RIP Michael Foot

[bungle]

Government is now basically an administrators job, the big ideological debates of previous years have gone, the European project has rendered a lot of what parties want to do irrelevant. It's now a case of who sells their watered down Tory policies the best.

 

I disagree with this. There may be a cosy consensus between Labour and the Conservatives, but that centre-right consensus doesn't mean it is the end of ideological debate.

 

Social liberals in Britain and Europe are challenging the consensus. There is much debate to be had, especially in the area of civil liberties, but also in taxation and criminal justice. These debates are far from closed.

[View From The Top]

I disagree with this. There may be a cosy consensus between Labour and the Conservatives, but that centre-right consensus doesn't mean it is the end of ideological debate.

 

Social liberals in Britain and Europe are challenging the consensus. There is much debate to be had, especially in the area of civil liberties, but also in taxation and criminal justice. These debates are far from closed.

 

They are on, and will remain at, the periphery of the debate.

 

Politics in the England, I won't say UK as both Scotland and Wales have more ingrained Nationalist and Socialist movements, has moved, permanently, towards the centre.

 

This allows style to outweigh substance which in turns leads to voters protesting against the whole system by not voting at all.

[bungle]

They are on, and will remain at, the periphery of the debate.

 

Politics in the England, I won't say UK as both Scotland and Wales have more ingrained Nationalist and Socialist movements, has moved, permanently, towards the centre.

 

This allows style to outweigh substance which in turns leads to voters protesting against the whole system by not voting at all.

 

I'm sorry, but perhaps you have confused "social liberals" with the Liberal Democrats. You shouldn't make this mistake.

 

Social liberals are members of all parties, but are very concerned about the parliamentary parties of Labour and the Tories and their cosy consensus politics.

[View From The Top]

I'm sorry, but perhaps you have confused "social liberals" with the Liberal Democrats. You shouldn't make this mistake.

 

Social liberals are members of all parties, but are very concerned about the parliamentary parties of Labour and the Tories and their cosy consensus politics.

 

Social Liberals, Libertarians, whatever label as attached now (I would consider myself within this label) will continue to bang away at the edges, warning of the dangers of the current system, big brother, big government, parties run on donations, but they shall never weld real power.

[bungle]

You are not much of a social liberal if you don't think you can make a difference where it counts!

 

Political fights are never easy. Current governments have opposed social liberalism at every stage for many years, but the tide is turning. More and more people are fed up by the depressing, self-serving, centre-right politics of Labour and the Conservatives.

 

We can debate which is the lesser of the two evils, but neither are good for the country or it's future.

 

The Football Supporters Federation is about to hold/just held a big debate on how football fans are treated. Top liberal campaigner Henry Porter was invited on the panel. Small 'l' liberals are increasingly part of all meaningful debate.

[View From The Top]

You are not much of a social liberal if you don't think you can make a difference where it counts!

 

I said they'd never weld real power, not that they can't make a difference.

[OLYMPIC]

Not wanting to get dragged into the argument on here but it seems which ever party wins the next election they will become wildly unpopular with the vast majority of the public just because of the measures that will need to be put in place to get the country back on an even keel.

Also add to that the very real chance of a hung parliament and the loss of faith in our all ready fragile economy that that would cause.If i was the Tories i would do just enough to not win the election and let Labour get on with it,then in about 12 months time i am sure another election will be called to get rid of them.

[Johnny Bognor]

Not wanting to get dragged into the argument on here but it seems which ever party wins the next election they will become wildly unpopular with the vast majority of the public just because of the measures that will need to be put in place to get the country back on an even keel.

Also add to that the very real chance of a hung parliament and the loss of faith in our all ready fragile economy that that would cause.If i was the Tories i would do just enough to not win the election and let Labour get on with it,then in about 12 months time i am sure another election will be called to get rid of them.

 

A hung paliament will be an absolute disaster and damage confidence (especially in terms of our AAA rating) as it will be hard to take the tough action required.

 

Indeed, I almost hope Labour win the next election to force Fraudon to make all the tough choices that are required.....however common sense says he'll bottle it and we will be even deeper in the mire.

