They only appear to be right wing because we have gone too far left wing, we do not need far left, far right or centre but slightly right or even better let's loose those titles altogether and just have whats right on the day.
THE FOURTH OF JULY
- Thread starter niall Y
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
The thing that strikes me most, is that regardless of everyone’s political perspective, left to right and centre, everyone is frustrated with the present governments inability to get hold of the issue. The question really is, which is a point @Spectric has brought up is that regardless of whom gets into power can they get to grips with the issues we all face. The David Starkey video I linked earlier suggests not, his basic argument is that the UK system of governance is the oldest and most successful of any in the world, with places like the USA having modelled it’s constitution on the UK system. However, this is now under threat, as although we once were all represented in the seat of power, that is no longer the case, with many of the instruments needed to govern a country properly no longer being within a governments remit. As examples, fiscal policy, the Bank of England was once controlled by parliament. It is no longer and the Governor of the Bank of England is independent and we have no say on who it is or what they do. We have devolved powers to Scotland, Wales and NI, so literally you can have two houses on the opposite sides of the street with different tax systems, different legal systems, different benefits with the devolved powers able to meddle in the laws of England. We have given away many of the legal powers / structures. The legal system was setup to represent the crown, and to be equal and treat everyone the same. We elected our representatives to create the laws that we wanted to live by. We have given away a lot of this under international agreements such as the ECHR of which we have virtually no say within.
The loss of power in the seat of government, our parliament is creating a vacuum that we are constantly trying to fill by devolving more and more locally, ie creation of mayors. However, all fall at the same hurdles and face the same obstacles to getting stuff done. Mr Starkey’s thrust is that No party is proposing to make what would now be seen as the radical changes needed to bring us back to the system of governance that we all enjoyed in the 1970’s and before that saw high levels of satisfaction in our elected leaders, (Labour, liberal or Conservative) higher levels of economic growth in the country and a civil service that was half the size and twice as effective
The loss of power in the seat of government, our parliament is creating a vacuum that we are constantly trying to fill by devolving more and more locally, ie creation of mayors. However, all fall at the same hurdles and face the same obstacles to getting stuff done. Mr Starkey’s thrust is that No party is proposing to make what would now be seen as the radical changes needed to bring us back to the system of governance that we all enjoyed in the 1970’s and before that saw high levels of satisfaction in our elected leaders, (Labour, liberal or Conservative) higher levels of economic growth in the country and a civil service that was half the size and twice as effective
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
There are many, but two big issues are:
1 Wealth distribution. There's no way you can improve the lot of the less well off other than by moving wealth from the top to the bottom.
Both parties now seem to believe that "growth" is the answer, with empty promises of "wealth creation", but growth itself is destroying the planet, let alone considerations of how it could benefit the needy.
2 The need for strong government action to achieve the above and to deal with bigger issues, particularly climate change.
Both main parties daren't touch these topics; inequality is rapidly widening, public institutions collapsing, climate change arriving at speed, political parties ever more timid and ineffective.
On the one hand greater local involvement in affairs makes democratic sense, but on the other governments can disclaim responsibility and blame others for any failings, as the tories do with education and the NHS.
It was known as "The Post War Consensus" whereby the right accepted the inevitability of the socialist policies pressed upon us by the Attlee government, and the left in turn accepted the ups and downs of the democratic process.
Came to a sudden end with Thatcher/Reagan and "neo liberalism" ideology.
Last edited:
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
Very little of what Farage says is true though; which is the problem. He's great at soundbite politics, and great at whipping up those who don't think very much. The moment he's ever challenged by any remotely competent journalists (sadly too rare these days) his claims fall flat and he goes into diversion mode in order to try to change the subject.
He got his backside handed to him on Irish TV after he made some nonsense claims about an Irish referendum (and we won't even get into his "up the RA!" moment). He's long positioned himself as a champion of British rights (and British fishermen); but even a brief look into his voting and attendance record whilst he was an MEP would tell you that's nonsense (e.g. "Public figures analysed by the FT show that Mr Farage attended only one of 42 meetings of the fisheries committee on which he sat for three years" from https://www.ft.com/content/85563e82-8f44-11e3-be85-00144feab7de). He talked loads about people "on the gravy train" and taking expenses without doing anything; when in fact that's exactly what he was doing as an MEP.
Basically he's a slimy grifter who is the exact opposite of all the (positive) things he claims to be, but he's been pretty successful over the years in extracting money from the gullible (e.g. see all the people who paid him money to be considered as candidates for his "The Brexit Party" - https://bylinetimes.com/2019/07/05/...ntary-candidates-another-money-making-scheme/).
