A New Political Movement or Uprising?

[IOWFOX]

Notice how none of these right wing/pro tory posters can't even comprehend that something over than massive cuts that ruin the lives of a proportion of the country and (whisper it quietly) don't actually reduce the deficit, while making the richest 1% richer will actually work. Let's face it, the maths dont lie.

[Thracian]

8 hours ago, toddybad said:

Look, I'm not about to try to claim Labour made no mistakes at that point but it always seems to be forgotten that they inherited an absolute mess in 1974.

 

The 1970s were a mess on both sides. Under a Tory government, between 1970 and 1974 a state of emergency was declared on no fewer than 5 separate occasions (a postwar record), we had the miner's strikes of the early 1970s, the 3 day week and commercial electricity restrictions, as well as rapidly growing unemployment. As unemployment exceeded 1 million in 1971, they simultaneously cut taxes and increased public expenditure and then recoiled at the resulting inflation and the crises that followed. 

 

During the Labour years in the second half of the decade, there is evidence that, although a refusal to immediately reduce public expenditure is now considered reckless, living standards were increasing. Public spending was cut by Callaghan prior to Thatcher coming into power and economic indicators were improving in 1978. As it happened, this progress was drowned out by the vivid images of bin bags lining the streets and coffins piled up awaiting burial that was to follow over the Winter of Discontent. It should, however, be remembered that the strikes were initially called in reaction to Callaghan’s refusal to remove a 5% pay rise limit in a bid to further curb inflation.

 

Whilst I have obviously been selective with the facts I've utilised here, I'm not arguing that Labour was great and the Tories bad, rather that the narrative that Labour caused massive problems is not reflective of reality. It seems that Labour is seen extremely harshly whereas the Tories appear to escape their history from the early 1970s much more easily.

 

Just something to muse over. 

There was no end to the damage caused under Labour administrations in the last few decades of the 21st century and beyond but it's all been mentioned countless times. Trouble is the young people on here wouldn't have been there to see it or be affected by much of it.

 

And that's not to excuse the reasons for youthful anger either because they've every right to feel aggrieved for various reasons and it pisses me off to be associated with such ignorance to the point where I wish there was an alternative to trust and believe in. But there's nothing and I'm not the only one who feels that way from conversations I've had. .

 

I've long complained about the lack of suitable people to vote for at election times. After the last election I wanted Theresa May to resign the next day because she was so clearly not a person  I ever wanted to see representing me again - not because she lost but because she was Corbynesque in her refusal to answer straight questions when they happened to his a weak spot and make her uncomfortable.

 

Concerning the tower block tragedy, once again, Mrs May's been lacking. There's so much background on high rise fires you don't need to wait or hedge over the problems. It seems perfectly clear to me that all flats should have fitted sprinkler systems and that the kind of cladding used in the Kensington building is unsafe and already banned in some places. The regulations need to be changed and acted on immediately as does the process of re-accommodating the survivors. 

 

Frankly though the opportunic politicising of the tragedy - and the irresponsibility of it has been appalling. Tower block safety has been neglected by all sorts of administrations over the years. Yet the warnings have stark and the reasons for those warnings incontestable.

 

Again the rules should have been unambiguous and action should have been taken. The tragedy need never have happened and ending the chance of similar tragedies should be the legacy of this one.

 

Not a drive towards the flawed policies of Marxism, a country governed for some rather than all of the people, or a country where young are deliberately set against old and shamelessly manipulated in the process.  .      

 

For me the tower block tragedy has only highlighted the folly of what's come about in Britain over the last 50 years. We're living in a political Poundland with all our services so overstretched they're being cut to ribbons with entirely predictable consequences.

 

Labour's been party to that process and will only make it worse over time cos it serves their purpose. .

 

We need better - real vision with quality to the fore and proper education.             .

 

              

 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

7 hours ago, Webbo said:

2 Months ago everyone thought Corbyn was a joke and the tories were going to win a landslide. He promises middle class kids free tuition and all of a sudden he's the new messiah.

 

No, he's not. He's a very naughty boy!

 

Bet he's run through his fair share of wheat fields.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Thracian said:

There was no end to the damage caused by socialism in the last few decades of the 21st century and beyond but it's all been mentioned countless times. Trouble is the young people on here wouldn't have been there to see it or be affected by much of it.

 

And that's not to excuse the reasons for youthful anger either because they've every right to feel aggrieved for various reasons and it pisses me off to be associated with such ignorance to the point where I wish there was an alternative to trust and believe in. But there's nothing and I'm not the only one who feels that way from conversations I've had. .    