[View From The Top]

A hung paliament will be an absolute disaster and damage confidence (especially in terms of our AAA rating) as it will be hard to take the tough action required.

 

Indeed, I almost hope Labour win the next election to force Fraudon to make all the tough choices that are required.....however common sense says he'll bottle it and we will be even deeper in the mire.

 

Says an awful lot about the tories that despite everything that has happened Citizen Dave may not yet have a mandate.

 

Folk see through the thin veneer and see a lightweight and that's not what they want.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Would that be because you have no answer that fits in with your agenda?

 

Nope, it's because you're an uneducated ****wit. UAF does not side with or march with Islamic 'extremeists' - that is merely propaganda peddled by the right wing press/BNP.

 

UAF is there to facism, not support terrorism.

 

Back to where the actual debate is: It would certainly be interesting if there is a hung parliament, going to the polls twice would sort the weak policies from the strong IMO.

[OLYMPIC]

Says an awful lot about the tories that despite everything that has happened Citizen Dave may not yet have a mandate.

 

Folk see through the thin veneer and see a lightweight and that's not what they want.

 

Have to agree in the position Gordon Brown is in at the moment a strong opposition could have a field day with him and his party.

Although he is to old now i believe Michael Howard pulled the Tories back from the brink last time,and someone like him in charge would not just be looking for sound bites.

[bungle]

A hung paliament will be an absolute disaster and damage confidence (especially in terms of our AAA rating) as it will be hard to take the tough action required.

 

Indeed, I almost hope Labour win the next election to force Fraudon to make all the tough choices that are required.....however common sense says he'll bottle it and we will be even deeper in the mire.

 

This is actually the biggest load of codswallop being spread around at the moment. The Tories want you to believe it, and if you do, you have been bought by their spin machine and their friends in the media.

 

Two countries in Europe currently have the type of "strong" government brought by the FPTP system. They are the UK and Greece. Wonder what else they have in common?

 

Don't get bought by Tory spin.

[bungle]

Have to agree in the position Gordon Brown is in at the moment a strong opposition could have a field day with him and his party.

Although he is to old now i believe Michael Howard pulled the Tories back from the brink last time,and someone like him in charge would not just be looking for sound bites.

 

Michael Howard was a disaster, and his manifesto was one of the most disgusting, right-wing, sound-bite ridden manifestos of recent years.

 

And guess who wrote it? That's right. David "Call me Dave" Cameron.

[solentstars]

This is actually the biggest load of codswallop being spread around at the moment. The Tories want you to believe it, and if you do, you have been bought by their spin machine and their friends in the media.

 

Two countries in Europe currently have the type of "strong" government brought by the FPTP system. They are the UK and Greece. Wonder what else they have in common?

 

Don't get bought by Tory spin.

i agree first pass the post is a rubbish system.

i remember the 1983 election when

 

tory-397 seats labour-209 lib sdp-23seats

Popular vote tory-13,012,316 labour-8,456,934 lib sdp-7,780,949

Percentage 42.4% 27.6% 25.4%

the third party had has many votes nearly has labour but only got 23 seats.

the opposition parts had more votes put together then the torys but could not outvote them.

and they wonder why people don,t bother voting .

every vote should count and be representative.

[Hamilton Saint]

TLS as a member of UAF can you please explain why you march alongside far right islamic extremists?

 

A typically dishonest tactic.

 

If very different groups come together on an ad-hoc basis to participate in the same protest, it doesn't mean they agree with each other's policies or tactics.

 

I have been at anti-war marches (first and second Gulf Wars) which included participation from the Canadian Communist Party and the Canadian Communist Party Marxist-Leninist. That doesn't mean I agreed with, or sympathised with, their manifesto or political tactics. It just means we agreed (for very different reasons) in our opposition to those wars.

 

It's a simple concept, really. You're trying to use a cheap guilt-by-association technique. It's a form of McCarthyism.

 

 

Furthermore: just because you insist on using the label "socialist" when talking about the leaders of the labour Party, that does not make it so. To debate honestly and clearly about politics you ought to be accurate and fair in the terms that you use - otherwise it's sheer propaganda.

