Off Topic Political Debate

Whoever comments on here has the option to respond to comments or ignore them. My approach in work and life generally was to make things work and not destroy because of ideology. Beliefs often have to change with circumstances, with what was right yesterday possibly not being correct for tomorrow. There might be certain lines that you would not cross, but ideas are to be explored and used when it is profitable to do so. I cannot for the life of me see that taking swipes at other people is ever likely to get them to want to explore what you are saying.

 

We all join together for the love of Watford .I think its sad when things get out of hand then people leave because of nothing to do with our 1st love (besides our partners) I for one will be glad when its all over and we can get back to hating them up the road and a midlands club

 

There is a very good political point demonstrated by the little spat here between Cologne and Super. I can't agree with Colognes political views and am certainly dismayed by Supers apparent desire to bait but.....The left generally like control to the point of banning and/or oppressing opposing views whilst the right often allow the airing of all views and survival of the fittest view. Strange then in this thread that the left represented by Cologne requests the banning of the (in my view poorly expressed) freedom of expression of SuperHorns. Its not just one side who refuse to answer what doesn't suit them either. I request again that Cologne enters into educated discussion regarding the Socialist state of Venezuela which is the foremost example of the implementation of socialist systems in the modern world relying on funding from an existing and now declining cash cow. Its a fundamental of these systems that they take what they see as a poorly distributed successful resource but do not understand the necessity of maintenance and development of the engine that produces the income for distribution preferring to concentrate on distribution of existing wealth rather than sustaining that source. The end result is a crumbling of the means to provide employment, necessities etc.

 

Come on chaps, we can do better than this. If you don't like or disagree with someone else's views, either ignore it or respond in a mature and dignified manner. Petty name calling and requesting for bans and deletions is not what this message board has ever been about, we are better than this. Personally, whilst I disagree with a lot of posters political opinions and semi-agree with a few, I love to read and think about what others post.
So a request from me, write your comments as if you were talking to the other contributors in a pub face to face - one of the negatives of the Internet is we lose that aspect of a conversation. No need for threats to quit, no need for calls for bans and deletions, just remember what we all have in common - our love of WFC

 

Aberdeen - I think Cologne's view is that Venezuela is not a Socialist state in the way he considers Socialism. What he considers as Socialim can only exist at a micro level, such as a commune level. So there are no real leaders that hold power, just a group all working at the same level for the common good. So he would not argue that Venezuela is not the crock of **** that we all know it to be, but on the same hand he cannot give an example of a country with a working Socialist model as there is not one that fits his description of Socialism. Well that is what I take from his arguments.

 

In addition to your comment above regarding the recognition of the requirement to support and protect the drivers of wealth I would suggest that this is a common problem with many socialist projects. The cake has to be made before it can be sliced up.

In the UK it is imperative that the incoming government continues one of the successes of the last coalition government by retaining the desire to make our country the best place to invest in. We require minimal red tape, a flexible workforce and better long term funding for small businesses. It would be a disaster if this good work is in any way damaged. Our best hope for reducing the relatively low unemployment rate even further is for the millions of small businesses to take on one or two people.

 

Fully superhorns and I would add that we need to really up the quality of our workforce. We need to get away from being a country of Asparagus pickers and burger flippers and become a country of "high tech" businesses that the world wants to trade with. When I say high tech, I don't just mean technology, but also leaders in Arts as well as Sciences. In my area of work we cannot get enough skilled resources onshore and either get them from India and manage them offshore or if really necessary bring them over on a short term visa - we pay an additional £300 a day for onshore. Despite paying and additional £500 a day for European developers, we just cannot get them - they can name their price and get it.

 

Getting into that point of the workforce I hate to admit it but every time Farage speaks he speaks a lot of sense (doesn't change the fact I don't believe to understand his motives). Our borders cannot be open and free for all. We must maintain control and indeed harden our line on immigration such that only those accepting our values and having a skill we need are able to enter for residence. Our education system has never been perfect but it isn't that bad. We need to rebuild the polytechnic structure ie get vocation based degree courses ficused at industry needs back on the agenda and additionally incentivize apprenticeships to build the trades back up, these skills have been undervalued by the past generation much to our expense as a society (it's what provided the motivation for the open door policy to allow the Eastern Europeans in en masse to admittedly fill a skills gap but also remove a lot of wealth from our economy). On the world stage we are facing the biggest threat to mankind ever in the form of Islam. It's one thing I would actively fight against and I hope we reintroduce the ability of UK citizens to have licenced short arms in the near future for what I see as essential protection against the coming menace.

 

The problem is our borders are open and free for all in the EU. Unfortunately we do not have control, an Australian type system would be nice but unachievable whilst in the EU. I will not be voting UKip (I am not even registered to vote) but believe that Farage genuinely cares for his country.

The Germans are way ahead of us in the appreciation of practical skills and long term funding for small businesses.

I also see the dangers of some that follow Islam who desire to convert or eliminate non believers.

 

100% agree. It's all about respecting people and addressing people in the same way you'd want them to address you. I certainly hope your request is heeded WY.

 

I liked Frenchie's comments too about it being a discussion and not a debate.

I wonder if the UK two-party system works against healthy discussion... or at least has done up to now.....

Plus of course a biased media.......

 

It will be interesting to see how debate and discussion evolve in the likely event of the demise of 2 party politics. Party leaders will have to accept the need for greater compromise and cooperation - as will the media. It could be quite positive.

