Not The Politics Thread.

[Carl the Llama]

 

 

On 18/05/2021 at 12:47, String fellow said:

On the broader question of ownership, it was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who, in 1840, wrote that property is theft! I first came across this pearl of wisdom (!) as a student, when a colleague expressed the same view. Interestingly, that didn't stop him from accepting lifts in my car.

I'm not sure I follow, what's the hypocrisy here?

 

On 18/05/2021 at 06:59, doverfox said:

But surely the entire purpose of the tweet and probably the research behind the post is say look Tory scum own their own homes. I would suggest this shows the a huge majority of working class do own their own homes but and here is the point the left cant get their head around is they no longer vote Labour.  I would suggest that it is statements like this tweet and yours that are what is fundamentally wrong with Labour. The working man has evolved, unfortunately those who claim they represent him havent. 

On 18/05/2021 at 10:23, String fellow said:

Pretty offensive term, that. It's not really any different to slurs applied to any given group of people based on their race, gender, age or whatever. 

Your political sports team of choice is by no means an immutable characteristic bestowed upon you in the womb.  Whilst I agree it's not nice to refer to anybody as scum it's hardly on the same level as a true '-ism', but more to the point in this particular context it's being said as a strawman argument from somebody defending the Tories (I've quoted it immediately above so you can review it), not referencing any verifiable instance of that insult being made.  It's victimhood by self-identification.  This comment and that are snowflake behaviour of the highest order.  Yet somehow you'll both still be sitting at your keyboard thinking it's always the left getting faux-outraged and virtue signalling.

[String fellow]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

 

 

I'm not sure I follow, what's the hypocrisy here?

 

Your political sports team of choice is by no means an immutable characteristic bestowed upon you in the womb.  Whilst I agree it's not nice to refer to anybody as scum it's hardly on the same level as a true '-ism', but more to the point in this particular context it's being said as a strawman argument from somebody defending the Tories (I've quoted it immediately above so you can review it), not referencing any verifiable instance of that insult being made.  It's victimhood by self-identification.  This comment and that are snowflake behaviour of the highest order.  Yet somehow you'll both still be sitting at your keyboard thinking it's always the left getting faux-outraged and virtue signalling.

Thank you for your thoughts, which I read with amusement. Regarding the phrase I was complaining about, its context was not relevant. I was simply complaining about the phrase per se. Here's a verifiable instance of its use.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/21/angela-rayner-accused-of-calling-tory-mp-scum-in-commons

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, String fellow said:

Thank you for your thoughts, which I read with amusement. Regarding the phrase I was complaining about, its context was not relevant. I was simply complaining about the phrase per se. Here's a verifiable instance of its use.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/21/angela-rayner-accused-of-calling-tory-mp-scum-in-commons

I'm going to be honest, this doesn't do much to dispel the idea of the victim narrative that Carl espoused.

[CosbehFox]

Tories nicking more Corbyn policy with the railways 

[leicsmac]

 

 

Ummmm.....

[Innovindil]

41 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

Ummmm.....

Actually agree to some extent. We do seem to be trying to drift further away from individual responsibility, thus relying heavily on politics to shift us forward. 

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Actually agree to some extent. We do seem to be trying to drift further away from individual responsibility, thus relying heavily on politics to shift us forward. 

Yeah, but Prager evidently thinks that such progress is somehow a bad thing. I'm not sure why the method of the progress is somehow bad so long as it is effective.

[Innovindil]

38 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, but Prager evidently thinks that such progress is somehow a bad thing. I'm not sure why the method of the progress is somehow bad so long as it is effective.

Didn't read the rest of the tweets tbh so not sure where he/she says it's a bad thing. But if they do view it that way I'd probably say from my own point of view that the method could be bad because people will lose an ability to push society forwards as individuals and merely wait for the next political bill. I hate the term but it seems sufficient, we'd all become a bit like sheep, eh? 

