Guest Posted 26 October 2015 Posted 26 October 2015 I'd be interested to know what he thinks people would be looking for in a revolution if we weren't all pacified through consumerism etc. Because to me it seems that whenever revolution is proposed, in the UK at least, it usually boils down to someone wanting a bit more money with which to be a better consumer. If desire for money, consumerism, materialism etc is all bollox, then surely financial inequality doesn't matter and wouldn't be a trigger for revolution in a newly enlightened society. What we might revolt about would be things like health care, freedom of expression, education etc but why would we be in revolt when those aspects of society are better now than ever before in history thanks mostly to capitalism? Maybe society is the way it is because this is how people want it to be, rather than being shaped by an undefined, invisible force. The masses just follow. Even you must have worked that out by now. They are easily led wherever the "leaders" want them to go.
Webbo Posted 26 October 2015 Posted 26 October 2015 The masses just follow. Even you must have worked that out by now. They are easily led wherever the "leaders" want them to go. Isn't that why we have leaders, to lead?
MooseBreath Posted 26 October 2015 Posted 26 October 2015 The masses just follow. Even you must have worked that out by now. They are easily led wherever the "leaders" want them to go. What would people want out of life if they weren't being told what to want, that's my question. I think it would be very similar to the things they want now, when they are allegedly being told what to want. Which is perhaps evidence that they aren't being told what to want after all.
Sharpe's Fox Posted 26 October 2015 Posted 26 October 2015 Isn't that why we have leaders, to lead? I think FIF's use of inverted commas suggested they're the ones being lead.
cityfanlee23 Posted 26 October 2015 Posted 26 October 2015 Speaks volumes when former Chancellor of the thatcher era Lord Lawson has stated the Tax Credits bill needs changing. This is definitely the most right wing government we've seen IMO. I'm centre right but have to admit, DC and GO need controlling, This is turning into a dictatorship.
Webbo Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 Speaks volumes when former Chancellor of the thatcher era Lord Lawson has stated the Tax Credits bill needs changing. This is definitely the most right wing government we've seen IMO. I'm centre right but have to admit, DC and GO need controlling, This is turning into a dictatorship. How is it turning into a dictatorship?
RobHawk Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 Its quiet in here considering what happened in the house of lords yesterday! Embarrassing day for George, i can't believe people on here haven't had more to say on it to be honest!
Bettsj2 Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 Its quiet in here considering what happened in the house of lords yesterday! Embarrassing day for George, i can't believe people on here haven't had more to say on it to be honest! Was just thinking this. I'm neutral when it comes to politics so would love to hear what Tory supporters think to this. MattP is usually quite active in here and I like reading his posts. I thought he'd be all over this?
Guest Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 Isn't that why we have leaders, to lead? Sure and we have shepherds for sheep.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 It's just a blog, and I don't know the bloke from Adam but this seems like a good explanation of some of the issues around what happened yesterday (although written before the Lords took the ball away): http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/10/26/tory-secrecy-on-tax-credits-has-come-back-to-haunt-them
Guest Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 Its quiet in here considering what happened in the house of lords yesterday! Embarrassing day for George, i can't believe people on here haven't had more to say on it to be honest! Deliberate play by George and Cammy. They know that the bill is shit, they know that they have a majority, they want to change things in the HOL. Now they're trying to do just that. It's not a rubber stamp house Georgio.
Bettsj2 Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 Deliberate play by George and Cammy. They know that the bill is shit, they know that they have a majority, they want to change things in the HOL. Now they're trying to do just that. It's not a rubber stamp house Georgio. That sounds like the kind of excuse Labour would use.
Rincewind Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 That sounds like the kind of excuse Labour would use. I'd say any party. There was even talk of making more Tory peers so as to ensure a majority in the HOL. Sounds like they would like to do away with any opposition to their plans. They will be banning protest meetings next.
Guest MattP Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 My PC is broken Betts so I can't do any long posts. It's an interesting night that's for sure, I didn't like the cuts to tax credits but it's absolutely deleterious that an unelected body can overrule an elected parliament. What Cameron does now is interesting, he's within his rights now to fill house of lords with Tories of he wants. Hopefully George will use it to his advantage, do the U turn and take the money from real welfare or foreign aid or something, then you'll be lauded by people you were about to completely do over.
RobHawk Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 My PC is broken Betts so I can't do any long posts. It's an interesting night that's for sure, I didn't like the cuts to tax credits but it's absolutely deleterious that an unelected body can overrule an elected parliament. What Cameron does now is interesting, he's within his rights now to fill house of lords with Tories of he wants. Hopefully George will use it to his advantage, do the U turn and take the money from real welfare or foreign aid or something, then you'll be lauded by people you were about to completely do over. To be honest, i think the HOL needs a major revamp - but at the same time, having a group of people ensuring that the government do what is right for the people of the UK and scrutinising legislation is vital i think. The tories can bleet on about the HOL all they like but if they had detailed the tax credit in their manifesto, the HOL would have been powerless and when so many high profile tory peers apposed the bill too - It just shows that George was wrong.