Edited 10 March, 2010 by Hamilton Saint

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

every vote should count and be representative.

 

 

Oh yes a fairer system, like the one used in the European Parliament and gave us Nick Griffin.

 

 

We have a constituency based system, it has served us well for hundreds of years.

 

The system we have in this Country means that the Tory party needs to win more votes to gain power than the Labour party, and yet there's silence over that. If it was the other way round all the bleeding hearts would be getting their knickers in a right twist.

 

If you want to start tinkering with the electoral system, why don't you start with an English parliament? The Scots have one, The Welsh have one, what's the difference. Well we all know what the difference is, England is Tory, so the left leaning establishment and media cant have that.

 

Why do the people who go on about fairness in the electoral system, never bring up this blatant discrimination?

 

 

 

The English people should have the same system as the rest of the UK.

 

If Maggie had set up devolution for England and not Scotland there would have been riots.

[Johnny Bognor]

This is actually the biggest load of codswallop being spread around at the moment. The Tories want you to believe it, and if you do, you have been bought by their spin machine and their friends in the media.

 

Two countries in Europe currently have the type of "strong" government brought by the FPTP system. They are the UK and Greece. Wonder what else they have in common?

 

Don't get bought by Tory spin.

 

If you don't have an overall majority, then you don't have overall control. This makes it very difficult to take firm and decisive action as maybe required.

 

The markets are expecting us to deal with the debt problem (which is currently £924,979,812,200, up £1,454,623,749 since I posted it on monday evening) and they will look at how the hell we are going to get it down.

 

It's not spin, it's common sense.

[dune]

A typically dishonest tactic.

 

If very different groups come together on an ad-hoc basis to participate in the same protest, it doesn't mean they agree with each other's policies or tactics.

 

I have been at anti-war marches (first and second Gulf Wars) which included participation from the Canadian Communist Party and the Canadian Communist Party Marxist-Leninist. That doesn't mean I agreed with, or sympathised with, their manifesto or political tactics. It just means we agreed (for very different reasons) in our opposition to those wars.

 

It's a simple concept, really. You're trying to use a cheap guilt-by-association technique. It's a form of McCarthyism.

 

 

Furthermore: just because you insist on using the label "socialist" when talking about the leaders of the labour Party, that does not make it so. To debate honestly and clearly about politics you ought to be accurate and fair in the terms that you use - otherwise it's sheer propaganda.

 

I respect you for trying to justify the blatant hypocrisy of UAF, but it doesn't wash - much like most of their members! UAF claim to be an orgainisation that is anti racism, yet they "turn a blind eye" to the far right when they happen to be Muslim and happen to agree with them. Talk about unprincipled hypocrites.

[dune]

If you don't have an overall majority, then you don't have overall control. This makes it very difficult to take firm and decisive action as maybe required.

 

I wish we still had Rupert Lowe, Michael Wilde and Leon Crouch at Saints.

[solentstars]

Oh yes a fairer system, like the one used in the European Parliament and gave us Nick Griffin.

 

 

We have a constituency based system, it has served us well for hundreds of years.

 

The system we have in this Country means that the Tory party needs to win more votes to gain power than the Labour party, and yet there's silence over that. If it was the other way round all the bleeding hearts would be getting their knickers in a right twist.

 

If you want to start tinkering with the electoral system, why don't you start with an English parliament? The Scots have one, The Welsh have one, what's the difference. Well we all know what the difference is, England is Tory, so the left leaning establishment and media cant have that.

 

Why do the people who go on about fairness in the electoral system, never bring up this blatant discrimination?

 

 

 

The English people should have the same system as the rest of the UK.

 

If Maggie had set up devolution for England and not Scotland there would have been riots.

