|
|
Post by graham on Jul 22, 2023 12:23:32 GMT
I would probably have voted Green rather than Tory or NeoTory. You've avoided my question. Honestly, a yes or no would do - but I'd appreciate a straight, non-evasive answer to the bit I've now highlighted in my original post. There were no 'happy' options - but I would have selected the least 'unhappy.' No way I would have voted for either major contender. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2023 12:24:13 GMT
Very sad to read this in today's Times :- "Rishi Sunak is preparing to launch a more aggressive political campaign in an attempt to shift Labour’s lead in the polls with divisive policies on crime, migrant boats and transgender rights." The Leading Article in the same paper observes that Europe is increasingly subject to "disillusion with big government, enforced social inclusivity, new environmental restrictions and immigration have awakened atavistic fears and boosted the right. Throughout Europe, policies and ideologies seen as toxic are becoming ever more mainstream, shaping the agendas of traditional parties and steadily gaining electoral appeal." Sweden/Spain/Hungary/Poland/Finland/Greece/Italy/Germany/France/Netherlands... The Times Leader concludes with :- "Ironically, as mainstream parties seek to embrace policies of the far right, hoping to rob them of supporters, they make those parties more respectable. Politics must now wrestle with this phenomenon that is changing the face of Europe." It's not a new phenomenon. Its always been like this. Atavistic forces always try and hold back the ideals of the progressives. Its fundamentally fear of change and resentment at having to share status and power. The challenge to white male entitlement and privilege are obvious examples. Other interest groups are increasingly gaining their voice, the law and social mores are being challenged and there is always going to be a reaction 'backlash' from traditional vested interests. As a white male myself it is something I am keenly aware of and am struggling through. Ultimately though we do get through these phases and one day we may live in a society similar to Ian Bainks 'Culture' world in which everyone feels included and we will be able to choose what colour, sex or gender we want to be that day by just popping a little pill.  An interesting choice for your ideal society-a science fiction " post scarcity" world in which biological humans live to 400 whilst robots do all the work. A self indulgent world where purpose and meaning are sought in playing games. And in which, I read in WIKI, the "progressives" are not averse to intervening in civilisations they don't like. Sorry to disappoint you, but in our real world of scarcity and work , the self indulgent dismissal of concerns about aggressive identity politics and unregulated , unintegrated immigration will turn these issues into the very thing you fear. Have a look at how Sweden has gone from smug standard bearer of the liberal nanny state to a hell scape of gun crime, gang violence and drug dealing. No doubt you will be in the vanguard of horror struck progressives fulminating and moralising over the rise of the Sweden Democrats. But then Righteous Indignation is a very progressive sentiment. Have a care what you wish for -when you get your head out of Iain Banks you will still be living in a world trying to cope with scarcity, war, climate change , mass migration -and the exigencies of ever more economic growth. A world in which biological humans still have to solve problems. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,663
|
Post by steve on Jul 22, 2023 12:37:29 GMT
Had a quick check in on novara media where the below the line comments seem to overwhelmingly say that despite a 21% swing from Tory to Labour, including the Ruislip result that this means Starmer should instantly resign to be replaced with, I needn't say but he's a serial loser so you can guess.
It's bizarre this focus on doctrinal purity and what they see as perfection rather than improvement.
