Off Topic Political Debate

It feels to me as though we live in age where only pragmatism or collectivism can secure anyone's political future. I think it has become harder for really independent thinkers to make their way in government.

 

Only when addressing the precarious proletariat in their own language so they can fully understand.

 

The way to becoming an MP means, first and foremost, being put forward as a candidate by the local party - this being done on the condition that he represents the opinions of the local branch members. It could be that he only represents about 70% but that is normally enough - if he is out of line on more than that it becomes a problem. Corbyn wants a 'bottoms' up democratization of the party and I actually think that this may be more important to him than his 'leftness' - if he is also a Quaker then he will also have an aversion to hierarchy.

 

I'm not sure why you object to the semi religious part here Leo. You are right in saying that we form our political ideas as a result of our experiences, who we have met etc., and very often this is a matter of luck. Many people also form their politics out of their religious convictions and there is nothing wrong in that as long as they know when to separate the two. about a third of the original Labour Party members came from sectarian religious backgrounds. The foundation of the party had more to do with Methodism than with Marx. If you look at the roots of collectivism (later called communism or communalism) then nearly all attempts at this type of living, before Marx, came out of a religious background (and not just Christian).

 

If I don't like the heat get out of the fire?

Is it possible to talk about a dialectic of world peace? Is that not what you want.

It seems on this thread there is a preference for disagreement.

If we do really care then should we not be discussing the bigger picture and not be bogged down in partisanship?

 

Worth noting that Gandhi's non-violent movement in India was grounded in Hinduism. Many religious people will say you cannot separate faith and life in this world. The south American catholic dialectics of liberation movement is a great example.

Tibetan monks in Tibet (well obviously) risk torture and worst for the right to freedom of speech and worship..... etc...

One of my closest friends was a Anglican priest for many years and now is a labour councillor etc etc

 

World history has been changed by politicians led by there faith. Individuals from well to do backgrounds have been very concerned about humans and done things to improve their lot. Take William Wilberforce as an example who was driven by his Christianity. He was an Independent MP who would support both left and right wing if he thought they were doing the right thing. It is very difficult these days for Independents to get elected as they usually have local interests rather than policies to run a whole country.

 

I think politicians who are driven by faith or an inner conviction often do a good job as they are more concerned with doing the best for everybody. Gandhi/Mandela/DalaiLama.... I have found to be authentic and inspiring leaders who are concerned for peace.

 

Before you all get too dewy eyed about religion and politics - I will throw in the Rev Ian Paisley...

 

.... and of course several Imans... anti-abortionists... plus of course the crusaders...........


Well Ian Paisley did eventually make peace with his enemies......

 

best thing for me is to get my coat and dash off to the match

 

You are right. I was wrong. It was not the focus of what I was saying though and just seemed irrelevant to me at the time - but I got picked up for it.

 

Corbyn policies I disagree with:-
1) Raising of taxes to deal with defecit - my belief is raised tax rates will lead to reduced growth and reduced receipts
2) Dialog with terrorist groups in the Middle East - This is not N Ireland and the fundamentalists only understand the bullet, eradication is the only option with a parallel focus on poverty reduction to eliminate the drivers to radicalization and feeling of victimization that fuels terrorism.
3) Quantative easing - Tight monetary circulation and keeping inflation under control works to stimulate a strong economy lead by private sector efficiency competing on global stage.
4) Trident - I believe we need and have a responsibility to maintain a strategic nuclear capability. Current tensions prove this, ironically I think we need it to ward of the USA as much as Russia if we want to maintain our ability for free thought and action.
5) Daesh Air Strkes - I believe we should strike strategic targets including revenue streams (oil) and indeed add our special forces on the ground (deah squads to eliminate command/control structures and strike fear into the terrorists).
6) Rent controls - Government control in the private sector is not acceptable.
7) Falklands - These islands are subject to self determination and no way should any discussion or agreement take place over the islanders heads to give argentina any benefit from its criminal war actions and subsequent desperate political posturing.
8) Arms embargo on Israel - Israel must have the ability to defend itself and is an important element in the Middle East without arms it would be subject to another holocaust. This element of Corbyns mind is truly scary putting him in the Hitler, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Guevara camp of despots..
9) Energy - Nationalization would be counter productive and his stance on fracking is wrong. The UK needs fracked gas and il foer energy independence in the 2030s.
10) Ireland - I oppose his united Ireland view, again self determination for the North is important. THe country is at peace if the border was erased there would be a massive problem for the whole island of ireland with unionist terrorism.
11) Restriction of arms trade - I believe current restrictions work for the UK industry, we select our partners well and control as best possible secondary sales.

As I say I have no problem with the man himself but the policy issues above lead me to believe he would be a disaster for the country. Now for 3 points in nasal country...... COYH

 

a) Nope - just choose where you enjoy posting.
b) Discussion on world peace is fine. Do I want it - world peace? Yes please. I would like to orbit Earth too but also doubt that will happen. But by all means put forward some views as it has to be interesting.
c) There is a reality of disagreement I would prefer to say. There are strongly opposed views on here; disagreement is inevitable. Few people change their minds; even less change their minds DURING a discussion - but sometimes later good points that have been made by others sink in. I am afraid that if we all just post things we agree with it would be sterile. Political and religious discussion by their nature include opposing views. The trick is to let others have their say without criticising the individual rather than the points made - that trick is achieved by most of us on here to a greater or lesser degree.

The popularity of this thread in terms of viewings and postings together with those on the EU, Scottish referendum, religion etc show there is an appetite amongst us for things to discuss while football is going along. Occasionally some take offence and walk away but we have probably lost more to boredom. At times the Watford site has very few posts and I think it causes drift.

I would welcome a poll on whether we should allow "contentious" threads to continue on here and would happily abide by its outcome. One thing I do know is that a number of people who do not actually post on this thread have told me they enjoy reading it.

 

Some sensitive posters on this site should visit some other sites to discover that this particular site is, in the main, constructive and polite.

As Leo has said if you make it too antiseptic posters will lose interest and it will wither away. Some subjects are more contentious to some than others so I suggest the status quo is preferable.

 

I would caution against listing all of them WY as you will miss the match - against Norwich

 

I wanted to make a point on religion but am being very self restrained as I know it would be contentious and I seem to have upset one or two already in my short time back here - and it is really not my wish to actually upset anyone. I will have to bite my lip

 

Somebody might accuse you of being a wind up merchant if you keep on upsetting posters!!!

 

Leo, you make many valid and interesting points, we've alredy seen that you and I are not always in harmony, but I still want to see your reasoning as you always stick to the subject in hand and never resort to personal insults!

If anyone has a problem with your posts, I would suggest, respectfully of course, that the problem is their's, not your's!