 

every persons vote should be representative ,get your mindset around that.

its got nothing to do with your paranoid dreaming.

i did not hear you moan in 1983 when a majority of the country voted against the tories when it gave them a landslide.

your just a follower of a party who wantsno change ever.

thank god cameron wants shot of dinosaurs in the party

[Lord Duckhunter]

every persons vote should be representative ,get your mindset around that.

its got nothing to do with your paranoid dreaming.

i did not hear you moan in 1983 when a majority of the country voted against the tories when it gave them a landslide.

your just a follower of a party who wantsno change ever.

thank god cameron wants shot of dinosaurs in the party

 

 

I want change. As an Englishman I want the same devolution settlement that Brown's constituants have.

 

Funny how PR rears its ugly head, whenever it looks like we're going to get a Tory administration.

[Hamilton Saint]

I respect you for trying to justify the blatant hypocrisy of UAF, but it doesn't wash - much like most of their members! UAF claim to be an orgainisation that is anti racism, yet they "turn a blind eye" to the far right when they happen to be Muslim and happen to agree with them. Talk about unprincipled hypocrites.

 

 

Actually, to be fair, I was not "trying to justify the blatant hyocrisy of UAF"; I was primarily criticising your debating tactics and your political labelling techniques.

 

Blair and Gordon are not "socialists", no matter how many times you insist on saying it. To debate politics, use correct political terminology - that's my main point.

[solentstars]

If you don't have an overall majority, then you don't have overall control. This makes it very difficult to take firm and decisive action as maybe required.

 

The markets are expecting us to deal with the debt problem (which is currently £924,979,812,200, up £1,454,623,749 since I posted it on monday evening) and they will look at how the hell we are going to get it down.

 

It's not spin, it's common sense.

thats rubbish you need a landslide for decisive action having a small majority ,you need to reach out to other party's to get your legislation threw,because you always find people within your own party who try to push their luck with a different agenda.

[dune]

Actually, to be fair, I was not "trying to justify the blatant hyocrisy of UAF"; I was primarily criticising your debating tactics and your political labelling techniques.

 

Blair and Gordon are not "socialists", no matter how many times you insist on saying it. To debate politics, use correct political terminology - that's my main point.

 

But they are Socialists. Taxing workers to the hilt to subsidise the bone idle is pure Socialism.

[Lord Duckhunter]

But they are Socialists. Taxing workers to the hilt to subsidise the bone idle is pure Socialism.

 

The Labour Party turned away from Socialism when it gave up Clause 4.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

The Labour Party turned away from Socialism when it gave up Clause 4.

 

He still won't agree!

[solentstars]

I want change. As an Englishman I want the same devolution settlement that Brown's constituants have.

 

Funny how PR rears its ugly head, whenever it looks like we're going to get a Tory administration.

 

i,ve got no problems with devolution but i don,t fill like a victim like you seem to, and has for pr.i just want a system based on how real people vote.

there are tory voters in some parts of the north who in council elections who get 30% of the vote and no seats so why bother voting,is that fair.

i don,t care if the tories get in or not ,they are no different to new labour.

i just want a system people feel their vote matters whatever party they vote for.

Edited 10 March, 2010 by solentstars

[View From The Top]

The Labour Party turned away from Socialism when it gave up Clause 4.

 

Don't confuse him as he'll think Clause 4 is in between ITV and C5.

[dune]

The Labour Party turned away from Socialism when it gave up Clause 4.

 

He still won't agree!

 

Of course i won't agree.

 

Socialism (noun): a theory or system of social organisation that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

 

That sounds very much like Browns policy of taxing the workers and distrubiting the money to the bone idle.

[solentstars]

Don't confuse him as he'll think Clause 4 is in between ITV and C5.

 

yes i expect channel 4,hey guys hes on a windup and people keep falling for it:D

[View From The Top]

That sounds very much like Browns policy of taxing the workers and distrubiting the money to the bone idle.

 

So if Citizen Dave doesn't cut taxes and maintains the current levels of benefits he's a socialist as well is he?

 

Please tell me you haven't yet met mumzilla and bred.

[dune]

So if Citizen Dave doesn't cut taxes and maintains the current levels of benefits he's a socialist as well is he?

 

Please tell me you haven't yet met mumzilla and bred.