It's an attitude which implies that if you can't get exactly what you want it's better to have nothing at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2023 12:40:37 GMT
Government spokesman says by elections show result of next election is 'open'. Just need to concentrate on issues like boat people and Rwanda. I thought it interesting how he concentrated on the same issue under two different names. Which is a constructed issue where the government seems unlikely to be able to carry out its plan and so will claim at the time of an election it could have solved this problem if only it had not been thwarted by evil judges. The other suggestion seems to be to exploit the split in labour on the london pollution zone. Whichever side you are on mayor says good while candidate says bad. Ironic if after trying to not scare voters, labour falls over on incompetently applying a green issue when in general these are popular. Labours biggest problem remains that it has no cause. Blair essentially invented a cause which i dont recall existing of education. Cameron adopted brexit and pushed it through. Brown slagged off horrible women. Corbyn could only half heartedly suport remain. (Though probably his mps are to blame there too) You keep getting this wrong. Cameron campaigned for Remain and resigned immediately when he lost. Although I don’t read his monologues I believe it’s quite unusual for him to get things wrong isn’t it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2023 12:42:44 GMT
Had a quick check in on novara media where the below the line comments seem to overwhelmingly say that despite a 21% swing from Tory to Labour, including the Ruislip result that this means Starmer should instantly resign to be replaced with, I needn't say but he's a serial loser so you can guess. It's bizarre this focus on doctrinal purity and what they see as perfection rather than improvement. It's an attitude which implies that if you can't get exactly what you want it's better to have nothing at all. Children can act like that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2023 12:48:34 GMT
That makes Isa, now 44 years old, something of a rarity! To be fair, surviving MG Midgets are far more numerous than many of their peer models, some of which sold in far higher numbers at the time, but are now as rare as rocking horse droppings, and with prices to match! When did you last see an Austin 1100, Ford Cortina or Vauxhall Victor on the road, for example? There are some cars that people like, and some that are just means of transport. MGs are definitely in the former category. The " How Many Left" site shows there are around 9,500 MG Midget still registered with the DVLA (and another 5,700 registered as "off the road", so either museum or long term restoration projects) There are under 400 Austin 1100 registered, a bit over 4,600 Ford Cortina (all models, from the 1960s Mark 1 to the 1980s Mark 4 / 5), and around 850 Vauxhall Victor., showing that they are all in the latter category - mass produced at the time, but largely not cherished, and hence scrapped. The successor to the Cortina, the Sierra, is far rarer -only 1,800, including the ones desired at the time, the RS Cosworth and XR4i, which account for fully one third of all the Sierras still registered A couple of months ago, and someone was excited seeing an Austin Maxi. Which, it turns out, is rarer than a Lamborghini Aventador (119 vs 513) My question was largely rhetorical, but you've produced some fascinating stuff there! Austin Maxis rarer than a Lamborghini!  |
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Jul 22, 2023 12:50:45 GMT
"you really dont get it. Cptpp is no different to the eu. Just smaller." And Further away. View AttachmentOn a complete side-track... That picture showed a Wetherspoon's pub, where someone was clearly uncertain how apostrophes worked, knew that one was probably needed but decided it was better to leave it out rather than get it wrong. (Pub sign was "Wetherspoon s"). I'm glad to say that some local shops near me are more confident - three of them had correctly placed apostrophes in their name, as they were named after a person (Armstrong's, The Shady Chef's Kitchen and Sainsbury's). And no " Grocer's Apostrophe" either  |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,583
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 22, 2023 12:53:23 GMT
Very sad to read this in today's Times :- "Rishi Sunak is preparing to launch a more aggressive political campaign in an attempt to shift Labour’s lead in the polls with divisive policies on crime, migrant boats and transgender rights." The Leading Article in the same paper observes that Europe is increasingly subject to "disillusion with big government, enforced social inclusivity, new environmental restrictions and immigration have awakened atavistic fears and boosted the right. Throughout Europe, policies and ideologies seen as toxic are becoming ever more mainstream, shaping the agendas of traditional parties and steadily gaining electoral appeal." Sweden/Spain/Hungary/Poland/Finland/Greece/Italy/Germany/France/Netherlands... The Times Leader concludes with :- "Ironically, as mainstream parties seek to embrace policies of the far right, hoping to rob them of supporters, they make those parties more respectable. Politics must now wrestle with this phenomenon that is changing the face of Europe." Pleased you said that Colin. I said something similar recently as was told by Trevor I was making it up. The highlighted point is particularly key. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,583
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 22, 2023 13:02:01 GMT
Thinking about the Uxbridge results, I agree that ULEZ was the primary reason the tories won. However that does not translate to a majority not wanting ULEZ, the majority voted for parties that supported ULEZ in one form or another It's the 2019 election all over again, only instead of Brexit it's ULEZ I suspect that those who don't like ULEZ because it is hitting them in the pocket will be much more motivated to vote on it than the people who are supportive for environmental reasons. That's human nature. Starmer today: "“We are doing something very wrong if policies put forward by the Labour party end up on each and every Tory leaflet." Depressingly, he has a point. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,583
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 22, 2023 13:12:16 GMT
Yes Corbyn is a really nice bloke, honest and sincere, but completely out of his depth as a party leader, a job he never really wanted. I've always thought that if the Campaign Group had thought they could win in 2015 they would have nominated John McDonnell. Mind you, he might not have passed the MP nomination barrier. Corbyn was well liked in the PLP while he was just a harmless back-bencher; the cleverer McDonnell nowhere near as much. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,663
|
Post by steve on Jul 22, 2023 13:13:27 GMT
"Have a look at how Sweden has gone from smug standard bearer of the liberal nanny state to a hell scape of gun crime, gang violence and drug dealing. "
Colin you do talk some absolute shite some time, across the board Sweden's crime rates are lower than the UK
Both are low by international standards.Both of course share some similarities in the issues of countries with large urban populations.
