Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2015 17:11:30 GMT -5
That's because no one gives a shit about Nick Clegg anymore... You should tweet that to him. Or I could ask why his coalition lowered benefits considering he's going to be out of a job in a week... |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 3, 2015 18:44:47 GMT -5
Noel knows bugger all about politics, and clearly, if you think the Tories should win this election (after their destructive incompetence over the last five years has led to the national debt rising to £1.4trillion, 900,000 people using food banks, 700,000 in zero hours contracts, and 400,000 disabled people being hit by the inherently evil "bedroom tax") then neither do you. Who got the UK in the mess, and who got them out? As Ronald Reagan would ask: Are you better off than you were 4 (well 5 in this case) years ago? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2015 18:53:18 GMT -5
Noel knows bugger all about politics, and clearly, if you think the Tories should win this election (after their destructive incompetence over the last five years has led to the national debt rising to £1.4trillion, 900,000 people using food banks, 700,000 in zero hours contracts, and 400,000 disabled people being hit by the inherently evil "bedroom tax") then neither do you. Who got the UK in the mess, and who got them out? As Ronald Reagan would ask: Are you better off than you were 4 (well 5 in this case) years ago? The mess was largely caused by a global financial crises that originated from American banks. For arguments sake, let's say that things have improved since 2010. Have the tories really been the driving force behind that? Whichever party was in power would likely have seen a very similar change. |
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on May 4, 2015 3:32:30 GMT -5
Noel knows bugger all about politics, and clearly, if you think the Tories should win this election (after their destructive incompetence over the last five years has led to the national debt rising to £1.4trillion, 900,000 people using food banks, 700,000 in zero hours contracts, and 400,000 disabled people being hit by the inherently evil "bedroom tax") then neither do you. Who got the UK in the mess, and who got them out? As Ronald Reagan would ask: Are you better off than you were 4 (well 5 in this case) years ago? The global crash got us in the mess, not labour (as was the implication) and sure, there has been a recovery of sorts under Osbourne's reckless austerity policy, but it's been called "the most feeble economic recovery in our history" and 5 years later GDP per head is STILL below what it was in 2007...by a good 7% So no, to answer your second question, I'm not better off at all, I am in fact £1,600 WORSE OFF. The only people who have benefited (as they always will under Tory governments) are the incredibly weathly i.e. bankers (35% wage increase), MPs (11%) and so on... Nurses? Some haven't even had a 1% (and so below inflation rate anyway!) pay rise. Tell me, how the fuck is that fair?! What would you say if that happened in America under Obama's watch? |
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on May 4, 2015 4:59:10 GMT -5
I think Noel says things just to see people's reactions nowadays tbh  I wish it was. Clearly he knows and follows fuck all about politics. As great a interviewee as Noel the one subject he says nothing of use about is politics. |
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on May 4, 2015 5:04:16 GMT -5
Noel knows bugger all about politics, and clearly, if you think the Tories should win this election (after their destructive incompetence over the last five years has led to the national debt rising to £1.4trillion, 900,000 people using food banks, 700,000 in zero hours contracts, and 400,000 disabled people being hit by the inherently evil "bedroom tax") then neither do you. Who got the UK in the mess, and who got them out? As Ronald Reagan would ask: Are you better off than you were 4 (well 5 in this case) years ago? My god. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 7:39:37 GMT -5
After months of saying that voting is a pointless exercise, Russell Brand has urged the country to vote Labour after interviewing Ed Miliband.
