Off Topic Political Debate

ermm..... sensible debate??

 

I care about it to the extent that it still annoys me when advisors associated with any politicial party get a knighthood given that in the past it was reserved for excellence in other fields such as literature, music, entertainment, sport, science etc etc. It's another example of cronyism at its worst (and again that's all parties and not just the tories). That said, I would certainly prefer they were given meaningless honours rather than paid employment or bonuses!

 

Drop it Yorkie - another negative from you. As I have said before you don't like this thread so let it go - you know you want to. Just count how many times you have criticised this thread. I don't like the simpering thought for today thread but just keep away in the main rather than whinge as you keep doing. If as you claim you want to move this debate to a higher plain then actually post some decent comments making your argument and not relying on Maslow's unproven outdated theories. If others like your direction we can join in but simply telling us to be more intellectual is not going to work.
Yes - it is sensible. I have made the point several times recently that some members of political parties focus on what others have and want to take it away. They are envious - green - so a little bit of a pun.

 

In the town where I live Leo we (the Greens) have constantly stressed the idea that our municipality needs a developmental concept which contains an idea of how the place will look in 20 years time. How we can reduce the carbon footprint of the town - how we can make the town more attractive for pedestrians and users of public transport, how we can diversify agriculture in the area, and we can make the area less dependent on 'global' systems of finance and energy which could go into meltdown at any time. Our central concern is the environment and not envy. It is true that I would rather see locally run cooperatives here, rather than multi national global players, because their decisions are more likely to respect the environment where I live. In this sense 'small is beautiful', because as soon as anything outgrows its natural parameters it starts to become less human, less answerable for its actions. If all of this looks like envy to you....then sobeit - offer us something better !

 

Oh dear.......................

PM follows.................

 

Not at all. I loosely support a number of environmental aims and agree that at local level these can be campaigned for and a lot of good difference made. Where I part company from the Green Party is on economics and finance for reasons too many to go into just now. As I said it was supposedly a good humoured pun about the Green Party (which has backfired). The actual "green" I do not like is about people who suggest that we should take property from the rich simply because they are rich. Also the suggestion that bankers and certain politicians are evil because of their wealth - when I believe that there are the same proportions of greed and dishonesty in all sections of society rich and poor and that all politicians are a mixture of causes they believe in, power enjoyment and many other motivations. I would previously have used the terms left and right as they are in common parlance but they seem to be taboo on this thread so I try to avoid using a simple word and instead have to use a clumsy phrase.

 

Yes... to honour people for their success in any field of endeavour.. is worthy... but cronyism of any sort is an abuse of such a system...

I prefer to see Mrs Bloggs of Rotherham get an honour for 20 years of selfless volunteering etc...

 

Mrs Bloggs is long overdue her honour

I regard the whole honours system as ridiculous so do not really give a .... It has always been used to reward one's friends and allies - from the earliest times Knights were created due to personal favour by the King so how does it differ today?
I do like the idea of giving credit to ordinary people who either help in their communities or commit acts of bravery and selflessness - but it is the publicity they get and the fact that their friends, family and neighbours get to recognise their achievement is more important than a gong.
Anything that rewards people with a seat in a chamber of Parliament is as I said before an anachronism and is not good. But there the fault lies with the unreformed House of Lords. We and Iran are apparently the only two countries who put unelected clerics into thier parliament.

 

That is only the answer to 'how are all your policies going to be paid for', and who in the Green party has ever advocated taking property from the rich? Do you mean higher taxes?

I've always been an advocate of high taxes on earnings above a certain threshold. It used to be 80% (I think?) until a few decades ago, no? What's happened is that society has progressively become more right-wing inclined, driven by consumerism and the media. How much money proves that someone is more successful than another? I don't think a doctor should earn as much as a street sweeper due to the pressure/responsibilities of his position, but how much more should a he be paid? 10x? 20x?

We've gone from having Kings/Nobles to having the super-rich and their shady entourages, but they're now protected because 'they deserve their money'. They write the rules for society, taking more and more for themselves whilst letting the poorer struggle, and for what reason? How many millions does one need? Should people be allowed to set up their family and all their descendants so that they never have to work?

Is it 'envy'? Not really, as I've never been driven by possessions. I do object to working a highly qualified job and barely making ends meet, with no prospect of ever owning a house or even affording to have children. Society needs a rethink on how we live and what we live for, and one of the biggest priorities we will face in the 21st century is changing the current structure which at the moment borders on serfdom.

Anyway, the Tories are the party of envy, as their followers want more for themselves because their rich mates have it so they should too....

 

A second chamber if elected needs to be established in different terms to the current voting system. Otherwise we get a second house similar in membership and party politics to the Commons. We need a house that checks and balances the extremes of any current Govt.

All rather difficult to get right.....



(I can own up, or is it remember , now to having done an A level in Brit Con!)