All figures are Pro rata
Homicide rates are 20% lower in Sweden compared to the UK ( firearms murder because of easier access are higher)
Assault rates are 50% lower
Drugs use is 30% lower
Violent crime is 20% lower
Property crime is 10% lower
And we imprison 13 times as many people as Sweden about 130% more pro rata.
But if you will get your news from the daily mail and GBeebies then it's hardly surprising you're so ludicrously wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by catmanjeff on Jul 22, 2023 13:14:08 GMT
At the moment yes, but I'm imagining what would happen if other cities across the country followed suit. That would immediately make such vehicles nearly worthless. In fact there will no doubt be a sudden glut of them on the second hand market being sold by people in London to other parts of the country. This is correct. While those in Uxbridge, for example, have the option of buying a second hand compliant car (or selling a non-compliant one) elsewhere exists, it won't exist for those in areas that would be last to haze sch zones if they were rolled out nationwise. Let's put that into perspectie though. Realistically, if there was a nationwise rollout, it wouldn't happen for at least a couple of years. While those driving non-compliant diesel cars could, with some justification, feel cheated, for petrol cars, non-compliat cars, by that time, would be 20 years old. Even without ULEZ, how much, realistically would you expectt to get for a 20 year old car? The scrappage scheme needs to be more generous, yes. Maybe as a minimum, the scrappage value would be equivalent to the second hand sale value, or even double that. To put things further into perspective, compare to other, fairly big ticket, bit, considered essential items by most - a computer and a TV that are from the same era. If you had a fully working Windows 7 machine, you wouldn't get more that, say, £20 for it, even though it is capable of doing all that most would require of it. On a similar timescale, a TV with a scart socket for Freeview was the in-demand piece of kit, such models being pretty much obselete now. There is an argument that we, increasingly live in a throwaway society and that, due to faster technological innovation, this has accelorated. Indeed this is an argument that I have often made in the past. It could also, therefore be argued that this, in and of itself, s bad for the environment. The answer should, therefore, involve how to mitigate this. If we are to live in a sciety where many of the things we take for granted are replaced, not through obsalescence, but, through innovation - and often includes situations where it is cheaper and easier to buy new (or at least secondhand) when something breaks down. Regarding cars, I think we need move away from the current paradigm of individual car ownership. London has a great transport system, as do most other urban concentrations, so I'd love more areas to have good enough public transport to make car ownership much less required. It seems a standard that as soon as young get to the right, they learn to drive and get a car. I appreciate that for those living in more rural areas, public transport will be limited, therefore cars will have a place. However, like my own area of West Yorkshire, in many urban places the public transport is really bad and unreliable. We have Arriva buses, where last minute cancellations frequently occur, and don't even mention Trans-pennine trains. I do drive, as I work 35 miles away on North Yorkshire, and trains and buses simply don't connect, unless I put with a 2 hour commute. If I could commute on a decent service in about an hour, I'd do that and leave the car at home. Even now, apart from commuting and trips that need the car and it's carrying space, I walk. I have supermarkets about a mile away, so unless I'm picking up really heavy things, I'll put on a rucksack and walk. I just think so many local journeys people make could be radically reduced by better public transport. In our society, judging by how many people behave selfishly in and about their cars, cars can promote an almost an anti-social individualism that is destructive to communities (IMHO). I think this is partially what the anti-ULEZ reaction. The question for politicians is do they challenge that and promote a better long term solution, or simply pander to it for short term political advantage? After the by-election in Uxbridge, I fear Labour and the Conservatives will choose the latter. I think this interestingly potentially opens a huge gap for Green Party to substantially add to their vote at the next GE, which principally would make life harder for Labour, not the Conservatives. Starmer can't row back much more on environmental policies without snapping the tenuous goodwill Labour has with tactically-minded Green voters. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 22, 2023 13:14:57 GMT
Yes Corbyn is a really nice bloke, honest and sincere, but completely out of his depth as a party leader, a job he never really wanted. I've always thought that if the Campaign Group had thought they could win in 2015 they would have nominated John McDonnell. Mind you, he might not have passed the MP nomination barrier. Corbyn was well liked in the PLP while he was just a harmless back-bencher; the cleverer McDonnell nowhere near as much. Regardless of that, Harriet Harman as Acting Leader bears responsibility for Corbyn's subsequent momentum and success. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,583
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 22, 2023 13:20:54 GMT
I've always thought that if the Campaign Group had thought they could win in 2015 they would have nominated John McDonnell. Mind you, he might not have passed the MP nomination barrier. Corbyn was well liked in the PLP while he was just a harmless back-bencher; the cleverer McDonnell nowhere near as much. Regardless of that, Harriet Harman as Acting Leader bears responsibility for Corbyn's subsequent momentum and success. For once I entirely agree with you - that and the shadow cabinet collective responsibility concept. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,663
|
Post by steve on Jul 22, 2023 13:22:53 GMT
Reality check if you live in England outside of Brighton then depending on the local circumstances at a general election the only two parties that are credible options to dislodge the Tories are Labour in about 80% of the constituencies and the Liberal Democrats in most of the rest, there are a few three way races where the choices aren't clear.