I was hoping you'd reply because you are obviously one of the more 'experienced' members of the forum.  I wasn't actually alive during almost all of the 1970s but am just interested in politics and have read up on things from a number of sources. I wonder whether those around at the time that do not have a clear political allegiance can back up or entirely refute the information I have added above as my reading of the situation is that the 1970s were stuffed from the fist half and labour did too little too late to turn the tide. That clearly isn't how it is remembered by ordinary people but is the only conclusion I can draw from the information I have found covering the entire period. 

 

I'm not clear how socialism has caused untold damage during the last few decades when it hasn't been in play since 1979. Surely neo-liberal economics, deregulation and the failure to recognise that trickle down economics doesn't work are the real causes of damage in this country?

 

There does seem to be something of a consensus amongst the public that what we really need is something in the middle. An alternative as you put it. Although I currently support Labour's aims I have voted for 3 different parties within the last 4 elections. What I feel extremely strongly about is that money is put above people in this country. I see that as primarily a Tory failing at this moment.

 

Looking back over the last few decades, it seems that Tory governments generally tend to try to diminish the state in favour of deregulation. Essentially, they tend to favour the individual's ability to make money over caring for society. Tory governments have fallen because their policies inevitably decimate public services, favour the rich and the public end up seeking hope. 

 

Looking back again, Labour governments have generally tried to increase the size of the state and regulate. They tend to favour caring for society over individual greed. Labour governments tend to fall when costs rise too far. 

 

Surely it wouldn't be too hard to find a middle ground?

 

With a choice of one or the other, however, it has to be Labour. The reason is that whilst both have seen multiple failures in the past, at their heart Tory decisions appear to not care about human suffering, whereas Labour decisions seem to care too much. If  government is going to fail anyway (which all do), I'd rather we chose one that failed for the right reasons. 

 

It should also be remembered that the wealth of a nation is irrelevant if it doesn't provide for its citizens. You can live in the richest nation on earth but still end up with no home if somebody in your family falls victim to a not-critical health condition. That isn't the kind of country I want to end up in. 

[Mike Oxlong]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

I was hoping you'd reply because you are obviously one of the more 'experienced' members of the forum.  I wasn't actually alive during almost all of the 1970s but am just interested in politics and have read up on things from a number of sources. I wonder whether those around at the time that do not have a clear political allegiance can back up or entirely refute the information I have added above as my reading of the situation is that the 1970s were stuffed from the fist half and labour did too little too late to turn the tide. That clearly isn't how it is remembered by ordinary people but is the only conclusion I can draw from the information I have found covering the entire period. 

 

I'm not clear how socialism has caused untold damage during the last few decades when it hasn't been in play since 1979. Surely neo-liberal economics, deregulation and the failure to recognise that trickle down economics doesn't work are the real causes of damage in this country?

 

There does seem to be something of a consensus amongst the public that what we really need is something in the middle. An alternative as you put it. Although I currently support Labour's aims I have voted for 3 different parties within the last 4 elections. What I feel extremely strongly about is that money is put above people in this country. I see that as primarily a Tory failing at this moment.

 

Looking back over the last few decades, it seems that Tory governments generally tend to try to diminish the state in favour of deregulation. Essentially, they tend to favour the individual's ability to make money over caring for society. Tory governments have fallen because their policies inevitably decimate public services, favour the rich and the public end up seeking hope. 

 

Looking back again, Labour governments have generally tried to increase the size of the state and regulate. They tend to favour caring for society over individual greed. Labour governments tend to fall when costs rise too far. 

 

Surely it wouldn't be too hard to find a middle ground?

 

With a choice of one or the other, however, it has to be Labour. The reason is that whilst both have seen multiple failures in the past, at their heart Tory decisions appear to not care about human suffering, whereas Labour decisions seem to care too much. If  government is going to fail anyway (which all do), I'd rather we chose one that failed for the right reasons. 

 

It should also be remembered that the wealth of a nation is irrelevant if it doesn't provide for its citizens. You can live in the richest nation on earth but still end up with no home if somebody in your family falls victim to a not-critical health condition. That isn't the kind of country I want to end up in. 

 

Old

[Izzy]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I was hoping you'd reply because you are obviously one of the more 'experienced' members of the forum.  I wasn't actually alive during almost all of the 1970s but am just interested in politics and have read up on things from a number of sources. I wonder whether those around at the time that do not have a clear political allegiance can back up or entirely refute the information I have added above as my reading of the situation is that the 1970s were stuffed from the fist half and labour did too little too late to turn the tide. That clearly isn't how it is remembered by ordinary people but is the only conclusion I can draw from the information I have found covering the entire period. 

 

I'm not clear how socialism has caused untold damage during the last few decades when it hasn't been in play since 1979. Surely neo-liberal economics, deregulation and the failure to recognise that trickle down economics doesn't work are the real causes of damage in this country?

 

There does seem to be something of a consensus amongst the public that what we really need is something in the middle. An alternative as you put it. Although I currently support Labour's aims I have voted for 3 different parties within the last 4 elections. What I feel extremely strongly about is that money is put above people in this country. I see that as primarily a Tory failing at this moment.