|
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on May 4, 2015 8:16:44 GMT -5
After months of saying that voting is a pointless exercise, Russell Brand has urged the country to vote Labour after interviewing Ed Miliband. Miliband can't be that incompetent then can he? Gotta say, I've never found Russell very funny, but I've gained a lot of respect for him over the last few years. He's one of the few people to use their celebrity status for good, to shine a light on the harsh realities of life in Britain these days. If it weren't for people like Brand, we'd continue to have the wool pulled over our eyes by Murdoch and the like, and the Tories and corporations would continue fucking us over. Good on him! |
|
|
|
Post by jakob61907 on May 4, 2015 8:18:18 GMT -5
After months of saying that voting is a pointless exercise, Russell Brand has urged the country to vote Labour after interviewing Ed Miliband. More said to vote Labour to get rid of the Tories as opposed to him loving the labour party and Milliband. He wanted the greens but was right when he said in a first past the post system that can never happen. Labour are the lesser of two evils  |
|
|
|
Post by jakob61907 on May 4, 2015 8:19:11 GMT -5
After months of saying that voting is a pointless exercise, Russell Brand has urged the country to vote Labour after interviewing Ed Miliband. Miliband can't be that incompetent then can he? Gotta say, I've never found Russell very funny, but I've gained a lot of respect for him over the last few years. He's one of the few people to use their celebrity status for good, to shine a light on the harsh realities of life in Britain these days. If it weren't for people like Brand, we'd continue to have the wool pulled over our eyes by Murdoch and the like, and the Tories and corporations would continue fucking us over. Good on him! You're a 100% right. Im with you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 8:21:37 GMT -5
After months of saying that voting is a pointless exercise, Russell Brand has urged the country to vote Labour after interviewing Ed Miliband. More said to vote Labour to get rid of the Tories as opposed to him loving the labour party and Milliband. He wanted the greens but was right when he said in a first past the post system that can never happen. Labour are the lesser of two evils He said Brighton should vote Green, implied that Scotland should vote SNP and the rest of the country should vote to Labour for the sole purpose of removing the Conservative Party from office. And he's right about the current voting system which doesn't give parties like Green a chance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 8:24:25 GMT -5
After months of saying that voting is a pointless exercise, Russell Brand has urged the country to vote Labour after interviewing Ed Miliband. Miliband can't be that incompetent then can he? Gotta say, I've never found Russell very funny, but I've gained a lot of respect for him over the last few years. He's one of the few people to use their celebrity status for good, to shine a light on the harsh realities of life in Britain these days. If it weren't for people like Brand, we'd continue to have the wool pulled over our eyes by Murdoch and the like, and the Tories and corporations would continue fucking us over. Good on him! I don't think Miliband is incompetent and have warmed to him over the last couple of months. Try telling that to the right wing Murdoch run press and their readers though. Like you, I don't think Russell is that funny as a comedian but I do respect and sympathise with a lot of his political viewpoints. |
|
|
|
Post by jakob61907 on May 4, 2015 8:32:49 GMT -5
Miliband can't be that incompetent then can he? Gotta say, I've never found Russell very funny, but I've gained a lot of respect for him over the last few years. He's one of the few people to use their celebrity status for good, to shine a light on the harsh realities of life in Britain these days. If it weren't for people like Brand, we'd continue to have the wool pulled over our eyes by Murdoch and the like, and the Tories and corporations would continue fucking us over. Good on him! I don't think Miliband is incompetent and have warmed to him over the last couple of months. Try telling that to the right wing Murdoch run press and their readers though. Like you, I don't think Russell is that funny as a comedian but I do respect and sympathise with a lot of his political viewpoints. You shoud watch Mesiah Complex. Its the first Russell standup show I've ever truly enjoyed. Hes a lot funnier now than he was 10 years ago. Was way too over the top back then. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 8:43:15 GMT -5
Good video from Russell there, thought-provoking. For me though, I simply don't believe Ed Miliband - and even if I did, I don't think Labour can achieve any significant change. For me to vote, I would need the voting system to change so my vote is meaningful and for there to be meaningful change to vote for. If there was a PR system, I would consider voting Green but then again, perhaps the abstract concepts of principles and the idea that voting helps maintain a status quo I don't believe in become arbitrary when faced with the right wing ideology of the Conservatives and the immediate threat that that presents. Although I still believe that Government is a subset of corporate power and that politics is the illusion of choice, I'm not so naive to think they have no power and some of the polices Labour may implement are closer to my left wing beliefs. I'm really torn on this one.