 

The Conservatives are a party that believes in low taxes and freedom, as oposed to the high taxes and control of the Socialists, but (and this is a big BUT) David Cameron won't be able to cut taxes until he's got on top of the nations debt mountain. We find ourself in the same position as 79 and DC will have to take the same steps as Margaret Thatcher did to sort out the mess.

[Hamilton Saint]

But they are Socialists. Taxing workers to the hilt to subsidise the bone idle is pure Socialism.

 

You've used that example several times before - you seem to be fixated on it. Of course, there is a different perspective - a different way of characterising things. Workers are taxed by government in order to provide services that the public demands. Some idle people take advantage of the social safety-net. So do some rich people. Many individuals and many corporations cheat on their taxes. They take advantage of tax loop-holes. They hide their assets in overseas bank accounts in order to avoid taxes. How would you characterise that?

 

 

If a Liberal government imposes a health "surcharge" on every citizen in order to pay for a publicly-funded health-care system, is that socialism?

 

If a Conservative government increases the amount that employers and employees have to contribute to the employment insurance scheme, is that socialism?

 

If a Conservative government bails out major banks with public money, is that socialism?

 

If Conservative governments give subsidies or tax-breaks to assist faltering industries, or to entice them to settle in their jurisdictions, is that socialism?

 

If Conservative governments pump billions of dollars into the economy in order to counter the negative effects of the recent recession, specifically, in order to create jobs, is that socialism?

[View From The Top]

The Conservatives are a party that believes in low taxes and freedom, as oposed to the high taxes and control of the Socialists, but (and this is a big BUT) David Cameron won't be able to cut taxes until he's got on top of the nations debt mountain. We find ourself in the same position as 79 and DC will have to take the same steps as Margaret Thatcher did to sort out the mess.

 

If you believe he'll take the measures need, or if any of them will, you're even more of a deluded idiot that I thought, if that's possible.

[Hamilton Saint]

Of course i won't agree.

 

Socialism (noun): a theory or system of social organisation that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

 

That sounds very much like Browns policy of taxing the workers and distrubiting the money to the bone idle.

 

It's starting to sound like a slogan.

 

 

Any other examples?

[Hamilton Saint]

The Conservatives are a party that believes in low taxes and freedom, as oposed to the high taxes and control of the Socialists, but (and this is a big BUT) David Cameron won't be able to cut taxes until he's got on top of the nations debt mountain. We find ourself in the same position as 79 and DC will have to take the same steps as Margaret Thatcher did to sort out the mess.

 

Lower taxes for the rich; lower taxes for corporations.

 

Freedom from money-market regulation for the banks; freedom from environmental regulation for corporations.

 

Lower taxes means poorer public services and more user-fees. Greater freedom often means more greed and exploitation.

 

Lower taxes sounds good - but what are the practical effects on society as a whole? Greater freedom sounds great - but who is it, specifically, getting this new "freedom"?

[dune]

It's starting to sound like a slogan.

 

 

Any other examples?

 

[solentstars]

If you believe he'll take the measures need, or if any of them will, you're even more of a deluded idiot that I thought, if that's possible.

you don,t think dune is that nutter stanley who got banned from this board by any chance:D:p:)

[TopGun]

Do you still intend to vote BNP Dune?

[dune]

Lower taxes for the rich; lower taxes for corporations.

 

Freedom from money-market regulation for the banks; freedom from environmental regulation for corporations.

 

Lower taxes means poorer public services and more user-fees. Greater freedom often means more greed and exploitation.

 

Lower taxes sounds good - but what are the practical effects on society as a whole? Greater freedom sounds great - but who is it, specifically, getting this new "freedom"?

 

We need to reduce the tax burden on business to create more jobs.

 

The problem with Socialism is that Socialists are control freaks that don't trust people to spend their own money, rather they think they should spend it for everyone. Taxes get plowed into the inefficient public sector and they get wasted. The way forward is privatisation and competition.

[dune]

Do you still intend to vote BNP Dune?

 

Only in local/european elections.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Of course i won't agree.

 

Socialism (noun): a theory or system of social organisation that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

 

That sounds very much like Browns policy of taxing the workers and distrubiting the money to the bone idle.