 

Looking back over the last few decades, it seems that Tory governments generally tend to try to diminish the state in favour of deregulation. Essentially, they tend to favour the individual's ability to make money over caring for society. Tory governments have fallen because their policies inevitably decimate public services, favour the rich and the public end up seeking hope. 

 

Looking back again, Labour governments have generally tried to increase the size of the state and regulate. They tend to favour caring for society over individual greed. Labour governments tend to fall when costs rise too far. 

 

Surely it wouldn't be too hard to find a middle ground?

 

With a choice of one or the other, however, it has to be Labour. The reason is that whilst both have seen multiple failures in the past, at their heart Tory decisions appear to not care about human suffering, whereas Labour decisions seem to care too much. If  government is going to fail anyway (which all do), I'd rather we chose one that failed for the right reasons. 

 

It should also be remembered that the wealth of a nation is irrelevant if it doesn't provide for its citizens. You can live in the richest nation on earth but still end up with no home if somebody in your family falls victim to a not-critical health condition. That isn't the kind of country I want to end up in. 

Good post.

 

Can't say as I agree with most of it, but very well articulated none the less 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Lovejoy said:

And create a culture of minimum standards? Maybe working in London has changed my outlook, but personally, I work longer than "9-5" because I firmly believe that hard work is rewarded with success. If people aren't incentivised, standards will slip even further than you've mentioned because people can getaway with working less.

 

I work for a small business and how we compete against much larger corporations is by setting higher standards. This means working longer and harder, but equally, we pay better and can offer a lot more than our larger competitors. "A job well done" is how we survive though.

A job well done at what?

I ask this because, if we were honest with ourselves, many people do jobs that are almost, if not entirely, pointless. 

There are only so many variations of lightbulbs, application forms and whatever else that the world needs. 

What is wrong with working less? Why is it that we see spending more hours at work than at home as a good thing? Unless you are actively saving lives then surely this is just a form of control being exerted over our lives? I could spend 24 hours a day selling double glazing (I do not sell double glazing) but what have I actually achieved? What has humanity gained through my actions? Why are we rewarded for completing meaningless tasks faster or for longer than others?

I guess in a business sense then yes I can understand your view that to compete you must be better than your rivals, and I'm pleased to see pay recognises the sacrifices staff make to realise this but again, what is this for?

I think it was Jeremy Irons who noted that, centuries back, people could spend a few weeks of each season, at a rate of a few hours a day, managing their crops in order to survive. Nowadays, everybody has to spend 9 hours a day doing meaningless tasks to survive. What have we gained by giving up our free time?

I don't think it can happen but our economic system really isn't built to actually give us the important things in life. There are some philosophical questions be asked about what we want life to be like and why.

[Kopfkino]

34 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I was hoping you'd reply because you are obviously one of the more 'experienced' members of the forum.  I wasn't actually alive during almost all of the 1970s but am just interested in politics and have read up on things from a number of sources. I wonder whether those around at the time that do not have a clear political allegiance can back up or entirely refute the information I have added above as my reading of the situation is that the 1970s were stuffed from the fist half and labour did too little too late to turn the tide. That clearly isn't how it is remembered by ordinary people but is the only conclusion I can draw from the information I have found covering the entire period. 

 

I'm not clear how socialism has caused untold damage during the last few decades when it hasn't been in play since 1979. Surely neo-liberal economics, deregulation and the failure to recognise that trickle down economics doesn't work are the real causes of damage in this country?

 

There does seem to be something of a consensus amongst the public that what we really need is something in the middle. An alternative as you put it. Although I currently support Labour's aims I have voted for 3 different parties within the last 4 elections. What I feel extremely strongly about is that money is put above people in this country. I see that as primarily a Tory failing at this moment.

 

Looking back over the last few decades, it seems that Tory governments generally tend to try to diminish the state in favour of deregulation. Essentially, they tend to favour the individual's ability to make money over caring for society. Tory governments have fallen because their policies inevitably decimate public services, favour the rich and the public end up seeking hope. 

 

Looking back again, Labour governments have generally tried to increase the size of the state and regulate. They tend to favour caring for society over individual greed. Labour governments tend to fall when costs rise too far. 

 

Surely it wouldn't be too hard to find a middle ground?

 

With a choice of one or the other, however, it has to be Labour. The reason is that whilst both have seen multiple failures in the past, at their heart Tory decisions appear to not care about human suffering, whereas Labour decisions seem to care too much. If  government is going to fail anyway (which all do), I'd rather we chose one that failed for the right reasons. 

 

It should also be remembered that the wealth of a nation is irrelevant if it doesn't provide for its citizens. You can live in the richest nation on earth but still end up with no home if somebody in your family falls victim to a not-critical health condition. That isn't the kind of country I want to end up in. 