That's just how fptp works and until we get rid of it we need to game the system.
Improvement is better than enabling the Tories.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,583
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 22, 2023 13:24:47 GMT
"Have a look at how Sweden has gone from smug standard bearer of the liberal nanny state to a hell scape of gun crime, gang violence and drug dealing. " Colin you do talk some absolute shite some time, across the board Sweden's crime rates are lower than the UK Both are low by international standards.Both of course share some similarities in the issues of countries with large urban populations. All figures are Pro rata Homicide rates are 20% lower in Sweden compared to the UK ( firearms murder because of easier access are higher) Assault rates are 50% lower Drugs use is 30% lower Violent crime is 20% lower Property crime is 10% lower And we imprison 13 times as many people as Sweden about 130% more pro rata. But if you will get your news from the daily mail and GBeebies then it's hardly surprising you're so ludicrously wrong. True and I would add that the USA, ruled by the centrist (at best) Democrats and the increasingly far-right Republicans with scarcely a look in from the left, is much closer to being a "hellscape of gun crime, gang violence and drug dealing". |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 22, 2023 13:26:16 GMT
Reality check if you live in England outside of Brighton then depending on the local circumstances at a general election the only two parties that are credible options to dislodge the Tories are Labour in about 80% of the constituencies and the Liberal Democrats in most of the rest, there are a few three way races where the choices aren't clear. That's just how fptp works and until we get rid of it we need to game the system. Improvement is better than enabling the Tories. Blair 'enabled the Tories' by adopting their policies - and Starmer is moving the same way. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,663
|
Post by steve on Jul 22, 2023 13:26:20 GMT
pjw1961McDonnell would have been a far better choice ,though pulling out his personal copy of Mao's little red book in parliament made him look like a prat.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,663
|
Post by steve on Jul 22, 2023 13:28:05 GMT
graham"Blair 'enabled the Tories' by adopting their policies " Just by repeatedly saying this doesn't make it true. Blair never lost an election to the Tories, that's the actual truth
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 22, 2023 13:32:15 GMT
4th Test: Play restarts at 2.45pm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2023 13:50:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jul 22, 2023 13:51:48 GMT
A couple of months ago, and someone was excited seeing an Austin Maxi. Which, it turns out, is rarer than a Lamborghini Aventador (119 vs 513) My question was largely rhetorical, but you've produced some fascinating stuff there! Austin Maxis rarer than a Lamborghini! Back in the 1980's a colleague (who had an Austin Maxi) asked the question to various manufacturers of "at one point would you consider oil consumption to be so excessive that you'd agree there was a fault?" Hardly surprisingly, there was a lot of retinence to answer at all, but as I recall British Leyland came off worst. Not until it was only doing a couple of hundred miles per pint of oil would they agree that a car under guarantee would be considered faulty. Nowadays, I'd typically expect a car to go between service oil changes without needing topping up. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 22, 2023 13:54:11 GMT
graham "Blair 'enabled the Tories' by adopting their policies " Just by repeatedly saying this doesn't make it true. Blair never lost an election to the Tories, that's the actual truth Losing an election to the Tories was not necessary given Blair's intent to continue implementing their policies and to build on the human wickedness of the Thatcher years. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Jul 22, 2023 13:57:28 GMT
It's not a new phenomenon. Its always been like this. Atavistic forces always try and hold back the ideals of the progressives. Its fundamentally fear of change and resentment at having to share status and power. The challenge to white male entitlement and privilege are obvious examples. Other interest groups are increasingly gaining their voice, the law and social mores are being challenged and there is always going to be a reaction 'backlash' from traditional vested interests. As a white male myself it is something I am keenly aware of and am struggling through. Ultimately though we do get through these phases and one day we may live in a society similar to Ian Bainks 'Culture' world in which everyone feels included and we will be able to choose what colour, sex or gender we want to be that day by just popping a little pill. An interesting choice for your ideal society-a science fiction " post scarcity" world in which biological humans live to 400 whilst robots do all the work. A self indulgent world where purpose and meaning are sought in