[Finnaldo]

56 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Actually agree to some extent. We do seem to be trying to drift further away from individual responsibility, thus relying heavily on politics to shift us forward. 

But as much individual responsibility you may have, it counts for nought if external factors (e.g. everyone else or at least, a sizeable chunk of everyone else) isn’t, individual responsibility is a good step but societal change is virtually impossible to truly shift without overview, e.g. sensible governance. 
 

As an example, for every Titus Salt there was a hundred factory owners happy to exploit their workers to the bone for the bare minimum. It wasn’t until government intervention via regulation with the working day, minimum pay, slum clearing etc. that we actually saw progress. 
 

I guess it’s how you define ‘progress’ on a micro or macro level, however.

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Didn't read the rest of the tweets tbh so not sure where he/she says it's a bad thing. But if they do view it that way I'd probably say from my own point of view that the method could be bad because people will lose an ability to push society forwards as individuals and merely wait for the next political bill. I hate the term but it seems sufficient, we'd all become a bit like sheep, eh? 

Well, for a bit of background, PragerU are basically old school Objectivist Libertarians. Every man an island and all that.

 

With respect to the topic at hand, from my own point of view consensus is a much more secure (and less brutal at an everyday level) way of driving progress than an individual doing it "their way" anyway. What Finnaldo says above is also true. Yes, some decisions are better made at the personal level, but any really meaningful, large scale progress in society has to come as a result of political decisions reached through consensus.

[Innovindil]

15 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

But as much individual responsibility you may have, it counts for nought if external factors (e.g. everyone else or at least, a sizeable chunk of everyone else) isn’t, individual responsibility is a good step but societal change is virtually impossible to truly shift without overview, e.g. sensible governance. 
 

As an example, for every Titus Salt there was a hundred factory owners happy to exploit their workers to the bone for the bare minimum. It wasn’t until government intervention via regulation with the working day, minimum pay, slum clearing etc. that we actually saw progress. 
 

I guess it’s how you define ‘progress’ on a micro or macro level, however.

It's a good point and a good example and I agree. 

 

It's when people are relying on government intervention for things I believe fall on every individual that I think the line becomes grey.

 

For my example, there was a story on the BBC earlier this week regarding the government's dilly dallying over age verification for adult sites. In the story there was a basket of people saying we must save the kids, we have statistics that girls are being abused because of it at school etc etc. Now I completely agree, children should not under any circumstances be able to access sites like this, but in the entire story, there was not a single mention of ANY parental responsibility for what these children access online, OR how they treat girls in real life.

 

To me, getting every adult in the UK that wants access to that material to sign up to some sort of database, without even mentioning the various ways parents can limit, if not remove a child's access to it, is bonkers. When did government intervention override teaching your kid not to be a cvnt. And on this general outline, I believe not teaching these kids how to react to these types of things early, instead just trying to shield them from everything, will in the end damage them far more. 

 

It's early, really hope some of that at least made some sense. Sorry. 

 

15 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Well, for a bit of background, PragerU are basically old school Objectivist Libertarians. Every man an island and all that.

 

With respect to the topic at hand, from my own point of view consensus is a much more secure (and less brutal at an everyday level) way of driving progress than an individual doing it "their way" anyway. What Finnaldo says above is also true. Yes, some decisions are better made at the personal level, but any really meaningful, large scale progress in society has to come as a result of political decisions reached through consensus.

Ah he seems a bit on the extreme side then. By no means am I married to the idea, I just sort of see a loose point of it. 

 

And I agree, for the large things, everyone together, or at least majority together is a good way to go about it. 

 

[CosbehFox]

There's no doubt there's been a growing sense non-responsibility when it comes to an individual's choices.

 

However, there's some fairly fundamental issues within the British society which require restricting. Home ownership being a huge issue  - where regardless of your career and wage as a young adult, the competition for buying your home is so fierce that it's incredibly difficult for someone like my brother, a bricklayer of seven years to purchase a property. There's a multitude of reasons why including self-interest of those who serve us in parliament regardless of political preference.