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
Conservatism is surely that; conserving what you see as traditional values and institutions of the nation. Ironically, I'd argue that selling off nationally owned services to (usually foreign owned) companies doesn't really fit with that model; but other than that I can see there's an argument for that (conservative) thinking.
Being a pedant; left/right wing is technically about economic policy rather than authorisation/liberation policies (but accepting that "right wing" is usually used to refer to racists and extremists); I'd argue that promoting the idea of letting vulnerable people drown is pretty extreme (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reform-uk-asylum-rwanda-channel-boats-b2533923.html). Is that "true conservatism"? I'd certainly hope not.
Reform (like UKIP before) basically promote themselves as flag waving racists in order to attract the attention (and votes) from sections of our society, but ironically they're probably actually much more sinister (with much in the way shady and undeclared funding interests).
niall Y
Established Member
I think President Clinton summed things up perfectly - "It's the economy , stupid".
You cannot have what you cannot pay for. If the economy isn't performing the tax revenue will not be there.
If more and more of the country's trade is captured by multinationals who hide profits in low tax havens, then there is less and less money to pay for the nation to function properly.
We have to be able, in some way, to tax all the trade done in this country. After all taxation is " a slice of the action" America, has to wise-up about protecting these companies and come to an agreement with the Europe on how tax them , that is both fair and workable.
As for the ridiculous disconnect between wages and house prices, then the government have it in their power to stop the domestic housing market being used as an investment tool. One of the levers is to stop foreign ownership of property.
The primary purpose of housing is to house people it is not for the rich to increase their wealth. In this regard I would have to disagree with the idea expressed in the punch-line in an old joke about trading " These are buying and selling potatoes - not eating potatoes." Domestic housing is very much "eating potatoes", not "buying and selling potatoes"
Maybe it is time for a newly elected government to compile a new " Doomsday Book" so they can actually see who owns what. Any refusal to fully disclose could be met with the confiscation of the property.
You cannot have what you cannot pay for. If the economy isn't performing the tax revenue will not be there.
If more and more of the country's trade is captured by multinationals who hide profits in low tax havens, then there is less and less money to pay for the nation to function properly.
We have to be able, in some way, to tax all the trade done in this country. After all taxation is " a slice of the action" America, has to wise-up about protecting these companies and come to an agreement with the Europe on how tax them , that is both fair and workable.
As for the ridiculous disconnect between wages and house prices, then the government have it in their power to stop the domestic housing market being used as an investment tool. One of the levers is to stop foreign ownership of property.
The primary purpose of housing is to house people it is not for the rich to increase their wealth. In this regard I would have to disagree with the idea expressed in the punch-line in an old joke about trading " These are buying and selling potatoes - not eating potatoes." Domestic housing is very much "eating potatoes", not "buying and selling potatoes"
Maybe it is time for a newly elected government to compile a new " Doomsday Book" so they can actually see who owns what. Any refusal to fully disclose could be met with the confiscation of the property.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Bit of a shocker the idea of letting them drown. Only a small step from passive inaction to actively killing them. Or anybody else you don't agree with.
Puts the right wing nutters in a little class of their own. Strange that a simple chat about politics should include considering the killing of refugees arriving here.
Last edited:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Popular argument but misleading - "wealth" may still be there in one form or another, e.g. land, waiting to be redistributed even if it generates no taxable income for the current owner.
Good idea. In fact we already have the makings of it. The right are worried about the Land registry - if we know who owns it we know who to tax - or to dispossess. Bring it on!Maybe it is time for a newly elected government to compile a new " Doomsday Book" so they can actually see who owns what. Any refusal to fully disclose could be met with the confiscation of the property.
Last edited:
That is completely wrong. The conservative party has never been more right wing, and still reform want to outflank them to the right. TBH I think this fantasy reasoning is just a way for people with far right views to self-justify themselves.
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
Agreed.
As I noted much earlier in this thread; the sort of politicians who advocate for cruel treatment of others (particularly those weaker than themselves) may appear attractive if you also consider those "others" to be your enemy. But be under no illusion that those same politicians would happily target you if and when they decided that you were now the enemy. Something I wish supporters of the likes of Farage, Habib, and Braverman would take into consideration.
Yes that proves everything goes round in circles, once upon a time we had the seven kingdoms of Wesex, Mercia, Northumbria etc and after a lot of conflict they became one and now we are starting to chop things up which is reversing centuries of change. Maybe that is a good thing because to solve a big problem you break it down into managable chunks just like top down software development.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Farage, Habib, Tice and Braverman - leaders of a zombie apocalypse?