(Btw, I think Russell's fucking hillarious on the radio/podcast but I've never liked his standup)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 8:46:52 GMT -5
I don't think Miliband is incompetent and have warmed to him over the last couple of months. Try telling that to the right wing Murdoch run press and their readers though. Like you, I don't think Russell is that funny as a comedian but I do respect and sympathise with a lot of his political viewpoints. You shoud watch Mesiah Complex. Its the first Russell standup show I've ever truly enjoyed. Hes a lot funnier now than he was 10 years ago. Was way too over the top back then. I'll give it a watch. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 4, 2015 9:32:36 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 9:41:19 GMT -5
Let's assume there won't be a majority in the Commons for either Labour or the Conservatives. The next two largest parties will be the SNP and the Lib Dems and therefore at least one of these two parties will hold the balance of power. The SNP will never do any sort of deal with the tories and Labour have ruled out dealings with the SNP so the Lib Dems will likely be needed to form a government. They've already worked with the tories and Labour would be happy to form a coalition with them as well, so it's a matter of which manifestos are the most similar and which of Labour or the Conservatives gets the most seats. Alternatively, the largest party could govern as a minority and try and get their Queen's speech passed with support from other parties. The party that is more likely to do this is Labour as none of the other parties want to be seen supporting a tory government. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on May 4, 2015 10:20:18 GMT -5
Haha, fair enough, I list all those thing as I think that level of consumerism is something most of us have benefited from. I do believe you are right in noting exploitation of labour, consumerism, media control, corporate power, wage slavery, etc, etc, but I believe you can tackle a lot of the abuses of this within the confines of a capitalist system. I don't believe the Tories care for how damaging this has been - it's pure material gain and the profit margin is ALL that matters with the Tories. This is really depressing I'm sure you'd agree! On a material level, yes we have (the consumers) benefitted from consumerism - but the downsides are enormous. Motivating people with largely unnessacary material gain, constant playing on insecurities to made them feel they need things, the omniscience of advertising (I think the average person goes through 1600 advertisements a day) and like I said - insecure, scared people are perfect for the economy, to name but a few. I have no doubt that many of those issues (exploitation of labour ect...) can be dealt with (though not all) but still I would reject capitalism as heirarchal, unfair, corrosive on a human level, and not sustainably compatible with democracy. It should be noted that what we are currently under has exploited the concepts of capitalism enormously - the idea is that businesses that aren't serving the people should go bankrupt, instead they rule the world. I would agree most Conservatives don't sympathise with the people, but how much could they really do if they did? I wouldn't place much faith in the power of government nor would I differentiate between the parties that much. I think you're right about the materialism in that it makes people insecure and they have to buy the 'next big thing', or update their phone every month , etc. I'm not particularly materialistic but I do benefit greatly from a globalised society enough to know I can't possibly be communist - given the globalised culture of today which I have taken advantage of. I look at communism and there's not one place in the world where it has ever worked. I realise you're approach is different but, for a start, centralisation isn't efficient in today's economy what with society being so fragmented and diverse, and besides, it would cost a bomb to carry out such reforms, and what with today's rising debt of £1.5 trillion rising and rising, there's no way such reforms would pay off that and would only add to that - and clearing the debt is the major priority for this country. You also see with Greece - with their extreme left leader - that they are finding it impossible to carry out desired reforms because the country has so many vested interests in essentially capitalist means (i.e. EU) that makes them entrenched in a capitalist system. Their hands are tied basically, and their socialist Prime Minister Alexis Sipris has resorted to calling out Germany for reparations from WWII he is that desperate! Essentially, if the Green Party were voted in, they would be the same - their fantasy manifesto would be constrained by the reality that they would have to face up to (yet fail to do so). They're not communist by any means, but it just goes to show any extreme alternative doesn't have answers - and my opinion is that you can revert from the current status quo within the confines of capitalism, it's just that the parties NEED to give us something to believe in. For a start, a PR electoral system where every vote counts would go some way to making up the democratic deficit. For example, your concerns about multicorporations running riot over citizens can be tempered in a PR system, partly because they include large donors to a political party, and usually the one party in majority control (as we have under First Past The Post) curries favour with them letting them do anything they want because they are helping that said party to stay in power. In a PR government - a rainbow coalition - that wouldn't be acceptable. There would be a vast range of opinions there that it would be impossible for large donors to try and curry favour with a government. Of all the mainstream leaders, only Nick Clegg makes the most sense - two fundamental principles of the Lib Dems is proportional representation and federalism. With the mainstream parties, they are the most radical party of all, and the much more realistic option to genuine change. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 10:38:23 GMT -5
I dont take into account this food bank bullshit, like some people have said, you offer something out for free then theres going to be some people that will use it just because it is free, fair enough theres people out there that genuinely need it but theres likely people out there that also too lazy to work and therefore use it as a way of saving money so they dont have to work so hard.
