Off Topic Political Debate

There are certain people I would never give a

It's not just a question of motivation Leo. There are many who are prepared to join organizations such as Friends of the Earth, or Greenpeace ie. pressure groups. In Germany we have 10 members of the Naturschutzbund (Society for the protection of the environment) for every one who is a member of the Green Party. Political work has acquired a reputation as being dull and drab - long hours spent at meetings discussing trivial topics and, in the end, being prepared to agree to anything just to bring it to an end. Young people think that being a member of Friends of the Earth is more fun, and they are right.

 

I suggest we all consider this forum a round table to avoid thinking in terms of left and right. Merlin did not sit at it. Sir Colgrevance is probably closest in name to you.

 

If you are able to name an Empire that has not whitewashed its history I would be interested to hear of it. Personally I do not judge history by today's standards as otherwise my round table would be politically suspect.

 

Is it not motivation that leads people to join Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace then? I was a member of both - and CND and Amnesty International. That was before I became demotivated as there were too many aspects of them I did not agree with. Now I simply support policies and activities I like and agree with whatever organisation or party they represent.

 

I consider party membership mostly irrelevant. When we are young we have more energy and have not become tired and bored with politics and the like. Labour is the party of younger people so will naturally have more members. How many of those become activists and help on the election doorstep is a moot point. If I do not tell politicans on my doorstep to leave then I tell them I am supporting their party - whoever they are - so their stats are meaningless. Money is more important to electoral success than people. The Tories know that and focus on getting funds not people so their membership numbers are completely irrelevant unless it is for a pi**ing contest.
The Tories were more media savvy than Labour until this last couple of years. If they have not realised that they need to compete with others on social media then they are foolish. The ether is swamped with fake news, fake videos, fake everything - and the power of twitter etc is alarming. Personally it makes me fear for democracy as it can manipulate sheep - and too many voters of all colours are like sheep. If I were in charge of the Tory party I would spend nothing on attracting new members but I would set up and staff an organisation to compete with the others on sending out political drivel - with especial focus on the young who are more influenced by such things.

 

I always voted for the labour party and then became more and more concerned about the factionalism, political correctness, the class war etc etc.

Then moving to north of Leeds the candidate who had most chance to beat the Tories ( sorry my Tory friends) was LIb Dem...

Then over the years I became more and more concerned about the environment and how all main parties were paying lip-service to it and not seeing its primary importance and I decided to join the UK Green party. I do not however go to local group meetings as the tedious detail I find mind numbing.

Philosophically I am a Green but pragmatically I do not see them in Govt in the UK but as a pressure group. There are also Left Greens, Liberal Greens and so on....arghhhh..........

As I believe in 'All for One and One for All' I feel able to take my place at the Round Table..... Where I can sit to the Left of.... but to the Right of...

 

My only knights that begin with Y are Sir Yvain and Sir Ywain the Bastard but I do not see that they fit you well. Now for some reason Lamorak seems good - perhaps because he reminds me of an Elf from Lord of the Rings which fits the Green theme.

 

"Sir Lamorak was a younger son of King Pellinore of Listinoise. His epithet means ‘of Wales’ but at this period refers to the whole of Britain. He was known as the third greatest Knight of the Round Table, following Sirs Tristram and Lancelot. On a number of occasions he is recorded as having beaten over thirty knights in a tournament: notably at Sir Gareth’s wedding feast and when travelling with Sir Driant in the Cornish lands of King Mark."

Suits me well your majesty

 

I will try not to be like a dog with a bone on this Leo (or maybe just once). As you know I am a member of Bundnis 90 die Grünen (German Green Party). We have around 90,000 members (just a few more than the Tories in the UK.) - translated onto the local level, we have, officially, around 30 members in Engelskirchen - for a town of 20,000 inhabitants. When it comes down to regular meetings you can only bet on 8-9 actually being active members. Some of the others we haven't seen for years. So, along come the local elections - we have 16 wards in Engelskirchen, all of which need a candidate. So you can see the problem - we have even had people contesting wards who were not, actually, party members. The same problem arises after an election - namely we have to fill up all the allotted places on the council, and in all the various committees - and all this from only 8-9 active members ? It means we have people sitting on councils who are not really suitable for the job. Pensioners who have time on their hands (because not all of the 8-9 actually want to do something like this). The same problem magnifies itself on the national level, and this is no different in the UK. The Tories once had 4 million members - they now have just over 70,000 (an estimate, because they are reluctant to give out figures). With this 70,000 they are trying to cover the same political work, and posts, which were once covered by 4 million. This means - join the party and become a councillor, whether you have any aptitude for the job or not.