 

Decent post tbf. I haven't agreed with you on much, though I haven't been overly vocal, but can see you have an interest in this stuff which is fair and I'm all for more articulate discussion around this place and I'd prefer less party politics. At least can see where you're coming from on this.

 

Still don't agree with you, for me it's too much in the middle as it is but I accept I'm way to the right of most, and probably just about everyone on here, economically

[Kopfkino]

37 minutes ago, IOWFOX said:

So why then does everone act like the conservatives will be economically sound. Not putting costings looks far worse to me.

 

I think there's a few reasons for that

 

Labour still carries the can for the financial crisis

Labour has a rep for tax and borrow which this country isn't too fond of on the whole

The Conservatives got their economic discourse right between 2013 and 2016 which led to people to believe they could handle the economy better

Recent economic performance (2017 Q1 aside) has had people believe that the economic plan is working

 

Whether those make for justifiable reasons is a different matter. Most people are poorly informed so these reps last and the discourse will hold for an extended period of time. Once you have the upper hand then truth doesn't matter so much, although the Conservatives ceded a bit of ground on this recently because they didn't hammer it home like they did in 2015 and the manifesto was barely costed. But it won't change until Labour can show a credible, well costed economic plan which they clearly didn't this time around.

[Foxxed]

I'm not sure about a new movement but Corbyn's support interests me. I had written him off but, if you look at the seats he won, the Tory vote increased but the Labour vote increased more. This is surely impressive. This, to me, means either

• People genuinely like Corbyn's "human" factor. I don't see it but I can appreciate others do
• Corbyn made the young voters turn out
• Tactical voting made Corbyn seem more popular that he is
• The young turned out for the 2017 election after not turning out in the 2016 referendum

It's a mixture of all four but I wonder which has the most weight. Whichever it is it remains to be seen if it can be sustained. The momentum looking at the Tory's and May's polls post-election seems to have continued at speed.

 

If the Tories do despair about the DUP coalition, reigniting Northern Irish violence, the Brexit negotiations and the state of the Tory party compared to the Labour party it'd be wisest to give Corbyn some coalition power. A lot of his support is "anti-establishment". And the way you fight that is to dirt the anti-establishment with the establishment.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

I think there's a few reasons for that

 

Labour still carries the can for the financial crisis

Labour has a rep for tax and borrow which this country isn't too fond of on the whole

The Conservatives got their economic discourse right between 2013 and 2016 which led to people to believe they could handle the economy better

Recent economic performance (2017 Q1 aside) has had people believe that the economic plan is working

 

Whether those make for justifiable reasons is a different matter. Most people are poorly informed so these reps last and the discourse will hold for an extended period of time. Once you have the upper hand then truth doesn't matter so much, although the Conservatives ceded a bit of ground on this recently because they didn't hammer it home like they did in 2015 and the manifesto was barely costed. But it won't change until Labour can show a credible, well costed economic plan which they clearly didn't this time around.

You'd have to be very selective to find figures to support the idea that economic performance is currently good. Falling wages, increasing inflation, slowing housing market (a good thing btw), diminishing growth and consumer confidence all point in the opposite direction. The problem the Tories have is that they've spent years telling people austerity is for a greater purpose but there doesn't appear to be any positive end to it. You may disagree with me but it seems to me an entirely self-made problem as loosening the purse strings could have improved a number of the indicators. 

 

I've said it before but George Osborne sold austerity on the premise that you should "fix the roof while the sun shines". I could have lived with us scaling back during the good years to give us something to fall back on in the bad. There is sense in that. The problem was that he went for austerity during the bad times. This has only made things worse as the national economy has been in a state of stagnation for years. Growth, primarily from unrealistic house prices, has been focused on only one area of the country which has propped up the national figures. 

[Kopfkino]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You'd have to be very selective to find figures to support the idea that economic performance is currently good. Falling wages, increasing inflation, slowing housing market (a good thing btw), diminishing growth and consumer confidence all point in the opposite direction. The problem the Tories have is that they've spent years telling people austerity is for a greater purpose but there doesn't appear to be any positive end to it. You may disagree with me but it seems to me an entirely self-made problem as loosening the purse strings could have improved a number of the indicators. 

 

I've said it before but George Osborne sold austerity on the premise that you should "fix the roof while the sun shines". I could have lived with us scaling back during the good years to give us something to fall back on in the bad. There is sense in that. The problem was that he went for austerity during the bad times. This has only made things worse as the national economy has been in a state of stagnation for years. Growth, primarily from unrealistic house prices, has been focused on only one area of the country which has propped up the national figures. 