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Innovindil said:

It's a good point and a good example and I agree. 

 

It's when people are relying on government intervention for things I believe fall on every individual that I think the line becomes grey.

 

For my example, there was a story on the BBC earlier this week regarding the government's dilly dallying over age verification for adult sites. In the story there was a basket of people saying we must save the kids, we have statistics that girls are being abused because of it at school etc etc. Now I completely agree, children should not under any circumstances be able to access sites like this, but in the entire story, there was not a single mention of ANY parental responsibility for what these children access online, OR how they treat girls in real life.

 

To me, getting every adult in the UK that wants access to that material to sign up to some sort of database, without even mentioning the various ways parents can limit, if not remove a child's access to it, is bonkers. When did government intervention override teaching your kid not to be a cvnt. And on this general outline, I believe not teaching these kids how to react to these types of things early, instead just trying to shield them from everything, will in the end damage them far more. 

 

It's early, really hope some of that at least made some sense. Sorry. 

 

Ah he seems a bit on the extreme side then. By no means am I married to the idea, I just sort of see a loose point of it. 

 

And I agree, for the large things, everyone together, or at least majority together is a good way to go about it. 

 

No disagreement there whatsoever. You give a good example of where individual responsibility should come to the fore. But for the big stuff, it has to be consensus that is the driver, I think.

[Bellend Sebastian]

I could take f***ing Tory 'concern' about the way the BBC conducted itself around that Diana interview if they hadn't cancelled part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry which was going to look at press wrongdoing that's about 1000 times worse

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Who in their right mind vote Labour?. Their only policy is the knock the Consrevatives, but have no practical policies of their own. What a waste of space they are. Little wonder they have been hammered out of sight by the voters of this country. 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

Blimey.

 

 

[BlueSi13]

1 hour ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Blimey.

 

 

Actually getting silly now.  As a Conservative voter myself I don't think this is healthy.

[Fightforever]

If the Green party follows the example set by the German Green party I could see them winning quite a few seats next election. Another party really should be taking advantage of Labour's failure to establish any policy. 

Edited 24 May 2021 by Fightforever

[LiberalFox]

7 hours ago, Fightforever said:

If the Green party follows the example set by the German Green party I could see them winning quite a few seats next election. Another party really should be taking advantage of Labour's failure to establish any policy. 

Need more proportional voting I think. At least I'm hoping the Greens are better on that than Labour even if it is fueled by self interest. 

[Nalis]

On 22/05/2021 at 14:45, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

Who in their right mind vote Labour?. Their only policy is the knock the Consrevatives, but have no practical policies of their own. What a waste of space they are. Little wonder they have been hammered out of sight by the voters of this country. 

History shows that any party that has a main policy of 'Stop (x)' has flopped. It doesnt work if thats the main marketing line as voters dont buy it and if anything it riles up the sceptics to voting for the opposition.

 

One example is a local assembly election in Northern Ireland around the early/mid 2000s where the SDLP's campaign was based around stopping the DUP. The DUP became the biggest party in Norn Iron for the 1st time and the SDLP came 4th. Othet factors come into play of course but this tactic doesnt work.

[Dunge]

The result of the Hartlepool by-election is frustrating to me in a way. I was quite liking Keir Starmer. I wasn’t entirely on board yet but I liked what he was trying to do with the Labour Party and it at least felt to me that I had a genuine choice to make at elections. His brand of pragmatic competence and at least trying to understand the voters was winning me over.

 

But since then, Labour have reverted to wheeling out Laura Pidcock and Richard Burgen, so now I’m right back where I was a year or so ago voting for pretty much anything in a blue rosette. They and the likes of John McDonnell, Claudia Webbe, etc. are just utterly toxic to me.