The second problem about falling membership is that a party then becomes overly dependent upon private sponsorship when it comes to election costs. Only about 3% of the Tory budget comes from membership dues. The rest comes from private sponsorship - no wonder that the link between politics and business is then strengthened.

Can you have politics without parties ? Yes, if you want a situation like in the USA. where parties do not pay election costs for candidates, and they become dependent on the wishes of their sponsors. Try standing as an independent candidate and see how much it costs your pocket.

Party membership still has a real meaning at election time. Many people still like to speak to members of the parties before elections - and having people on the streets has a large role in the 'ground' campaign at elections. Particularly in the marginal seats. We all know that only around 30-40 seats are important at UK. elections - those seen as marginal, target seats by both main parties. Labour are not bothered by a 5% drop in Barnsley, but they are bothered by the same drop in Ipswich.

 

Is an anarcho socialist revolution possible in this set up

 

Yes I could live with that... bowing then becomes optional?

 

Yes - we do not mind big or heavy people.

 

I have lived for many years and never felt the need to join a political party. I am not influenced by individuals who are members so find them irrelevant. How many members the Conservatives have had or have now I do not find interesting. I do not mind how parties get their funds. Some rely on Unions, others on business, some on personal donation. At the end of the day each party is responsible for getting the funds they need - I am not impressed how they achieve it. I assume people who fund a party are in some measure a supporter of that party so whether they are members or not is immaterial. I understand your perspective is quite different to mine - not better - not worse -just different.
- and Art or Arthur is fine as nobody needs an honorific really

 

....platform to? Any examples? Just trying to ascertain where you would draw the line. Tommy Robinson? George Galloway? Gerry Adams? Nick Griffin?

 

You guessed correctly Fez - even though I never finished the text I didn't think I had posted it I would draw the line at anyone who had the gift of the gab, and preached dangerous things - by that I mean advocating violence or hatred. It is all very well saying that you can hear them and try to expose them by rational debate, but large gatherings of people do not go there to engage in debate and once the 'crowd' mentality takes over listening to the wrong speaker then it can get dangerous. Mussolini once said that for great speakers to move crowds at will was like the potter working with his clay. I cannot imagine any of the people you quoted having the eloquence or ability to move crowds but if they did then I would prevent them (well maybe not George Galloway, who I rather like). I would certainly try to prevent some hate preachers who feed on the gullible.

 

There you certainly have lost me. In your answer you accept three people you would ban but you "rather like" the fourth. What about those who do not?
By that token Corbyn could legitimately be banned by people who view him as a terrorist's friend.
You cannot claim to believe in free speech only for those you approve of.
If a person preaches hatred or violence in an unlawful manner then it is for the law to deal with him. To deny a platform on a selective basis is the slope towards dictatorship.
If your society is so fragile that it cannot allow free speech then it is not worth anything.

 

I think you are taking me a bit to literally Leo. I was asked the question 'Where is the dividing line' ? You know that Hitler had been giving public speeches for up to 50,000 people before assuming power - you also know that his speeches appear to have had a hypnotic appeal where listeners were not invited to debate, but rather to repeat slogans, sing songs.......all those things which crowds do. Would you have prevented him given the opportunity ? I agree that there are few speakers around who can address thousands of people and move them to action in the way it was done then - and there are very few on the left, because 'personality' politics is normally alien to them. I am not concerned about where a person is on the political spectrum - but rather whether his words are of an incendiary nature, and could they prompt large groups of people to acts of hatred. If I get up on a soapbox and say 'Brothers, all the means of production should be collectivized' then it is ok. If I say 'Brothers, we should chase the Capitalists from our midst, we should hound them and destroy them at every opportunity' it is not ok. In the same vein if I say 'We really have to do something about immigration' it is also ok. and does not merit the epithet 'Nazi' - but if this goes on with 'The Rumanians are responsible for all the crime in our town, and are the reason why our daughters are not safe' it is not ok. particularly if accompanied by aggressive gestures from the audience. Do you get my point now ? I must admit the comment about Galloway was a bit tongue in cheek - I would need to look at what he was saying first. Besides which nobody understands his accent anyway.

 

Who forms the committee of those who are allowed to speak?

 

Would Emmeline Pankhurst nave been given approval?

 

Most definitely ? She did not preach hatred or encourage others to violence.