 

I am disappointed that the main newspapers are falling into party lines again.... as it is pretty obvious we will end up with some sort of coalition

 

The two main parties will remain dominant in UK politics for a long time to come. The spanner in the works, whatever the outcome, is the SNP. UK politics will change forever. Whether it is the policy of the SNP as I believe, or simply a consequence of their numerical numbers in parliament, tension will increase between England and Scotland. I cannot frankly see any alternative to the SNP demanding another vote on independence which they no doubt would win, within a few years.

Logically this could lead to a situation where the overwhelming number of Conservative MP's in England will be reflected in future Tory governments.

 

I can think of four high profile names off the top of my head that could counter that argument - MacRae, Manning, Snowden and Assange, all of whom have suffered at the hands of essentially right wing governments for the sin of airing or attempting to air their views.

As to the argument over 'banning', I really don't see the need for it. I certainly can't see why certain individuals find it necessary to resort to invective & snide comments - in all probability I am thin-skinned compared to most, but find it preferable to utilise the ignore button. That way, they can exercise their right to 'free speech' and can prattle away to their heart's content, insults included, but I don't have to leave this thread and lose the enjoyment of reading others' thrusts and counter-thrusts.

 

Wow! In the twelve months or so up to September last year, such claims made by Scots were howled down, in spite of the presence of overwhelming proof. Yet here we have vindication - thanks Yorkie...

 

My reason for asking for a ban (a request which was made in the heat of the moment and which I gladly take back) had nothing to do with the political stance of Superhorns, but rather to do with insults which had been delivered not just to myself but also to others, which may have been keeping some people away from the thread. Every ban is also an extension of freedom for someone else - in as much as they are often thought up for that purpose. So, eg. the smoking ban in public places may be an infringement of liberties for some people - but protects the rights of many more. I do not feel obliged to 'answer' for Venezuala. Firstly because I have never been there, secondly because I know nothing about the country and am therefore reliant on a capitalist driven press for information. I do not ask you to justify why the USA has more homeless people, and people living below the poverty line than Venezuala has population. There is no country in the World which is 100% capitalist (even the USA), and the same applies to Socialism. You, and others, have said that I am finding difficulty naming a 'Socialist' country that works - we need to define `Socialism`first. Also, WY is right in that my brand of Socialism is heavily connected to decentralization - even Marx declared that the final aim of Socialism was the dissolving of the state (ie. the end goal of Socialism would see no countries in the sense we know them now) - no surprise then that I have problems answering this, because mine is a Socialism from below. What I would prefer here is that one of us eg. Superhorns or Yourself would imagine that you are the leader of a political party - what would your manifesto be ? Name ten changes which you would make in the 'Aberdeen' party, or the 'Superhorns' party - and I will do the same and then we have the basis for a real debate. Debate is absolutely useless if everyone only wants to win !

 

One problem with the SNP is that they will be over represented in Westminster. If they take eg. 45% of the vote in Scotland, what percentage is this of the total UK vote? (3-4% ?) for which they could end up with 45-50 seats. Then compare this to the possible Green result and you have a cast iron case for PR, which I am hoping will be the result of this. What is absolutely clear is that Westminster cannot turn to the people after the election and say `We are sorry but your mandate is too complicated can you do it again`. As long as we have a position where everyone is saying that they will only go into coalition with the Liberals then we have a problem. On the one hand the MP's from the SNP who sit in Westminster will be there under a democratic system, representing UK constituencies from a country which chose to stay in the UK - and cannot be disenfranchised. On the other their presence is about as logical as UKIP sitting in the European parliament.

 

The "Aberdeen Party"

Just taking your concept and picking on 10 broad issues:-

1) Law and Order - Make it easier to secure low level prosecution for low level crime and introduce minimum "societal payment" tarrif to replace community service.
2) Immigration - Close borders to further "economic" migrancy and introduce proper screening (points based) program to determine applications. Probably means leaving EU.
3) Economy - Reduce corporate taxation by giving significant tax allowances for job creation regional structure to be introduced.
4) Energy - Remove all subsidies for wind farms and ban further expansion until efficiencies are improved to greater than 50%. Extend the powers of central government over local government in the approval process for Fraccing. Provide tax allowances (reduce taxation) on mature Oil and Gas producing assets.
5) Agriculture - Provide incentives for food production over biodiesel. Review farm subsidies scheme to increase production rather than reward fallow land.
6) Foreign Affairs - Maintain NATO position, exit EU or preferably re negotiate terms but frankly I think the two (EU UK) are becomiing to disparate. Form global alliance against Islam and plan the war and peace to eradicate this threat to mankind.
7) Climate - Accelerate CCS investment (Peterhead SSE-Shell)
8) Health - Reduce "waste" in the NHS by introducing an effective management process and prioviding rewards for efficient healthcare. Minimum waiting lists, care standards, care for elderly etc. to be free at source as a given
9) Education - re-introduce polytechnics for industry based learning and link to apprentice schemes incentivised through tax allowance to industry.
10) Defence - Increase spending on MI5 and 6 (treble) and introduce a home defence force to work alongside the existing police force. Maintain spending levels and negotiate with NATO to form a cost effective Nuclear deterrant as an integrated rather than disparate umbrella.

 

Good post.

What might be interesting is the new fixed parliament period enshrined in law. If chaos ensues then that will have to be overturned.