IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

18 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Corbyn, This is democracy!!!!
Simon Kirby
post Jul 20 2016, 07:43 PM
Post #41


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 20 2016, 08:37 PM) *
I don't believe that it has moved far-right, however, anything on the far-left sees anything away from that spot as far-left. However, if you are right, then it is because the people moved in that direction. And without the people, you haven't got anything. And don't you profess to support the people?

It was your assertion that Labour is a party of the far-left, so go ahead, make that argument. I've given you the BBC's 24-point distillation of Corbynism so feel free to start from there, or not, it's your argument to make.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Jul 20 2016, 07:59 PM
Post #42


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 20 2016, 08:43 PM) *
It was your assertion that Labour is a party of the far-left, so go ahead, make that argument. I've given you the BBC's 24-point distillation of Corbynism so feel free to start from there, or not, it's your argument to make.





Wasn't it you that criticised the BBC for being biased in the past? Now it suits you, you use them.

I don't need to make the argument; their own MPs do that quite well. And it isn't my assertion; it is being said up and down the country. However, and saying that I do agree.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jul 20 2016, 08:04 PM
Post #43


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 20 2016, 08:42 PM) *
You could look at it a different way. Such regalia attracts people from all over the world (tourists), and from this country. The money that is made on that alone outweighs the money spent on such regalia etc.

"The United Kingdom is the world's 8th biggest tourist destination, with 36.115 million visiting in 2015. US$22.072 billion was spent in the UK by foreign tourists. VisitBritain data shows that the US remains the most-valuable inbound market, with American visitors spending £2.1 billion in 2010." And why do they come? Because of our pomp and ceremony. Removing it could mean that you end up cutting your nose off to spite your face. All this money helps those that you have quoted.

Ironically enough the idea that public money should be spent to prop-up an otherwise unsustainable economy is leftist, and my position - that the BID should pay for any promotional pomp that supports Newbury business, is rightist. I trust that none of those thousands of tourists visiting Newbury want to use a public toilet.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jul 20 2016, 08:05 PM
Post #44


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 20 2016, 08:59 PM) *
I don't need to make the argument...

Bwaaak bwk bwk bwk... wink.gif


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jul 20 2016, 08:28 PM
Post #45


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



If all the parties did maintain a centrist approach, we'd never have had the Thatcher revolution. That essentially ended a period like today, where there was little real difference between the parties. Ironically a 'left wing' centre. Now, as there are growing numbers who see that state intervention in housing, public ownership of natural monopoly, the retention of an inclusive free at point of delivery health system etc, the call for change is growing ever stronger. It will need another catalyst to shake us out of our complacency; last time it was the greed and callousness of just a few Trades Union Leaders, substitute them for Business Leaders in a couple of years and the polarity of the centre will be changed alright.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Jul 21 2016, 08:23 AM
Post #46


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 20 2016, 09:05 PM) *
Bwaaak bwk bwk bwk... wink.gif





I said I didn't need to make a case because it has already been made. Made by Labour MPs and others.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Jul 21 2016, 08:34 AM
Post #47


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 20 2016, 09:28 PM) *
If all the parties did maintain a centrist approach, we'd never have had the Thatcher revolution. That essentially ended a period like today, where there was little real difference between the parties.


Of course we would have had Thatcher. Circumstances created her. When she came to power she was centrist (or played the centrist game to appease the "wets"). At the same time we were know as the "sick man of Europe". Labour was tearing themselves apart (as they are doing now) and this gave Thatcher her chance to start her changes. Remember; it took Thatcher three years to get the right people in Government (her people). Before that she had to put up with the "wets".

QUOTE
Ironically a 'left wing' centre. Now, as there are growing numbers who see that state intervention in housing, public ownership of natural monopoly, the retention of an inclusive free at point of delivery health system etc, the call for change is growing ever stronger. It will need another catalyst to shake us out of our complacency; last time it was the greed and callousness of just a few Trades Union Leaders, substitute them for Business Leaders in a couple of years and the polarity of the centre will be changed alright.


I agree that we need a catalyst to change things, but that change isn't here at the moment, and if it does come it will probably come when one party (properly Labour) moves too far to the left (making them redundant), which will give opportunity to the other party (probably Tory again) to implement those changes.