playing games. And in which, I read in WIKI, the "progressives" are not averse to intervening in civilisations they don't like. Sorry to disappoint you, but in our real world of scarcity and work , the self indulgent dismissal of concerns about aggressive identity politics and unregulated , unintegrated immigration will turn these issues into the very thing you fear. Have a look at how Sweden has gone from smug standard bearer of the liberal nanny state to a hell scape of gun crime, gang violence and drug dealing. No doubt you will be in the vanguard of horror struck progressives fulminating and moralising over the rise of the Sweden Democrats. But then Righteous Indignation is a very progressive sentiment. Have a care what you wish for -when you get your head out of Iain Banks you will still be living in a world trying to cope with scarcity, war, climate change , mass migration -and the exigencies of ever more economic growth. A world in which biological humans still have to solve problems. Take a chill pill colin, I didn't expect you to take me literally. Science fiction discusses ideas and philosophies about our future direction as a species and Iain Banks is highly regarded but of course I realise we still have to solve our problems in the real world. As I said one of the most significant problems is the change of attitude needed by patronising white men who have controlled the planet and its direction for centuries. There's also no point in you pretending to be some sort of seer by selective quoting from articles which point out failures going on 'over there', while offering nothing constructive as an answer. You'll be quoting Charles Manson's 'Helter Skelter' race war narrative next or perhaps from Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech .  Nothing positive comes out of that approach though and the fact is trying to put up barriers against the 'immigrants' and trying to role back 'agressive identity politics' is pissing in the wind. Imo the answer to a lot of these existential issues is to participate positively in the institutions that make the decisions, like the EU for instance. Look how Germany has changed and flourished over the last 70 years. That country's leadership is an example to us and shows how opting out and building walls definitely doesn't work, (don't bother with the links to articles on Germany's immigration issues or how France has been turned into a hell hole by North African Arabs). That's just the politics of fear and it changes nothing. The bottom line is Germany has completely changed from a country whose institutions were completely controlled by racist thugs who threatened to overrun Europe to a progressive industrious state now providing the leadership role we have vacated. By the way didn't you vote for Boris Johnson and his 'sunlit uplands' dream; what on earth do you think those dreams are going to be driven by if not by the 'exigencies' of 'even more economic growth'? Singapore on Thames is not going to be built on fresh air and the labour of our brexit voting citizens from Hartlepool you know! |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Jul 22, 2023 14:01:16 GMT
steve Few policies are perfectly executed, especially complex ones like climate, etc. If you wait for perfection you will never do anything. And yes there will be risks attached. Consequences rarely fall evenly and fairly. But my experience is that if you campaign with unity, and make the effort to explain and argue, and explicitly call upon people to recognise and accept consequences, they are much more likely to be prepared to run with you. But here you had the opposite, with the mayor firm in approach but the candidate weak at the knees. Of course it is going to turn a lot of people off. The right strategy here would have been aggressively pro-ULEZ. Start with a leaflet, banner-headed “ULEZ will save N lives every month, including Y in Uxbridge”. In other words just make stuff up? Oh! You mean like the Brexit bus? What a great idea! Just in case there is any doubt, no I don’t say lie. Mucky air is deathly and it shouldn’t be too difficult to extrapolate relevant data. |
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Jul 22, 2023 14:06:08 GMT
Very sad to read this in today's Times :- "Rishi Sunak is preparing to launch a more aggressive political campaign in an attempt to shift Labour’s lead in the polls with divisive policies on crime, migrant boats and transgender rights." The problem with deciding to divide up the population between "us" and "them" is that many who think they are part of the "us" group discover (too late), that they were always at risk of being grouped with "them" Just ask Pastor Niemöller |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Jul 22, 2023 14:10:47 GMT
crossbat11Nice piece on Corbyn. There is a lot more I would like to say but that would dent the epitaphic quality of your words. And probably arouse unwelcome antagonisms. It is axiomatic that posters on this site will not easily shift their long-standing, firmly held convictions. (Certainly I won’t!) So everything just gets a bit repetitive.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 22, 2023 14:12:19 GMT