"Night of the Living Dead" springs to mind.
Last edited:
Except each raised their own armies and conflict between the ‘kingdoms’ was common.
I’m not a fan of rock climbing and feel free climbing to be lunacy. But, people do it knowing the consequence of their action’s if it goes wrong. In the same vein, if you know your not going to be rescued and set off in a small boat from a safe stable country called France where your not persecuted or fleeing for your life then like the rock climbing analogy if you drown that’s the risk you took.
So, the government should NOT be responsible for foreign nations taking stupid risks and expecting the UK to look after them.
Yorkieguy
Established Member
Like the would-be shadow Deputy Prime Minister using the term 'Tory Scum' then expecting Tory voters (including former life-long Labour Voters who switched at the last election), to vote Labour in the General Election. (You can take the girl out of the gutter, but you can't always take the gutter out of the girl. Not an ad hominem attack - just a response to one that she uttered).
Ad hominem attacks are pretty much endemic among politicians of all political hues. In terms of courtesy and good manners, (not effectiveness), one of the few I can bring to mind in recent times is Theresa May.
A rather novel news headline today - Labour's new 'number one mission'. Quote:
"Sir Kier Starmer has issued a direct appeal to middle class voters and declared that the Labour Party's number one mission is wealth creation".
That's quite a turn of events - ordinarily, they're obsessed with wealth distribution, based on the view that the middle class are the 'undeserving rich', from whom money should be taken and given to the deserving less well off'. I'd aver to suggest that many - if not most of the 'middle class' (whatever that means today) - started out as aspirational working class, and through endeavour, hard work, ambition, and sometimes good fortune, have climbed up the greasy pole.
The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net to catch people when they fall, but it's hard to get the balance right. Too often, the 'safety net' becomes a spider's web' leading to a life of welfare dependency, on, or just above, the poverty line. I'm not suggesting we revert to the Workhouse system, in which people were separated into the 'deserving poor' and the 'undeserving poor'. The assumption was that if anyone applied to enter the workhouse, they evidently lacked the motivation to pick themselves up out of poverty, and were hence, the 'undeserving poor'.
I walked past a food bank run by a church a few days ago. It opens at 11.30am. A queue had formed. Those in the queue looked to be in the 20 - 40 age range. Many were obese, had tattoos, and were fiddling with mobile phones. Some were still in pyjamas and slippers. (Average costs of tattoos in the UK: Small £60 - £150; Medium £150 - £300; Large £350 - £700). I'd rather be me than them, and I try not to be judgemental, but I have to say it does make me a tad cynical. Some may argue that nowadays a PAYG mobile phone isn't a luxury, but tattoos. Really?
Maybe a bit more emphasis on 'Workfare' rather than 'Welfare' would be no bad thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare
Not much will change.
All the parties are out today campaigning….but still haven’t published their manifestos. So they are campaigning for policies not ratified by the party members. Is it just me who thinks this is lunacy. They can’t say it promise anything as they don’t have the party mandate to promise anything. There all as bad as each other.
By the way, the Green Party never has a manifesto. They clearly cannot make up their minds!! They are still working out ‘what us a women’ have ejected GPW (Green Party Women) for Trans discussions.
By the way, the Green Party never has a manifesto. They clearly cannot make up their minds!! They are still working out ‘what us a women’ have ejected GPW (Green Party Women) for Trans discussions.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Let them drown then?
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Bring back slavery!
All work is "workfare" to varying degrees. But first meaningful jobs and proper wages need to be in place, not to mention affordable housing and mobility.
Can't be left to the free market.
Last edited:
Let them fall / drown. It’s a choice they made. If they were fleeing from a war torn country and getting in a boat was the only way out….eg the French, Belgium etc in WW2 to the UK I would be out there helping to gather them up.
Not sure about most, but I love spending time in France, wonderful country, lovely people, beautify food, a pension system for the elderly to envy more effective medical care system. Why would you want to leave to risk your life crossing to Blighty?
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
If you go rock climbing then you're doing it voluntarily (because you enjoy doing it). If you're getting on a small boat because you believe (rightly or wrongly) it's your only chance of a decent life then it's hardly a voluntary action.
Ironically, were we still an EU member then we could drop people back off in France, but now we can't. We (as in, this government) have closed almost all routes for people applying for legal asylum; inevitably meaning we get an increase in desperate people trying to enter illegally. Essentially, the very people who make the most noise about "the immigration problem" are also the people who have supported and/or put in place the very system that's caused the current problems.
- Status
