domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Dec 14, 2023 8:56:28 GMT
crossbat11 "Ejecting the Tories from government may well be a national emergency now. Petty grudge settling and point scoring on the left should be subordinated by this necessity. The realisation too that this division may be the Tories last hope of clinging on... Let's get shot of them and worry about what follows later. It can only be better than this rotten government. Dave "if Labour do win it will be because millions of us got off our arses and voted for them and got this rankest, most horrible of governments out whilst allowing you the luxury of keeping your political purism... Labour are the only alternative government to the Tories. It's either them, or the Tories. End of. " This old drum getting another enthusiastic banging. I don't think it's required - your view clearly has wide support amongst UKPR2 contributors and - I think - the wider public. I suggest that the number of 'purists' is actually very small. I think (someone more attentive will be able to confirm or correct me) that in the rash of recent byelections minor parties were squeezed pretty effectively, which suggests to me that most radical voters aren't minded to take even a small risk of another 5 years of the Tories - if someone is not willing to risk a Lab/LD defeat in a byelection that won't change the govt or even deprive it of a majority then it's hard to see why they'd take that risk in a GE, where the stake is much higher. If Lab has a consistent double-digit polling leads all the way to polling day I think there will be more lefties, greenies and other radicals who decide that Lab has enough votes from elsewhere to keep the Tories out and that they're therefore not risking much by refusing to vote for a programme they don't support. If it looks like being a tight election the risk calculation is different and the decision trickier. I don't want to repeat well-rehearsed arguments, but there are a couple of non-policy points that I don't think have been put quite this way before: 1. Nearly all governments are coalitions, explicit or implicit. Under FPTP we usually get implicit coalitions and the electorate gets much less say in their composition. Starmer has decided to put together a centrist coalition rather than one that involves radicals, lefties or greenies. His coalition will probably win a majority, but we'll never know whether an alternative coalition could have been constructed and so the idea that Lab can only ever win power from the centre is perpetuated. Why should people who don't support Lab policies be held to ransom in this way, told that defeating the Tories must take priority and that everything else can wait? Why should voters who don't support Lab coalitions that lean to the centre or right be stuck with voting for them because Lab leaders like to exploit FPTP, apparently happy with the devil's bargain of absolute power every ten to fifteen years? Absolute power that's then used, somewhat paradoxically, to implement policies that would easily command support from an explicit coalition government elected under PR! It's hard to see how this changes unless Lab moves to supporting PR (at which point I personally would be willing to cast a one-off tactical vote for it) or there's a Lab election loss that can reasonably be attributed to a high vote for radical alternative parties. Lab relies too heavily on a visceral antipathy to the Tories. It's an article of faith for anti-Tories that anything not-Tory is automatically a worthwhile improvement, but this largely absolves the Lab Opposition of their duty to earn the votes of this segment of the electorate. Voting Lab when you don't support their policies just reinforces the Lab tactic of exploiting FPTP to build a centrist implicit coalition that locks other parties and perspectives out of power altogether. 2. Lab's strongest claim on votes is probably that a Starmer-led government would be more competent than the current govt. We have a notably talentless Cabinet and the Tories are certainly hamming up their part as the villains of the pantomine, but the Shadow Cabinet isn't exactly stuffed with confidence-inspiring Secretaries of State-in-waiting. More concerning is the leadership's control-freakery, the internal purges and the tight control exercised over selection (another way in which Starmer dictates the make-up of the implicit coalition that anti-Tories are supposed to feel obliged to support). Jamie Driscoll, the incumbent mayor of North Tyne, not even long-listed - whatever his ideology he's a practical politician who has been working collaboratively on the ground to make a difference to people's lives. Diane Abbott still suspended, despite a swift apology for a clumsily worded letter (contrast with Rupa Huq - who supported Owen Smith's challenge to Corbyn: she had the whip restored 5 months after losing it for saying Kwarteng was 'only superficially black'). Now Nick Brown, hardly a leftie, has resigned saying his lawyers have advised him that under the disciplinary process, which has been running for ages, he may not get a fair hearing. There will be loads more that I don't know about. This doesn't smell like a well-governed, trustworthy organisation. It's not just about competence but also basic morality and willingness to adhere to the law and due process. |
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Dec 14, 2023 8:58:55 GMT
athena ’s comments elucidate my point well. I share all his well-argued concerns. But in the balance of things, I am certain that Starmer will bring us closer to what we want. Just a point of clarification; didn't athena tell us only the other day that she is a woman? Even if I have misremembered this, can you please explain why you assume they are male? |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Dec 14, 2023 9:02:24 GMT
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,362
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 14, 2023 9:04:41 GMT
