Tbf, I don't think anyone has mentioned the class system. The debate of left wing versus right wing is do the stronger members of a largely capitalist based society want to bring along the weakest, disenfranchised sector of society, or does the more able sector let them go to the devil in their own way.?
Fair enough it has come up in a fair few posts over the thread. I don't want to point the finger so I'll leave it there.
I agree with you on Churchill but this is not correct. It was Blair who thought Thatcher was right in what she did but not the way she did it. so he then continued with Thatcherite principals but in his own centrist way at high speed. It was Thatcherism through the back door with a constant facade of a Left working class representation. that was what sent everything into super boom period followed by a catastrophic failure when the global crash came and we had totally bust our own country's finances. It was super good when it was the good times but the worst ever crash once all those PFIs and economy based on feelgood nothings like the housing bubble came home to roost. Cameron did bluff and fail but you don't address his idolisation of Blair and his continuation of centrist policies. He just did exactly what his hero would have done. Even though his hero had failed. When people talk about the BBC as left leaning bias they are talking Lib Dems style. Sitting plum in the middle. The ultimate centrists with a utopian vision of what is and should be normal for all and anything different needs a documentray to make sure people know that it is not how the world should be or people should act. As for Murdoch and all his enterprises. They are Blair through and through. Centrist capitalist fanboy setups with a facade of being normal people's viweing pleasure and new source. Corbyn has nothing to do with any of these 3. HE is old style militant hard left. Blair>Cameron and the Lib Dems are full on Centrists that believe that their world view is the norm and anyone who doesn't think that is wrong. So had most people until the media started labelling again and now we have challenges from media types on politicians about who they represent etc.
Exactly the points I try (possibly badly) convey. I wish that there was a trickle down system that would work and that those that are able to control the system, namely governments (of any colour) would actually control what they say they would control instead of facilitating deceptions. In my world (which is probably fantasy to many people on here and beyond) we are in a situation in this country where the elite (including the media) facilitate big business to utilise any methods possible (cheap labour that doesn't complain) to boost profits for the elite. At the same time they have managed to get to a stage where they have guided opinion and thought through the media of selected stats, numbers and stories and how people should live if they are "normal" and "decent" to the point that when those at the bottom that have been cast aside this middle set does not believe the bottom sets stories. How could it be so? How can they be telling the truth? All the reports say it is not true. The stats, the numbers, the reports, the news etc. So then the media manipulate the middle to add to their argument that those at the bottom are lying or ill educated or not very nice people. That they are opinionated and not normal or decent. Hey lets use them as entertainment to boot to reinforce that view. Mr Kyle are you there, can you round up a few of the worst ones and get 'em on TV now. CH4, CH5 Can you make some shows about the worst examples please. we need to paint a picture here. Beeb, Focus on the racists we need to complete this jigsaw. Of course that wouldn't wash completely because some aren't in a position to work so we now have this exaggerated story of poverty even though many of us classed in poverty (me) aren't in poverty and challenge anyone that disagrees as not humanitarian, while in reality these humanitarians are not humanitarian. They choose who they care about and it is not all enveloping. They select who should be helped and who is worthy and ignore those that aren't worth their attention which of course contradicts their humanitarian label. So not quite Ayn Rand. This lot aren't deluded into thinking this is the positive way forward. It is malicious and uncaring, not just some crazy thought that they are right. It is elite people wanting more and more at the expense of those at the bottom and are willing to manipulate those in the middle to help protect the elite from claims of abuse. I am a crazy Northerner though so take what I say with a little pinch of salt.
This reminds me of the endless debates I used to get bored by at Uni between socialists and the ultra-left, which largely consisted of labels being bandied around. I agree with you about Blair continuing Thatcher's monetarism but the point I was answering was about Tory leaders. Thatcher did begin the "loadsamoney" antics of the City boys which Blair did nothing to contain. And if I remember correctly, Cameron and Osborne spent most of their first term decrying the policies of Blair and Brown and blaming them for the crash rather than the bankers. My point about Corbyn was that he is also a target for the BBC, not just Tory leaders,
Yes I agree with all of that. Corbyn is not to the BBCs liking. He isn't centrist and Cameron and Osborne have done what Blair did. Centrist policies while trying to say they are doing something different. Blair did Thatcherite stuff while in the house and in speeches decrying Tory privatisation and Cameron Osborne continued Blair's new versio of Thatcherism whilst shouting about how bad Blair and Brown were. My points entirely. People don't want any more Blair/Cameron. They want something different which is why both sides of the house are so out of touch with the public. We are at the moment back a century where the elite can't understand why the plebs are moaning.
This woman has pretty much ended any opportunity she may have had of having a senior cabinet position under May's premiership. She's actively committing her own political suicide because of her inflated ego.
May is 'really sad' for not having children? Does she know Mrs May's situation - I don't know myself whether it's a choice or a medical reason, or otherwise - but then I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to make such comments about her, either. As for the idea that having children makes you a better PM? Deary me...
You look at families all the time and you see there is something there that you don’t have,” she says. Mrs May, 56, has been married for 32 years. She is the most senior woman in British politics but has rarely spoken about her private life. Asked about having children, she said: “It just didn’t happen. I mean, this isn’t something I generally go into, but things just turned out as they did.” She admitted to a sense of loss at not being a mother. “I think if you talk to anybody who would like to have had children… I mean, you look at families all the time and you see there is something there that you don’t have,” she said http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ss-at-not-having-children-by-Theresa-May.html May in 2012, judging by what she says I am thinking medical.
Look at the story on the right too!! Stephen Crabb, that devout family man and Christian, was sexting a young staffer during the EU Referendum. What a wonderful group.
Appalling comments from Leadsom. We have opened Pandora's box and unleashed this diatribe and many awful sentiments. What a mess.