you have to vouchers from the job centre and apparently its limited to 3 boxes or something but this isnt enforced, people can basically take take take
what Im saying is its hard to correlate that to the state of employment or whatever, its like saying X amount more are claiming benefits, chances are theres a group of people in there that are conning the system.
just because its a higher amount doesnt necessarily mean its what it appears, its about making sure the right people get what they need and not allowing lazy grabbing people to live life as easy as they like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 10:45:51 GMT -5
I dont take into account this food bank bullshit, like some people have said, you offer something out for free then theres going to be some people that will use it just because it is free, fair enough theres people out there that genuinely need it but theres likely people out there that also too lazy to work and therefore use it as a way of saving money so they dont have to work so hard. you have to vouchers from the job centre and apparently its limited to 3 boxes or something but this isnt enforced, people can basically take take take what Im saying is its hard to correlate that to the state of employment or whatever, its like saying X amount more are claiming benefits, chances are theres a group of people in there that are conning the system. just because its a higher amount doesnt necessarily mean its what it appears, its about making sure the right people get what they need and not allowing lazy grabbing people to live life as easy as they like. This is one of the worst post i have read on this forum. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 10:47:16 GMT -5
I dont take into account this food bank bullshit, like some people have said, you offer something out for free then theres going to be some people that will use it just because it is free, fair enough theres people out there that genuinely need it but theres likely people out there that also too lazy to work and therefore use it as a way of saving money so they dont have to work so hard. you have to vouchers from the job centre and apparently its limited to 3 boxes or something but this isnt enforced, people can basically take take take what Im saying is its hard to correlate that to the state of employment or whatever, its like saying X amount more are claiming benefits, chances are theres a group of people in there that are conning the system. just because its a higher amount doesnt necessarily mean its what it appears, its about making sure the right people get what they need and not allowing lazy grabbing people to live life as easy as they like. You'll always get a section of people conning any system, in the same way lots of major corporations and high earners exploit tax loopholes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 10:51:58 GMT -5
On a material level, yes we have (the consumers) benefitted from consumerism - but the downsides are enormous. Motivating people with largely unnessacary material gain, constant playing on insecurities to made them feel they need things, the omniscience of advertising (I think the average person goes through 1600 advertisements a day) and like I said - insecure, scared people are perfect for the economy, to name but a few. I have no doubt that many of those issues (exploitation of labour ect...) can be dealt with (though not all) but still I would reject capitalism as heirarchal, unfair, corrosive on a human level, and not sustainably compatible with democracy. It should be noted that what we are currently under has exploited the concepts of capitalism enormously - the idea is that businesses that aren't serving the people should go bankrupt, instead they rule the world. I would agree most Conservatives don't sympathise with the people, but how much could they really do if they did? I wouldn't place much faith in the power of government nor would I differentiate between the parties that much. I think you're right about the materialism in that it makes people insecure and they have to buy the 'next big thing', or update their phone every month , etc. I'm not particularly materialistic but I do benefit greatly from a globalised society enough to know I can't possibly be communist - given the globalised culture of today which I have taken advantage of. I look at communism and there's not one place in the world where it has ever worked. I realise you're approach is different but, for a start, centralisation isn't efficient in today's economy what with society being so fragmented and diverse, and besides, it would cost a bomb to carry out such reforms, and what with today's rising debt of £1.5 trillion rising and rising, there's no way such reforms would