Rafwan 'It is then for you (and me) to show how unconditional support for Starmer is most likely to bring us closer to the transformation we all want' This is the issue, I very much doubt all those who are considering voting Labour next time agree with what it is 'we all want' The main political parties need to appeal to a broad coalition of voters if they want to gain power. Unless and until we have a form of PR this will unfortunately always be the case What we all want is a fairer and more secure world where are all decently accommodated, healthy, educated, able to work and are generally cared for. Who disagrees with that? It is for us to show that Starmer and Labour will bring this closer. Of course same as people would want motherhood and apple pie, but it's the specifics that matter For example people in polling invariably say they want better services. But in polling they will also say they want tax cuts. There is a contradiction there, indeed if there wasn't the tories wouldn't get any votes |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,618
|
Post by steve on Dec 14, 2023 9:06:21 GMT
Rafwan I hope you are correct but a 200+ majority based on around 40% of votes cast and under 30% of the eligible electorate is going to be a difficult thing for the Labour leadership to give up based simply on fairness and democracy. They've never done so before. I'm sure I'd see the amusement factor in the Tories being stuffed by fptp for once. But it doesn't make it right. The Tories and their other iteration refuk are likely on current polling to get around 30% of the vote with around a third of this for refuk. They legitimately should receive around 30% of the representation. But fptp could see the Tories at around 20% suffer the same result as the lib dems have with representation less than a third that they could anticipate under a fairer system for refuk with 10% support its one less mp than the greens. Of course I won't lose any sleep over their dilemma however if you support fair voting you have to accept its for all. I'd be quite happy with 70% of mps representing vaguely progressive parties to be honest.
|
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Dec 14, 2023 9:14:14 GMT
@rafwan, on the substance of the discussion, I am not convinced that this is right. It is a discussion that I have had many times. In my view gaining power is of course essential, but you have to be very clear what you want to achieve with that power, not necessarily all the detail, but the purpose of the power. It is this clear commitment to a vision of where we want to be in five/ten years which is lacking in Labour's offer I think. Making the country less bad is just not enough for those of us struggling to support Keir Starmer's Labour. Every erosion of the hope for a meaningful move away from the resource profligate, miserably unequal society we have become makes the decision to vote Labour harder and harder to make.
The specific issues which weigh most heavily for me are;
Wes Streeting and Rachel Reeves flirting with charging for healthcare at the point of need, reduction in the commitments to the Green New Deal, silence about the erosion of support for disabled people, both financial and social/care provision, and so on. What remains is a vague sense that it can't be any worse than the current lot, really not sure that is enough to be honest.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,362
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 14, 2023 9:16:20 GMT
Savanta
NEW Westminster Voting Intention
📈17pt Labour lead
🌹Lab 43 (=)
🌳Con 26 (-2)
🔶LD 10 (-1)
➡️Reform 9 (+2)
🌍Green 4 (+1)
🎗️SNP 3 (=)
⬜️Other 4 (=)
2,079 UK adults, 8-10 December
(chg 1-3 December)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2023 9:18:46 GMT
I think the debate over whether or not to hold your nose and vote for Labour is the age old one between pragmatism and idealism. And we do need both. Idealists prod us pragmatists along the route by reminding us where we want to get to. But the getting to that goal requires pragmatism and the art of the possible. Pragmatists say, Never let the perfect get in the way of getting the good and idealists say I can't settle for the good and will continue to strive for the perfect. I suspect idealists are more often disappointed than pragmatists. I have a theory that all of the great things in life - art, music, great writing, the pursuit of beauty, visions of a better future, humanitarian goals, fortitude, courage, champions (as well as some of the most terrible stuff done in the name of ideology and dogmatism and idealism) are driven by striving for the perfection by idealists. The rest of us pragmatists tend not to be great creators but do our best to make the stuff that idealists give us work as well as it can. The reason I enjoyed my job so much was that I was able to make sense of, moderate and ultimately deliver in the best possible way what politicians gave us. Excellent post, barbara. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Dec 14, 2023 9:19:50 GMT
I suspect that if we got 70% of MP's representing vaguely progressive parties we'd get a government that provides what Labour our currently offering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Dec 14, 2023 9:20:11 GMT
athena ’s comments elucidate my point well. I share all his well-argued concerns. But in the balance of things, I am certain that Starmer will bring us closer to what we want. Just a point of clarification; didn't athena tell us only the other day that she is a woman? Even if I have misremembered this, can you please explain why you assume they are male? Very good point. I had thought carefully about this and had considered making my remarks “gender-free”. But I have a recollection of a post from athena some while back suggesting they were male. This was clearly an error on my part and I am afraid I completely missed the post you refer to. Very sorry. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,362
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 14, 2023 9:20:34 GMT
Re my earlier post, Scott Benton facing a 35 day suspension
|
|
|
|
Post by moby on Dec 14, 2023 9:23:36 GMT
Can you explain that I don't know what you mean by that comment. Sorry. I recall this as an old exam question. Distinguish between the ‘necessary’ and the ‘sufficient’. In this case, what we want is a transformation in the political landscape. For this, removal of the Tories is ‘necessary’, but it is not ‘sufficient’. This is a fair point for c-a-r-f-r-e-w and shevii to make. It is then for you (and me) to show how unconditional support for Starmer is most likely to bring us closer to the transformation we all want. Actually imo it's for those who want the 'tranformation' to get off their arses and make the revolution happen. We'll then see how the Brtish people respond. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,618
|
Post by steve on Dec 14, 2023 9:31:01 GMT
"MP Scott Benton facing a 35-day suspension from the Commons."