Very sad to read this in today's Times :- "Rishi Sunak is preparing to launch a more aggressive political campaign in an attempt to shift Labour’s lead in the polls with divisive policies on crime, migrant boats and transgender rights." The Leading Article in the same paper observes that Europe is increasingly subject to "disillusion with big government, enforced social inclusivity, new environmental restrictions and immigration have awakened atavistic fears and boosted the right. Throughout Europe, policies and ideologies seen as toxic are becoming ever more mainstream, shaping the agendas of traditional parties and steadily gaining electoral appeal." Sweden/Spain/Hungary/Poland/Finland/Greece/Italy/Germany/France/Netherlands... The Times Leader concludes with :- "Ironically, as mainstream parties seek to embrace policies of the far right, hoping to rob them of supporters, they make those parties more respectable. Politics must now wrestle with this phenomenon that is changing the face of Europe." Such policies are inherently evil , and those who pander to them become part of that evil themselves. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2023 14:13:41 GMT
Very sad to read this in today's Times :- "Rishi Sunak is preparing to launch a more aggressive political campaign in an attempt to shift Labour’s lead in the polls with divisive policies on crime, migrant boats and transgender rights." The problem with deciding to divide up the population between "us" and "them" is that many who think they are part of the "us" group discover (too late), that they were always at risk of being grouped with "them" Just ask Pastor NiemôllerI think the issues mentioned there are of varying importance, but all of them can cause social unrest if not dealt with in a sensible & timely way . I think crime and unregulated migration are issues which can be reasonably placed in a political manifesto though neither of them need to be "divisive" issues at all if dealt with sensibly , sensitively and proportionately. Gender politics is an issue of minority rights and how those interact with the rights of the majority. Its more aggressive proponents make it a divisive issue. Sunak should steer clear of this as a major manifesto issue. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2023 14:25:49 GMT
@"trying to put up barriers against the 'immigrants' and trying to role back 'agressive identity politics' is pissing in the wind." I might agree with you on unregulated immigration -it will certainly become more difficult to control. I realise you probably mean that it should not be controlled-which as I've indicated-is imo dangerous complacency. @" Look how Germany has changed and flourished over the last 70 years. The bottom line is Germany has completely changed from a country whose institutions were completely controlled by racist thugs who threatened to overrun Europe" Yes- its a very good thing that the Allied Forces defeated Naziism. But I think that falls someway short of an example of how to cope with today's problems and issues !! @" By the way didn't you vote for Boris Johnson and his 'sunlit uplands' dream; what on earth do you think those dreams are going to be driven by if not by the 'exigencies' of 'even more economic growth'? Singapore on Thames is not going to be built on fresh air and the labour of our brexit voting citizens from Hartlepool you know!" I did !. I think the Pandemic intervened somewhat in his sunlit uplands dream-but it did have the advantage of demonstrating his unsuitability as PM. I never understood the Singapore on Thames thing-it was a nice phrase which sought to characterise BJ's Brexit philosophy in a certain way. I don't think he thought like that at all actually. But we will never know now and await Starmer's vision of a Brexit made to work properly. |
|
Nothing positive comes out of that approach though and the fact is trying to put up barriers against the 'immigrants' and trying to role back 'agressive identity politics' is pissing in the wind. Imo the answer to a lot of these existential issues is to participate positively in the institutions that make the decisions, like the EU for instance. Look how Germany has changed and flourished over the last 70 years. That country's leadership is an example to us and shows how opting out and building walls definitely doesn't work, (don't bother with the links to articles on Germany's immigration issues or how France has been turned into a hell hole by North African Arabs). That's just the politics of fear and it changes nothing. The bottom line is Germany has completely changed from a country whose institutions were completely controlled by racist thugs who threatened to overrun Europe to a progressive industrious state now providing the leadership role we have vacated. By the way didn't you vote for Boris Johnson and his 'sunlit uplands' dream; what on earth do you think those dreams are going to be driven by if not by the 'exigencies' of 'even more economic growth'? Singapore on Thames is not going to be built on fresh air and the labour of our brexit voting citizens from Hartlepool you know! 