 

Okay I didn't phrase that particularly well but the point was, prior to Q1 2017, the economy has picked up and shown some strength since 2013. IOWFOX was talking about economic credibility and I was saying the Conservatives still have it because things weren't looking too bad prior to the start of this year. I admit that right now you would struggle to find much favourable economic performance. But since 2013 and up until the end of last year, GDP had been growing at a steady rate, around the trend growth mark; wages have been rising, albeit slowly, since the end of 2014; inflation was low, though arguably too low; confidence and investment had also increased; deficit was coming down, albeit slower than desirable; we were performing the 1st or 2nd best out of the G7 and doing far better than most of our continental neighbours. I accept it's changed now but the point wasn't really about now, it was why the credibility existed in the first place.

 

The problem was created by Osborne because he himself used the word austerity back in 2009/2010 and the label stuck, when in all reality we haven't undergone anything like full austerity. He created a stick for him and his party to be beaten with. I'm not sure what purse strings you wanted him to loosen? Do share if you have any ideas what he should have done. From my point of view he didn't do a bad job. Of course now it's a different story and the economic situation looks grim for a number of reasons, which I'm not entirely sure government spending will aid. This year will just be a bit of a shit show.

 

Osborne was left a mess because Brown failed to scale back or at least keep things under control in the good times. A £50bn deficit in 2005 when growth was over 2% was stupid, and actually on a few occasions he broke the EU pact to keep deficits below 3% of GDP.

 

I'm not entirely sure how growth has been focussed in one part of the country. Let's take the most recent data from the ONS which is for 2015. The North West had the highest growth, followed by the North East, and then Yorkshire and Humber. Belfast and Edinburgh were the best performing cities.

[Thracian]

7 hours ago, toddybad said:

I was hoping you'd reply because you are obviously one of the more 'experienced' members of the forum.  I wasn't actually alive during almost all of the 1970s but am just interested in politics and have read up on things from a number of sources. I wonder whether those around at the time that do not have a clear political allegiance can back up or entirely refute the information I have added above as my reading of the situation is that the 1970s were stuffed from the fist half and labour did too little too late to turn the tide. That clearly isn't how it is remembered by ordinary people but is the only conclusion I can draw from the information I have found covering the entire period. 

 

I'm not clear how socialism has caused untold damage during the last few decades when it hasn't been in play since 1979. Surely neo-liberal economics, deregulation and the failure to recognise that trickle down economics doesn't work are the real causes of damage in this country?

 

There does seem to be something of a consensus amongst the public that what we really need is something in the middle. An alternative as you put it. Although I currently support Labour's aims I have voted for 3 different parties within the last 4 elections. What I feel extremely strongly about is that money is put above people in this country. I see that as primarily a Tory failing at this moment.

 

Looking back over the last few decades, it seems that Tory governments generally tend to try to diminish the state in favour of deregulation. Essentially, they tend to favour the individual's ability to make money over caring for society. Tory governments have fallen because their policies inevitably decimate public services, favour the rich and the public end up seeking hope. 

 

Looking back again, Labour governments have generally tried to increase the size of the state and regulate. They tend to favour caring for society over individual greed. Labour governments tend to fall when costs rise too far. 

 

Surely it wouldn't be too hard to find a middle ground?

 

With a choice of one or the other, however, it has to be Labour. The reason is that whilst both have seen multiple failures in the past, at their heart Tory decisions appear to not care about human suffering, whereas Labour decisions seem to care too much. If  government is going to fail anyway (which all do), I'd rather we chose one that failed for the right reasons. 

 

It should also be remembered that the wealth of a nation is irrelevant if it doesn't provide for its citizens. You can live in the richest nation on earth but still end up with no home if somebody in your family falls victim to a not-critical health condition. That isn't the kind of country I want to end up in. 

 

First it's entirely wrong to somehow think Conservatives don't care for people - it's a myth plain and simple and one that is confounded by the number of conservatives who put in lots of private time working extremely hard and unheralded for all sorts of charities and other voluntary organisations.

 

But it might be said that Conservatives don't think you can achieve anything good without money and so they're very much in favour of things that do swell the coffers including businesses which many labour people seem to think are only there to make profit - as if profit is a dirty rather than a beneficial word     - and that caring should be done no matter the cost and any debts that might be incurred.

 

Basically few Conservatives would ever trust labour when it comes to managing money and I can well understand it.

 

Another myth is that Labour are the caring party and the party of the so called working class.

 

Labour didn't give working people the right to buy their council houses when they had the chance and when everyone else had the right - and were encouraged by the Tories - to buy their homes and "get something behind them".

 

Opinions varied on the subject but some thought Labour didn't want the workers getting better off cos it would cost them votes.

 

A bit simplistic but that was a viewpoint. Labour would say they needed to retain social housing but how the hell could that be considered fair? I'd understand the "build more social housing" argument better than denying people the right to purchase - something that should be etched in stone for anyone able to do so.