The only time we've had another party - other than the Tory's - that made a difference was Attlee's Labour party. The Tories wanted more of the same (the status quo) and this let Attlee in. The trouble is the Tory's have always been fast learners and encroached on their territory and replaced Labour in 1951 (after six years of Labour rule) and removed ration books, built mre houses and continued with the National Health service etc.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Jul 21 2016, 08:35 AM
Post #48


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 20 2016, 09:04 PM) *
Ironically enough the idea that public money should be spent to prop-up an otherwise unsustainable economy is leftist, and my position - that the BID should pay for any promotional pomp that supports Newbury business, is rightist. I trust that none of those thousands of tourists visiting Newbury want to use a public toilet.





Didn't they reverse the decision on public toilet closures?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jul 21 2016, 08:58 AM
Post #49


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 21 2016, 09:34 AM) *
Of course we would have had Thatcher. Circumstances created her. When she came to power she was centrist (or played the centrist game to appease the "wets"). At the same time we were know as the "sick man of Europe". Labour was tearing themselves apart (as they are doing now) and this gave Thatcher her chance to start her changes. Remember; it took Thatcher three years to get the right people in Government (her people). Before that she had to put up with the "wets".



I agree that we need a catalyst to change things, but that change isn't here at the moment, and if it does come it will probably come when one party (properly Labour) moves too far to the left (making them redundant), which will give opportunity to the other party (probably Tory again) to implement those changes.

The only time we've had another party - other than the Tory's - that made a difference was Attlee's Labour party. The Tories wanted more of the same (the status quo) and this let Attlee in. The trouble is the Tory's have always been fast learners and encroached on their territory and replaced Labour in 1951 (after six years of Labour rule) and removed ration books, built mre houses and continued with the National Health service etc.


Go back further, the 1906 Liberal government was another massive sea change. However, these changes no matter how beneficial can only happen if there are real differences between political parties. In all of these examples, party policies were significantly different thus enabling the change. Ironically, we've tended to decline and stagnate when they are the same; the 'consensus' politics of the 60s and 70s, the national governments in the 1930s. That's why Labour really does need to be different.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Jul 21 2016, 11:32 AM
Post #50


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 21 2016, 09:58 AM) *
Go back further, the 1906 Liberal government was another massive sea change. However, these changes no matter how beneficial can only happen if there are real differences between political parties. In all of these examples, party policies were significantly different thus enabling the change. Ironically, we've tended to decline and stagnate when they are the same; the 'consensus' politics of the 60s and 70s, the national governments in the 1930s. That's why Labour really does need to be different.





I totally agree with you here; the only way that we can get change is if parties are fundamentally different. However, and saying that, in all those examples there was a real call for change in society (1906, 1945 & 1979). When there was fundamental differences one party (normally Labour) ended up trying to destroy itself. But is there real call for change now? I am not so sure.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 21 2016, 02:20 PM
Post #51


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



I thought we had a comparatively good government when we had the coalition, but we couldn't directly vote for it. I think we have to analyse democracy and how it can best implemented. All winning national parties and referendum decisions are achieved by a minority of the population. The right have an advantage because there are fewer right-wing parties, so fewer split votes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Jul 21 2016, 03:19 PM
Post #52


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 21 2016, 03:20 PM) *
I thought we had a comparatively good government when we had the coalition, but we couldn't directly vote for it. I think we have to analyse democracy and how it can best implemented. All winning national parties and referendum decisions are achieved by a minority of the population. The right have an advantage because there are fewer right-wing parties, so fewer split votes.





The trouble is democracy is different things to different people. Over analysing you can end up disappearing to the planet Uranus. And who analyses it? The People? The government? Or the minority groups?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 21 2016, 04:41 PM
Post #53


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 21 2016, 04:19 PM) *
The trouble is democracy is different things to different people. Over analysing you can end up disappearing to the planet Uranus. And who analyses it? The People? The government? Or the minority groups?

Who said anything about over analysing anything; as Churchill once said: 'However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results'.