 

HAHAHAHA!! How the hell does it even come close to 'sounding very much like'?!? Jesus you're dumb!

 

Hold on, you're intending to vote BNP? Why am I not suprised?! Dumb and BNP go hand in hand. This is my last reply to you dune, you're going on ignore! I refuse to be drawn into a 'debate' (although with you it feels like I'm having to give you a lesson) with a vile racist.

Edited 10 March, 2010 by Thorpe-le-Saint

[dune]

Of course i won't agree.

 

Socialism (noun): a theory or system of social organisation that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

 

That sounds very much like Browns policy of taxing the workers and distrubiting the money to the bone idle.

 

HAHAHAHA!! How the hell does it even come close to 'sounding very much like'?!? Jesus you're dumb!

 

a theory or system of social organisation that advocates the ....... control of the means of ........ distribution........of capital.........in the community as a whole.

 

That is exactly what Gordon Brown has achieved with Britains wellfare state. Keeping fit and able people in benefits because they choose not to work is a huge burden that cannot continue.

[ecuk268]

The way forward is privatisation and competition.

 

Yeah, worked really well so far. Bus services a mess and many services being withdrawn. Highest train fares in Europe. Increasingly dependant on imported energy, water companies foreign-owned. Lets have lots more!

[dune]

Increasingly dependant on imported energy.

 

Blame the lefties for this. Nuclear power plants would solve this problem.

[TopGun]

Blame the lefties for this. Nuclear power plants would solve this problem.

 

Then you look a bit silly Dune. Labour has instigated a new nuke era with its plans to have six new nukes online by 2025. It also wants more renewables of course. Nukes take 10 years to get online before you comment and that is after planning issues.

 

If you bothered to read the energy white paper and energy act you would know that the aim of new nukes and renewables is to spread the energy risk and by 2020 reduce imports of coal and use of coal by 10% and gas imports by 20%.

 

That is a good strategy to have energy diversity and security whether you believe or disbelieve in man-made climate change.

Edited 10 March, 2010 by TopGun

[View From The Top]

Blame the lefties for this. Nuclear power plants would solve this problem.

 

You mean like the 6 nuclear plants the current socialist government are commissioning?

 

Thick mong.

[dune]

You mean like the 6 nuclear plants the current socialist government are commissioning?

 

Thick mong.

 

It took them long enough to admit they were wrong.

[TopGun]

It took them long enough to admit they were wrong.

 

I agree that the decision has taken a long time but there are plenty of reasons for that. I can assure you that the Tories would have been no quicker and it is fair to say (working in the energy arena) that the Tory energy proposals are exceptionally cack-handed and amateur.

 

As an example, the first thing the Tories want to do is dismantle the newly created Infrastructure Planning Commission which has been created to give particular priority to projects of national importance such as big power, water and transport schemes so they don't get held up for as long as they do at the moment in planning. Great thinking, Dave Cam!

 

The publicly stated Tory train of thought is that the IPC is another quango and won't be directly accountable to the people. Two points here - the Tories invented quangos to get around Labour authorities such as the GLC in the 1980s and, secondly, Dave Cam's plan is to let local authorities and people have a bigger say on whether power plants, high speed rail and water treatment plants get built near them. What a clever idea, pandy to the NIMBYs to get votes and then watch the lights go out, the economy wither and a return of cholera! Alternatively, the Tories may just be offering up false populist promises that they intend to renege on anyway if they get do into power this year!

Edited 10 March, 2010 by TopGun

[dune]

I agree that the decision has taken a long time but there are plenty of reasons for that. I can assure you that the Tories would have been no quicker and it is fair to say (working in the energy arena) that the Tory energy proposals are exceptionally cack-handed and amateur.

 

As an example, the first thing the Tories want to do is dismantle the newly created Infrastructure Planning Commission which has been created to give particular priority to projects of national importance such as big power, water and transport schemes so they don't get held up for as long as they do at the moment in planning. Great thinking, Dave Cam!

 

The main problem is those hideous wind farms that are a blot on landscape and produce very little electricity. The answer is to build big nuclear plants and be done with it.