 

Then there was the actions of the Labour-supporting trades unions who decided they should try to control British heavy industry and encouraged so much workplace disruption that whole industries, part industries and significant companies closed their doors for ever...shipbuilders, mines, steel works and giant vehicle production lines like British Leyland with the massive cost in jobs and decimated communities while people like the mineworkers leader Arthur Scargill lapped up life in his £100,000 home ( a lot of money at the time).

 

Later  there was the stealthy opening of Britain's doors to mass immigration by Tony Blair and the utterly unjustified and indefensible supporting of the war in Iraq and the massive costs and loss of life that particular adventure resulted in for no good outcome that I've yet noticed for all that both changed the world and our country forever.  

 

In fact it's been the catalyst for constant upheaval and destruction across the middle east and beyond ever since. If that's "caring" it's a strange way of showing it. 

 

Corbyn bleats about social provision but the opening of Britain's doors has caused countless problems, one of the greatest of which has been massive pressure on all the major and social services we have whether it be the NHS, domestic care of the elderly, mental health provision, child care, schools, transport systems, housing and so on.

 

At every turn its clear they can't cope but still the policy continues and still we remain in denial with Labour promising more of the same (cos its good for votes for a start as is very clear to see).

 

I think the Conservatives have more than matched Labour on funding the NHS but, truly, the place is a wasteful cash cow that badly needs to change and change rapidly but it is seething with socialist activists - even among GP's - and must be a nightmare to manage.

 

It's under desperate pressure yet there's massive resistance to the clearly sensible idea of reducing that pressure by limiting the population growth which is already approaching what many experts consider to be the notional safe point of 70million - a number I believe we actually reached a while ago.

 

But there's me being as idealistic as many others on a subject that probably won't change for all that something so badly needs to change given the way the nation is so dangerously split. Not only in terms of party or philosophy but also in terms of old and young and even that attitude is being ruthlessly fanned by hose who see advantage in it. 

 

Brexit fueled the fire on that one and it's led to arguments in many a family including my own.

 

Again, so much power and influence was stealthily given away by politicians to the EU, extraction is proving almost impossible. No wonder there's so little trust in politicians and so much anger.

 

Forgive the above being all off the cuff. Alf Bentley may well offer a different perspective which would always be worth reading.

 

I should add though that I'm not a "given" conservative as some seem to think. There are many things I support in opposition manifestos and some I object to among the Tory promises. Indeed I'd much sooner be able to vote for the ideas I support or otherwise rather than for candidates I don't know or don't like.                  .

 

PS: I also think your linking of "money" with "greed" is flawed. They may be connected but it's by no means always the case. And you don't buy much care for nothing,at least outside the family, and not always then either.  

 

 

 

 

              

 

    

 

     . 

 

         

 

      

 

 

[katieakita]

The more people who get involved in politics the better and engaging with the younger generation has got to be good. As a country we face very uncertain times whether that is down to a new political movement remains to be seen and as for an uprising the media and press has a lot to answer. The last election has got to be one of the strangest in living memory and certainly not helped by the media who seem to thrive on causing trouble. Whatever your political views left,right or centre the press are being very manipulative with their own agendas

[ozleicester]

12 hours ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

To be honest... this is part of the problem IMO... PEACEFUL does NOT WORK. It is time for a real uprising, as someone mentioned the young have a short attention span and have been managed and controlled by governments to be scared or excited onto the next thing unless they are shown some results, and those results will NOT come from a meeting, Inquiry or roundtable.

 

Real change will come from it being forced onto the ruling classes. 

 

As for JC not having the money..or needing "other peoples" money, it aint other peoples. F8ckwits like Murdoch and the royal family  etc etc have billions.....get that... BILLIONS of pounds in banks, investments, more than they can ever spend (even if their privileged life does seem to make them immortal), they have more than their kids can spend. It is time it was taken from them and spread for the betterment of ALL 

 

This money must be appropriated and spent on the poor... FFS it really is simple, leave them a 100 million if you like, they wont even miss it.

 

Industry needs to be nationalised, the profits returned to the people. Why should a chosen few benefit from the work and efforts of the rest, No single person/entity should own the land that is mined etc it belongs to all and the profits should go to all, by way of better housing, better health, better education...etc etc

 

The appropriation/investment will create jobs

This will create tax income for "govts"

this will create demand for products

This will lift a generation from poverty

This will give people a reason to live and improve their societal involvement.

 

By the way.. those advocating "trickle down" are idiots, it doesnt work and hasnt, it is a flawed concept and has been proven so!

 

and Tories caring?