[Alf Bentley]

31 minutes ago, Dunge said:

The result of the Hartlepool by-election is frustrating to me in a way. I was quite liking Keir Starmer. I wasn’t entirely on board yet but I liked what he was trying to do with the Labour Party and it at least felt to me that I had a genuine choice to make at elections. His brand of pragmatic competence and at least trying to understand the voters was winning me over.

 

But since then, Labour have reverted to wheeling out Laura Pidcock and Richard Burgen, so now I’m right back where I was a year or so ago voting for pretty much anything in a blue rosette. They and the likes of John McDonnell, Claudia Webbe, etc. are just utterly toxic to me.

 

Have they? Or have Pidcock and Burgon just appeared in the media recently of their own volition (as they're perfectly entitled to do)?

 

Pidcock lost her seat in 2019 so is not even an MP any more, while Burgon was dropped from Starmer's shadow cabinet......so I'm not sure in what sense "Labour has reverted to wheeling [them] out"?

 

The nature of our election system means that the big parties have to be "broad churches" to win power.

That doesn't mean that every backbencher or ex-MP speaks for the party. Major and Duncan-Smith have been in the media. Doesn't mean the Tories are reverting to wheeling them out....

[CosbehFox]

We discussed previously in the thread about trends forming in traditional Tory areas where the young population are beginning to vote away from the mean. Part of the frustration created by a lack of housing in major cities and a spill over into surrounding areas amongst other things. 
 

Unlikely to really bite at 2023/24 election but will possibly will do after that 

Edited 24 May 2021 by Cardiff_Fox

[Dunge]

54 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Have they? Or have Pidcock and Burgon just appeared in the media recently of their own volition (as they're perfectly entitled to do)?

 

Pidcock lost her seat in 2019 so is not even an MP any more, while Burgon was dropped from Starmer's shadow cabinet......so I'm not sure in what sense "Labour has reverted to wheeling [them] out"?

 

The nature of our election system means that the big parties have to be "broad churches" to win power.

That doesn't mean that every backbencher or ex-MP speaks for the party. Major and Duncan-Smith have been in the media. Doesn't mean the Tories are reverting to wheeling them out....

Well, fair point. I accept I was being a little fruity with the phrase “wheeled out”, particularly in the case of Burgon. Although it could be argued that that’s even more serious a problem for Labour because it demonstrates to me that Starmer no longer has control over them.

 

Regardless, I’m sure they’ve been louder and more prevalent since the elections, to the point where it looks like they’re pushing their way back in from the cold. And for me at least they bring the cold with them.

[Alf Bentley]

29 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Well, fair point. I accept I was being a little fruity with the phrase “wheeled out”, particularly in the case of Burgon. Although it could be argued that that’s even more serious a problem for Labour because it demonstrates to me that Starmer no longer has control over them.

 

Regardless, I’m sure they’ve been louder and more prevalent since the elections, to the point where it looks like they’re pushing their way back in from the cold. And for me at least they bring the cold with them.

 

No leader of any party ever has complete control over everything said to the media by members of their party - apart from under totalitarian regimes etc.

I wouldn't want any party leader to have such absolute control - though I'd hope that all party representatives would only publicly express dissent occasionally, on matters of principle etc.

 

It's who controls party policy that matters - and Burgon & Pidcock no longer have such control. They're just expressing their views as individuals or members of a particular party faction.

Similarly, you get John Major expressing anti-Brexit views, Mark François expressing right-wing views, Charles Walker expressing anti-lockdown views......all Tory MPs but none necessarily speaking for the Tory party, controlled by Johnson & co.

 

Of course, in any party it is generally a disciplinary offence, as an elected representative, to publicly express views unacceptable to the party.

 

I don't know what views Burgon & Pidcock raised that got your goat. But if they've been in the media more lately, I imagine that's either to do with the particular issue or because the media is aware of criticism of Starmer and wants to air rival voices a bit more.