as Blair, but they really need to at least give the impression of a united front.
Guest MattP Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 The PLP meeting sounds like a total disaster, some of the MP'S were openly shouting at Corbyn demanding he starts to behave like a leader rather than the head of a student union. Just heard one of the most bizarre interviews ever on the today program with Diane Abbott as well.
Guest MattP Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 https://m.soundcloud.com/spectator1828/diane-abbott-doesnt-explain-labours-u-turn-on-the-fiscal-charter#c=0&t=0:00 Abbott's interview, when you are laughing through an interview about economics you really don't get it do you?
Bettsj2 Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 The PLP meeting sounds like a total disaster, some of the MP'S were openly shouting at Corbyn demanding he starts to behave like a leader rather than the head of a student union. Just heard one of the most bizarre interviews ever on the today program with Diane Abbott as well. I can see Corbyn lasting 2 years then Burnham will take over and be equally as shit then after the next election, Hunt or Umanna will take over revitalise the party and at that point, the Tories would have reached the point where the public will want a natural change, then in the following election, Labour win by landslide and we start all over again.
Guest MattP Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 I don't ever see a landslide for the Tories or Labour again (unless Corbyn is leader in 2020) as they have both lost serious support and Scotland is gone. Could Labour even elect Burnham again? He's now on record as being beaten to the leadership by Miliband and Corbyn. I don't think there is a chance a Hunt or Umanna will want to pick up the mess that Corbyn will leave. The divisions will take a long time to heal after this and they'll have an angry membership who will resist a shift to the centre. If anyone left wing party gets it's act together they could be in serious trouble, they look more and more ridiculous every day that goes by. For the first time his supporters on FB are starting to kick off a bit, even they are realising the shadow cabinet that has been put together is nothing more than a joke.
Bettsj2 Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 I don't ever see a landslide for the Tories or Labour again (unless Corbyn is leader in 2020) as they have both lost serious support and Scotland is gone. Could Labour even elect Burnham again? He's now on record as being beaten to the leadership by Miliband and Corbyn. I don't think there is a chance a Hunt or Umanna will want to pick up the mess that Corbyn will leave. The divisions will take a long time to heal after this and they'll have an angry membership who will resist a shift to the centre. If anyone left wing party gets it's act together they could be in serious trouble, they look more and more ridiculous every day that goes by. For the first time his supporters on FB are starting to kick off a bit, even they are realising the shadow cabinet that has been put together is nothing more than a joke. The cracks in the SNP have began and will continue to show. Scotland will return but not to Labour under JC. The thing with JC's election is it was a complete joke. Allowing people who had been members for 5 minutes a vote was ridiculous and Corbyn was not voted in on substance rather just protest. This is completely evident now. Burnham I think knows this and has been very smart in staying in the inner circle. He'll pounce at the right time and become leader i'm sure of it. He'll be complete gash too by the way!
Parafox Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 Things went wrong the day they elected Ed over David. The PLP has been bereft of leadership and there has been much angst in the party about voting Ed in as it quickly became evident that he was a liability but they couldn't dump him and have another leadership election so soon therefore they had to stick with it and "support" him. Labour will not be a viable opposition with Corbyn and there seems to be little appetite for a challenge at this time. Andy Burnham will, as has been said, sit it out until the time is right but even he doesn't seem to have what it takes to be a strong leader and opponent to the Tories. Cameron is a wounded animal since he announced his retirement and the prospect of Theresa May as Tory leader is galling, so who have they got... who has anyone got?
Guest MattP Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 But how is Burnham actually going to get the gig? He'll have to be elected to get it and I just don't see that happening. If this "momentum" group that has started to make headway gets any serious power guys like Umanna and Hunt could be purged out of the party anyway. I think Corbyn will last until the middle of next year but the damage done could already be irreversible, there is no god given right to be the opposition, had the UKIP surge begun in 2001 the Tories might be a minority party now. We've got a Labour party tomorrow that will officially adopt a position against fiscal responsibility. Where's Bilo anyway? I'd love to hear his thoughts on the last couple of months.
Guest MattP Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 Tory leadership will be between Osborne and Johnson. Personally I'd go for the former but a lot depends on public perception, Boris is a man that even win London off Labour, no mean feat.
SMX11 Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 I think it would be better for the Tories to cut its ties with the current crop. Gideon is too much like Cameron/Blair. Not sure who could mount a serious challenge though.
Bettsj2 Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 But how is Burnham actually going to get the gig? He'll have to be elected to get it and I just don't see that happening. If this "momentum" group that has started to make headway gets any serious power guys like Umanna and Hunt could be purged out of the party anyway. I think Corbyn will last until the middle of next year but the damage done could already be irreversible, there is no god given right to be the opposition, had the UKIP surge begun in 2001 the Tories might be a minority party now. We've got a Labour party tomorrow that will officially adopt a position against fiscal responsibility. Where's Bilo anyway? I'd love to hear his thoughts on the last couple of months. Burnham will get it because in normal Labour fashion, they wont think it through. He'll be billed as the man they ACTUALLY wanted last time and try and pass it off as some sort of victory. It will be another disaster.
Guest MattP Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree, I just think the boat has sailed now far him. He's also joined this farce as part of the shadow cabinet, you'd say out the whole cabinet only him and the nonce finder general were potential leaders who have done that and I think the end of Corbyn is the end of them
Strokes Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree, I just think the boat has sailed now far him. He's also joined this farce as part of the shadow cabinet, you'd say out the whole cabinet only him and the nonce finder general were potential leaders who have done that and I think the end of Corbyn is the end of them Politians tend to be a bit more slippery than that Matt, mud just doesn't stick on them. Mandelson or Vaz are fine examples.
BlueSi13 Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 I think it would be better for the Tories to cut its ties with the current crop. Gideon is too much like Cameron/Blair. Not sure who could mount a serious challenge though. You mean he's too much like people who win elections? You think the Conservatives should follow Labour's path into the unknown a la Miliband and Corbyn? Though I think Johnson is a sound politician, I personally feel it would be a mistake if he was chosen to lead the Tories. He gets too flustered, bamboozled and distracted when challenged face-to-face. He was the only senior Conservative I feel Ed Miliband defeated when they came face to face on the Andrew Marr show.
BlueSi13 Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 Meanwhile in other news, Israelis have been subjected to daily terror attacks by Palestinians that have left dozens dead. In responce Hamas "blesses the heroic operations in Jerusalem and hails the heroes (who carried them out)". Jezza must be so proud.
The Railway Man Posted 13 October 2015 Posted 13 October 2015 re Tom Watsom He went way beyond what his remit was, if he gathered information he should go to the police, you can't just take it upon yourself to shout out the names of the accused in parliament, hounding the dying and then still letting his family suffer after his death is so wrong, it's immoral and he should be apologising. I'm glad he's been called to the home select comm. where he can answer to the questions properly. I hope it isn't but from the outside it does look like what he was doing was politically motivated, he was prepared to name Cyril Smith, Lord McAlphone, Leon Brittain but didn't bother with Grevile Janner.
Guest MattP Posted 14 October 2015 Posted 14 October 2015 The beast of Bolsover meets the beast of Broxtowe As ridiculous as the accusations of sexism were, it's nice to see someone actually take the ranting bully boy Skinner to task over something, I've never actually heard him offer up an alternative or solution to anything, just stands there and shouts about the Tories, he's perfect for the current Labour party. His best comeback was "You even look like Thatcher"
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.