 

https://www.indy100.com/article/boris-johnson-london-tower-fire-grenfell-assembly-cuts-fire-service-7790971?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100

 

 

[Webbo]

4 hours ago, ozleicester said:

To be honest... this is part of the problem IMO... PEACEFUL does NOT WORK. It is time for a real uprising, as someone mentioned the young have a short attention span and have been managed and controlled by governments to be scared or excited onto the next thing unless they are shown some results, and those results will NOT come from a meeting, Inquiry or roundtable.

 

Real change will come from it being forced onto the ruling classes. 

 

As for JC not having the money..or needing "other peoples" money, it aint other peoples. F8ckwits like Murdoch and the royal family  etc etc have billions.....get that... BILLIONS of pounds in banks, investments, more than they can ever spend (even if their privileged life does seem to make them immortal), they have more than their kids can spend. It is time it was taken from them and spread for the betterment of ALL 

 

This money must be appropriated and spent on the poor... FFS it really is simple, leave them a 100 million if you like, they wont even miss it.

 

Industry needs to be nationalised, the profits returned to the people. Why should a chosen few benefit from the work and efforts of the rest, No single person/entity should own the land that is mined etc it belongs to all and the profits should go to all, by way of better housing, better health, better education...etc etc

 

The appropriation/investment will create jobs

This will create tax income for "govts"

this will create demand for products

This will lift a generation from poverty

This will give people a reason to live and improve their societal involvement.

 

By the way.. those advocating "trickle down" are idiots, it doesnt work and hasnt, it is a flawed concept and has been proven so!

 

and Tories caring?

 

https://www.indy100.com/article/boris-johnson-london-tower-fire-grenfell-assembly-cuts-fire-service-7790971?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100

 

 

So you'd support the EDL's right to riot and intimidate?

[Steven]

7 hours ago, toddybad said:

I'm not clear how socialism has caused untold damage during the last few decades when it hasn't been in play since 1979. Surely neo-liberal economics, deregulation and the failure to recognise that trickle down economics doesn't work are the real causes of damage in this country?

Quite. I think you need to see everything that has happened since 1979, Thatcher, Reagan, David Lange and illiberal social policy as a reaction to the 1960's . It is no coincidence to me that many people see Theresa May as someone trying to drag society back into the 1950's.

[Charl91]

I'm tired of this being framed as lazy, young, stupid, naive young people voting to ruin the "hard work" of others. Let's re-visit those voting statistics again.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/

 

• Significantly more working people voted for Labour than the Tories, both part time workers and full time workers.
• If we look at age, everyone up to the age of 50 was also more likely to vote for Labour than Tory. This isn't just "young people" voting labour, only the people who are over 50 are more likely to vote blue.
• In terms of education, Tory voters were much more likely to be less educated (GCSE's or below), whereas if you look at people with a high level of education, they're significantly more likely to vote for Labour.
• But I suppose the Conservatives did alright in some statistics. 74% of the people polled who read the Daily Mail also vote conservative . 

 

So Labour voters are the working, educated population up to the age of 50. Whereas the Conservative voters are the retired, daily mail readers. Now I admit, I'm deliberately being a little facetious here; statistics are rarely that simple. But they do paint a much different picture to the idea that a lot of people are trying to paint.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Webbo said:

Free education, free health care, rampant poverty and oppression. Doesn't seem that great to me.

We currently have increasing levels of poverty, expensive education and an nhs undergoing privatisation. This doesn't sound any better. 

[breadandcheese]

It's interesting how the discourse has stuck that the Tories like to diminish the state because they favour people's ability to make money, in apparent contrast to Labour who have a supposed monopoly on caring. 

 

The belief in a smaller less obtrusive state is a belief in liberalism and giving people to make their own choices. That it's been framed as anything else is an attempt to paint one political party as nice and the other nasty. 

 

That's the thing I dislike most in politics today. This presentation of the other side as evil (most used against the Tories). Just because someone has a different opinion does not make them evil.  There is a great deal of compassion in the Conservative party, even in Theresa May (despite her inability to connect with people). From what I can tell, there is a sizeable degree of support predicated on hate for the other side and a belief that they are evil. That is not going to help political debate and makes for an even more fractured and intolerant society. If your starting point is that the other side is evil, I'm not sure what sort of political discourse you can have. 

[breadandcheese]

5 hours ago, ozleicester said:

To be honest... this is part of the problem IMO... PEACEFUL does NOT WORK. It is time for a real uprising, as someone mentioned the young have a short attention span and have been managed and controlled by governments to be scared or excited onto the next thing unless they are shown some results, and those results will NOT come from a meeting, Inquiry or roundtable.

 

Real change will come from it being forced onto the ruling classes. 

 

As for JC not having the money..or needing "other peoples" money, it aint other peoples. F8ckwits like Murdoch and the royal family  etc etc have billions.....get that... BILLIONS of pounds in banks, investments, more than they can ever spend (even if their privileged life does seem to make them immortal), they have more than their kids can spend. It is time it was taken from them and spread for the betterment of ALL 

 

This money must be appropriated and spent on the poor... FFS it really is simple, leave them a 100 million if you like, they wont even miss it.