In my view there is something not right when 25% of the electorate can vote for something that has complete control (as in the General Election). Also, over a million more people voted for Brexit than Remain, but the percentage was narrow, yet it is a complete victory. Then we might consider the competence of the electorate; do they even know what they are doing and were they given proper advice?

We should never just stop on a decision; decisions should be constantly challenged. It's how science works and what makes it the most useful tool we have at the moment.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jul 21 2016, 05:25 PM
Post #54


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 21 2016, 04:19 PM) *
The trouble is democracy is different things to different people. Over analysing you can end up disappearing to the planet Uranus. And who analyses it? The People? The government? Or the minority groups?


I wouldn't disagree but can understand why some question its validity. That's no bad thing, but so far, the alternatives seem worse. Some liked the Coalition but arguably that simply injected a small minority opinion into the government; all too often with unfortunate results for both parties. Although believing that PR is a better alternative, to my mind the EU demonstrates it has even greater flaws. The 'list' approach used means that in reality it becomes difficult to hold representatives to account and seems to encourage professional self interested politicians. That's not to say there are things wrong with FPTP.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 21 2016, 06:47 PM
Post #55


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 21 2016, 06:25 PM) *
Some liked the Coalition but arguably that simply injected a small minority opinion into the government

In some instances it moderated some of the more daft policies that the Tory party wished to adopt. Once given relative freedom, it become apparent, they were less competent. I never believed there was a genuine imperative to meet economic equilibrium in such a short time scale.

As for PR and it's derivatives, it seems it is good enough for political party leadership elections, but not good enough for the country at the general elections.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jul 21 2016, 08:43 PM
Post #56


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 21 2016, 07:47 PM) *
In some instances it moderated some of the more daft policies that the Tory party wished to adopt. Once given relative freedom, it become apparent, they were less competent. I never believed there was a genuine imperative to meet economic equilibrium in such a short time scale.

As for PR and it's derivatives, it seems it is good enough for political party leadership elections, but not good enough for the country at the general elections.


Yes, it can't be denied that even their presence in Government meant that extreme policies got diluted.

That's a good point about Political leadership elections and certainly opens a very pertinent debate. The first question the Labour Party should consider is what constitutes a member?


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TallDarkAndHands...
post Jul 21 2016, 09:02 PM
Post #57


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,327
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 60



QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 21 2016, 09:43 PM) *
Yes, it can't be denied that even their presence in Government meant that extreme policies got diluted.

That's a good point about Political leadership elections and certainly opens a very pertinent debate. The first question the Labour Party should consider is what constitutes a member?


Someone who deselects the incumbent MP!😂
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 21 2016, 09:12 PM
Post #58


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 21 2016, 09:43 PM) *
Yes, it can't be denied that even their presence in Government meant that extreme policies got diluted.

I think they also took some of the stupidity out of the tory polices; acting as sanity checkers as it were. They might have added some of course.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jul 22 2016, 05:56 AM
Post #59


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jul 21 2016, 10:02 PM) *
Someone who deselects the incumbent MP!😂


What's wrong with that? We elect MP's personally, not their party. So arguably, that's real democracy, the people decide at the next election.



--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Jul 22 2016, 03:17 PM
Post #60


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 21 2016, 05:41 PM) *
Who said anything about over analysing anything; as Churchill once said: 'However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results'. In my view there is something not right when 25% of the electorate can vote for something that has complete control (as in the General Election). Also, over a million more people voted for Brexit than Remain, but the percentage was narrow, yet it is a complete victory. Then we might consider the competence of the electorate; do they even know what they are doing and were they given proper advice? We should never just stop on a decision; decisions should be constantly challenged. It's how science works and what makes it the most useful tool we have at the moment.


If you are saying it isn't fair then I presume you are talking about PR? The trouble with that system is that smaller parties could get into government or at least in a powerful position. It will give far-right or far-left groups a chance and could make our country unpredictable and unstable. At the moment I would say that first past the post is the best out of a bad bunch.

As for the referendum; we accepted the rules when we went into it. Sturgeon had suggested that unless all the parties of the UK agreed (or voted in) then it wouldn't count. If Cameron wanted to stay then I am surprised he didn't go for it.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

18 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 12:28 PM