 

Crosby managed the Conservative Party's 2005 United Kingdom general election campaign but was unable to help Michael Howard defeat Tony Blair. During Crosby's time as campaign manager, the Conservative used attention grabbing slogans such as "It’s Not Racist to Impose Limits on Immigration" and "How Would You Feel if a Bloke on Early Release Attacked Your Daughter?"

Crosby was also appointed to run (the successful) Conservative Boris Johnson's London 2008 Mayoral election campaign, at a cost to the party of £140,000 for four months of work. The Daily Mail alleged that Crosby had urged Johnson to focus his campaign on traditional Tory voters instead of "****ing Muslims," but Crosby later said through a spokesperson that he had no memory of using that phrasing.

In July 2013, following the government's rejection of a plan to remove branding from cigarette packets, British prime ministerDavid Cameron was urged by Liberal Democrat members of the governing coalition to sack Crosby as his chief election strategist because of Crosby's connection to the tobacco industry. Liberal Democrat MP Paul Burstow was quoted as saying: "Lynton Crosby cannot remain at the heart of government while he is also serving the interests of the tobacco industry. If he does not go the prime minister should sack him."

In 2014, it was revealed that having been hired in 2012 by Philip Morris International, maker of Marlboro cigarettes, Crosby lobbied Lord Marland, then parliamentary undersecretary for intellectual property and a former Conservative party treasurer, to oppose the introduction of plain packaging on cigarettes. This revelation came in papers released under the Freedom of Information Act by the Intellectual Property Office.


What a lovely chap. Imagine if Corbyn had knighted a vile little **** like him....

The bold bit proves yet again which side the media is on....

 

Has anybody you know in the Green Party suggested simply taking from the rich because they are rich. If I see a person with 3 houses and another person who is homeless then I attempt to do something to correct this situation - is this envy ? I probably would be if I wanted it for myself - but that is not the case.
Sometimes I feel that the word 'green' is used far too liberally. We have what we can loosely describe as a 'green' movement, which includes Green Peace, Friends of the Earth, Attac (the anti globalisation movement) and many others. Many also describe every environmentalist as 'green', if it suits their argument. Even the various Green Parties who stand for election are not the only environmentalist parties - and the official Green parties of Europe also have many differences. What the Green Party does have, which is unique in politics, is the ability to look far into the future - well beyond the next election, and is the only party which can imagine such a thing as a 'post growth' society. They will make mistakes, and they will do things which, for you, appear ludicrous, but they are confronting problems which no one else is facing. If you have problems with their economic policies then please bring them into the debate in more concise form so that we can argue them out.

 

Stop - stop - I tried to make a pun on green versus Green. The politics of envy that I really referred to is more to do with what I (not Cologne and some others though) call the left wing.
Sure many in the Green Party are what I consider left wing but what I am really talking about are the many left of centre in Green, Liberal Democratic, Labour, Socialist Workers Party etc etc. Some of those people would like to see confiscation of wealth from the top few percent and redistribution to others. I ask them whether they would feel the same if there were a World Government where they are part of the top few per cent and their possessions were redistributed to the billions around the world. The principle is the same.

I have no quarrel with progressive taxation - but not with punitive taxation. Toby - in fact the top marginal rate of tax in my lifetime was I think 98% on unearned income as it was called in those days and 83% on earned. (However that was not like for like with today's allowances).

A few on here talk about the move to the right since Thatcher. However they overlook the fact that this was in fact a reversal in part of the move to the left which commenced in 1945. The centre ground will always swing around - it has happened many times before.

 

Time for reality.

There is no demand whatsoever for any change in the current structure in the UK, most people are quite content with their lot. There are enormous opportunities in the UK to prosper through hard work and endeavour. The left wing uprising in the Labour Party should be squashed by fellow party members after next May's election, although it would donthe Tories a favour if Corbyn somehow manages to stay until the next election.

 

Didn't you say very similar things to this before the by election in Oldham ?

 

Yes, but the pressure will only mount on Corbyn as the usual financial backers of the party withdraw funding and the predicted heavy electoral defeat in May. I'm quite happy to see this clown last a long time but I think common sense will break out in the Labour Party.

 

I love the phrase "most people are content with their lot" Wasn't that said about slaves in the US before slavery was abolished. I wonder how anyone can establish a fact like "most people are content with their lot." I might as well tell you that most polar bears would eat penguins given the chance. It has about the same degree of research.
Likewise it is irrelevant to tell us that 75% did not vote Conservative (73.1% if we are being pedantic) as a higher percentage did not vote for each of the other Parties. (96.2% did not vote Green - what should we make of that?)
So social mobility as a class is low but individual mobility is possible; it is correct that there are enormous opportunities for individual self advancement - it is a class as a whole that does not shift.

 

It must be abundantly clear that most people are not 'content with their lot' - if they were then they would stop trying to keep up with the Jones's next door and the system would collapse. It only keeps on working because they always manage to convince people that what they have is 'not enough'.

 

My comment referring to 'most people are content with their lot' means they are quite happy striving within in the present system. They are not looking for a drastic political shake up as suggested by a couple of left wingers, or whingers, on this site. There is not going to be a revolution in the UK.