Darkon84 Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 I'd say any party. There was even talk of making more Tory peers so as to ensure a majority in the HOL. Sounds like they would like to do away with any opposition to their plans. They will be banning protest meetings next. We've been through this before. There really isn't an overwhelming majority of Conservative Peers, as some publications or people would have you believe. Will they really be banning protest meetings? I'd love to hear more about that, do tell! Breakdown out of a total of 816: Conservative - 249 Labour - 213 Crossbench - 176 Liberal Democrat - 112 Bishops - 25 Non-affiliated - 24 Other - 17
ousefox Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 It seems like quite a good check on the government on such an unpopular measure that Cameron lied about in the debates before the election. The Tories would be able to push it through without the Lords eventually if they're that desperate but this obviously puts a lot of pressure on them to look at it again.
Captain... Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 My PC is broken Betts so I can't do any long posts. It's an interesting night that's for sure, I didn't like the cuts to tax credits but it's absolutely deleterious that an unelected body can overrule an elected parliament. What Cameron does now is interesting, he's within his rights now to fill house of lords with Tories of he wants. Hopefully George will use it to his advantage, do the U turn and take the money from real welfare or foreign aid or something, then you'll be lauded by people you were about to completely do over. Most political systems have a two house system, it is a form of control, the fact that one of ours is unelected should mean it is impartial, and it very rarely blocks legislation, but it is there to do so when it feels the Government is crossing a line it shouldn't. The Queen doesn't get involved in politics any more so the only barrier to a majority government doing what they want is the HOL. If the Tories do fill it with Tory peers then Labour can't complain as they changed the rules on the HOL as part of the fox hunting ban. Don't get me wrong I would like to see reform, but only for the better another elected house would surely just follow the whim of the nation and create 2 houses filled with career politicians all voting the same way, when they can be bothered.
Guest MattP Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 I think we all want some sort of reform and we should, the thing in it's present form is quite ludicrous. It is worth mentioning that the Lords didn't vote for the Lib Dem measure to completely overrule this, they voted for the later two amendments to send it back asking for compensation and concessions, wouldn't rule out Osborne making a token tweek and sending it back again. It's still not right though; I don't know if due to the direction Labour have taken the peers have decided to become the opposition to the government instead but something will have to give if they intend to make a habit of this.
Captain... Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 I think we all want some sort of reform and we should, the thing in it's present form is quite ludicrous. It is worth mentioning that the Lords didn't vote for the Lib Dem measure to completely overrule this, they voted for the later two amendments to send it back asking for compensation and concessions, wouldn't rule out Osborne making a token tweek and sending it back again. It's still not right though; I don't know if due to the direction Labour have taken the peers have decided to become the opposition to the government instead but something will have to give if they intend to make a habit of this. In this case I don't see any need for reform, the government are pushing through something that is viewed as fundamentally wrong by many and it is being blocked by the HOL which has been put in place to protect the people and block unfair and unwanted legislation. They don't make a habit of doing this but it is exactly why they exist, if they just passed through everything the commons had agreed upon it would serve absolutely no purpose.
MooseBreath Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 Isn't this the first thing they've blocked in a hundred years or something? It seems odd that a government who was democratically elected after having made no secret of their plan to cut welfare can be blocked from cutting welfare because it is deemed unpopular (was there a public vote on this I missed?) whereas they chose not to block almost universally unpopular acts like going to war in Iraq or PFI to name but two examples. They definitely need that power taken away from them. I voted for the conservatives because I want them to make the decisions for the country. The HOL are making a mockery out of democracy by interfering.
Guest Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 Isn't this the first thing they've blocked in a hundred years or something? It seems odd that a government who was democratically elected after having made no secret of their plan to cut welfare can be blocked from cutting welfare because it is deemed unpopular (was there a public vote on this I missed?) whereas they chose not to block almost universally unpopular acts like going to war in Iraq or PFI to name but two examples. They definitely need that power taken away from them. I voted for the conservatives because I want them to make the decisions for the country. The HOL are making a mockery out of democracy by interfering. They don't really have much power. If the govt. wants it to go through it will (fact is they don't). The govt. did make it a secret that they'd cut tax credits. I think some are confusing a democratic majority with a dictatorship.
Sharpe's Fox Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 Isn't this the first thing they've blocked in a hundred years or something? It seems odd that a government who was democratically elected after having made no secret of their plan to cut welfare can be blocked from cutting welfare because it is deemed unpopular (was there a public vote on this I missed?) whereas they chose not to block almost universally unpopular acts like going to war in Iraq or PFI to name but two examples. They definitely need that power taken away from them. I voted for the conservatives because I want them to make the decisions for the country. The HOL are making a mockery out of democracy by interfering. Ironic then the the Tories were the only party who didn't include HOL reform in their manifesto in the general election. As you say you voted for that decision, mate
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.