 

Industry needs to be nationalised, the profits returned to the people. Why should a chosen few benefit from the work and efforts of the rest, No single person/entity should own the land that is mined etc it belongs to all and the profits should go to all, by way of better housing, better health, better education...etc etc

 

The appropriation/investment will create jobs

This will create tax income for "govts"

this will create demand for products

This will lift a generation from poverty

This will give people a reason to live and improve their societal involvement.

 

By the way.. those advocating "trickle down" are idiots, it doesnt work and hasnt, it is a flawed concept and has been proven so!

 

and Tories caring?

 

https://www.indy100.com/article/boris-johnson-london-tower-fire-grenfell-assembly-cuts-fire-service-7790971?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100

 

 

As a counterbalance, capitalism has taken far more people out of poverty than socialism. 

 

Not only that, I wonder how compatible your wishlist above would be with the human rights act. If you want to scrap it, then fair enough, but I've never got that impression about you. 

[Danizen]

Labour didn't gain this much traction because of the 'bribes' or 'free stuff'. It was because the tragedies of the past three months have been indirectly linked to the Conservatives and seven years of austerity. That's where all this anger comes from. 

 

The facts were shown in the media on an almost daily basis and people have drawn their own conclusions, rightly or wrongly. 

 

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks, the cuts to policing numbers were shown so many times that I bet most people who pay attention to the news could reel them off from memory. 

 

After the Grenfell fire, a lot has been made about the lack of adequate fire safety regulations, cost cutting at government &  council level and the potential conflicts of interest in the House of Commons votes. 

 

The Tories were voted in seven years ago  because Cameron made a big deal about being able to make the difficult decisions for the good of the economy. The thing about difficult decisions is they have consequences. Those consequences are being felt now and people are angry. No one can blame the government entirely for the events of the past three months or ever know if this would have happened under a Labour government but May as former Home Secretary and current Prime Minister is in the firing line. 

 

To dismiss this as the lazy, trouble-making left wanting something for nothing and being caught up in fantasy economics missing the point spectacularly. The most important responsibility of the government is to protect the people and we're being failed. 

[Thracian]

 

28 minutes ago, toddybad said:

We currently have increasing levels of poverty, expensive education and an nhs undergoing privatisation. This doesn't sound any better. 

The more people in a place the more poverty in general and especially where the unfrastructure can't cope which is so obviously the situation today.

 

As for the NHS it's a wasteful cash cow and some of its costs beyond defending. These just relate to the medical and legal side.

 

You could doubtless unearth more examples relating to high maintenance costs  and such things as the cost of locums. 

  

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1350257/Now-NHS-pays-1-000-bottle-salt-water.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3711703/NHS-spends-87m-paracetamol-20-TIMES-high-street-cost-Doctors-wrote-22-9m-prescriptions-year-average-cost-3-83-each.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4509388/Why-simple-sorry-save-NHS-millions.html

[ozleicester]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

So you'd support the EDL's right to riot and intimidate?

 

Your level of incomprehension leaves me speechless

 

 

7 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

As a counterbalance, capitalism has taken far more people out of poverty than socialism. 

 

Not only that, I wonder how compatible your wishlist above would be with the human rights act. If you want to scrap it, then fair enough, but I've never got that impression about you. 

Socialism does not need to be opposed to human rights, in fact it aligns perfectly well with them. Exploitation and interference can cause some issues and it isnt perfect, but we need to start looking for all not just the ruling elites.

 

Indeed capitalism has been of benefit, but that benefit ended (for the majority) about 40-50 years ago, sure Africa has been brought up and poverty reduced there, but only by exploiting the land and the people, they may no longer live on a dollar a day, but compare how much the top end have made compared to the poor.

[breadandcheese]

9 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

 

Your level of incomprehension leaves me speechless

 

 

Socialism does not need to be opposed to human rights, in fact it aligns perfectly well with them. Exploitation and interference can cause some issues and it isnt perfect, but we need to start looking for all not just the ruling elites.

 

Indeed capitalism has been of benefit, but that benefit ended (for the majority) about 40-50 years ago, sure Africa has been brought up and poverty reduced there, but only by exploiting the land and the people, they may no longer live on a dollar a day, but compare how much the top end have made compared to the poor.

It's more the appropriation of private property that I believe breaches the Human Rights Act. 

 

Also, I would dispute your assertion that the benefit of capitalism ended 40-50 years ago. I can see the benefits all around us. According to the UN, extreme poverty rates have halved since 1990. Yes, the top end has got wealthier (through a lot of corruption in some places of poor governance) but it is striking that capitalism has been the driver of reducing poverty, not aid programmes.