pay off that and would only add to that - and clearing the debt is the major priority for this country. You also see with Greece - with their extreme left leader - that they are finding it impossible to carry out desired reforms because the country has so many vested interests in essentially capitalist means (i.e. EU) that makes them entrenched in a capitalist system. Their hands are tied basically, and their socialist Prime Minister Alexis Sipris has resorted to calling out Germany for reparations from WWII he is that desperate! Essentially, if the Green Party were voted in, they would be the same - their fantasy manifesto would be constrained by the reality that they would have to face up to (yet fail to do so). They're not communist by any means, but it just goes to show any extreme alternative doesn't have answers - and my opinion is that you can revert from the current status quo within the confines of capitalism, it's just that the parties NEED to give us something to believe in. For a start, a PR electoral system where every vote counts would go some way to making up the democratic deficit. For example, your concerns about multicorporations running riot over citizens can be tempered in a PR system, partly because they include large donors to a political party, and usually the one party in majority control (as we have under First Past The Post) curries favour with them letting them do anything they want because they are helping that said party to stay in power. In a PR government - a rainbow coalition - that wouldn't be acceptable. There would be a vast range of opinions there that it would be impossible for large donors to try and curry favour with a government. Of all the mainstream leaders, only Nick Clegg makes the most sense - two fundamental principles of the Lib Dems is proportional representation and federalism. With the mainstream parties, they are the most radical party of all, and the much more realistic option to genuine change. I'll go through your points one by one to make it easier haha  1. What benefits of globalisation do you feel you would not recieve under an anarcho-communist ideal? 2. Communism has certainly never been applied, Marxism has been attempted and was hijacked (ala Animal Farm) but I'm not a Marxist. Also it is questionable how authentic the aims of any "communist" revolution has been. Thirdly it is important to stress I am an Anarcho-Communist, therefore we must not argue on what we agree on (Marxism won't work) and look at different parts of history. Anarcho-Communism, or at least it's ideas and methods, has been applied and has been successful - famously in The Paris Commune. This eventually fell under western pressure (they had to create what was basically a government to survive - but were killed anyway) but before the west got involved, it was moving successfully to Anarcho-Communism. 3. It is true that AnCom is not realistic in today's world - but the idea is evolution, not revolution. Over a long period of time we should progress towards a general ideal. This can be done only from the bottom up (starting with the individual), unlike a Marxist I don't trust a government to dismantle itself. Greece and the Greens are change from the top down, which leads to the failure you describe. 4. I agree a PR system would be an improvement, but I still don't consider government democracy - or at least nessacery. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 10:57:43 GMT -5
Just a reminder that the poll will lock on Thursday at 22:00 and the votes will be processed using some form of PR system, possible STV.
We will then see how a Live4Ever government would look.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 11:05:10 GMT -5
I've just seen a bizarre statement from the very first page of the BNP manifesto.
"The hijab and burqa are threatening and offensive. Thay have no place in our free British society."
Now, I'm not one to sympathise with any religion but that statement is fundamentally flawed. Surely in our 'free British society' people are 'free' to wear whatever clothes they choose. Surely it would be infringing upon their religious 'freedom' to ban clothes that are a symbol of their religion.
I'm going to see if I can find any more paradoxes.
EDIT: I've just realised they misspelled 'they' as well. If they can't get that right then how the hell can they be expected to govern a country?
|
|
|
|
Post by supersonic1983 on May 4, 2015 11:05:13 GMT -5
Who got the UK in the mess, and who got them out? As you've now twice stated your unfamiliarity with British politics, perhaps you should keep that in mind the next time you feel the urge to parrot right-wing myths about the state of the British economy. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5