It's clearly God's will that he spends more time with his bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Dec 14, 2023 9:31:51 GMT
It all comes down to money and the financial reality that the UK is over borrowed and paying masses more than is ideal in interest. To implement what the hard left want would substantially add to that and whilst taxing the ultra rich more sounds good and equitable, it yields relatively little. So firstly you need to get finances under control or you end up making matters worse, think of Liz Truss in reverse.
|
|
|
|
Post by moby on Dec 14, 2023 9:31:53 GMT
2. Lab's strongest claim on votes is probably that a Starmer-led government would be more competent than the current govt. We have a notably talentless Cabinet and the Tories are certainly hamming up their part as the villains of the pantomine, but the Shadow Cabinet isn't exactly stuffed with confidence-inspiring Secretaries of State-in-waiting. More concerning is the leadership's control-freakery, the internal purges and the tight control exercised over selection (another way in which Starmer dictates the make-up of the implicit coalition that anti-Tories are supposed to feel obliged to support). Jamie Driscoll, the incumbent mayor of North Tyne, not even long-listed - whatever his ideology he's a practical politician who has been working collaboratively on the ground to make a difference to people's lives. Diane Abbott still suspended, despite a swift apology for a clumsily worded letter (contrast with Rupa Huq - who supported Owen Smith's challenge to Corbyn: she had the whip restored 5 months after losing it for saying Kwarteng was 'only superficially black'). Now Nick Brown, hardly a leftie, has resigned saying his lawyers have advised him that under the disciplinary process, which has been running for ages, he may not get a fair hearing. There will be loads more that I don't know about. This doesn't smell like a well-governed, trustworthy organisation. A tad harsh imo. Every organisation has corrupt/inappropriate people in it. I've yet to come across political party which does not indulge in internal power disputes and politicking. I have fresh memories of the Corbynites in my own former CLP, they turned factionalism into an art form. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Dec 14, 2023 9:34:10 GMT
@rafwan, on the substance of the discussion, I am not convinced that this is right. It is a discussion that I have had many times. In my view gaining power is of course essential, but you have to be very clear what you want to achieve with that power, not necessarily all the detail, but the purpose of the power. It is this clear commitment to a vision of where we want to be in five/ten years which is lacking in Labour's offer I think. Making the country less bad is just not enough for those of us struggling to support Keir Starmer's Labour. Every erosion of the hope for a meaningful move away from the resource profligate, miserably unequal society we have become makes the decision to vote Labour harder and harder to make. The specific issues which weigh most heavily for me are; Wes Streeting and Rachel Reeves flirting with charging for healthcare at the point of need, reduction in the commitments to the Green New Deal, silence about the erosion of support for disabled people, both financial and social/care provision, and so on. What remains is a vague sense that it can't be any worse than the current lot, really not sure that is enough to be honest. What's 'enough' at the moment is 'enough' to get elected or to get to the point of publishing the manifesto with a an unassailably high poll lead to ensure being in a position to actually do anything at all for the country. Then talk about what's needed and is 'enough' will come to the fore and even then it will be have to be steps in the right direction. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 14, 2023 9:36:46 GMT
At the risk of straying into Van-Tam-esque sporting metaphor territory, I've always felt that voting in UK elections, encumbered as they are by a first of past the post voting system, and the huge monolithic and unwieldy/internally contradictory coalitions cum political parties produced and sustained by that system, is akin to a game of snooker.
Very rarely are clean and straightforward pots available. You have to think two or three shots ahead and much of the strategy is devoted to making things impossible for your opponent. Cue ball positioning is the key art, although the overall objective is to pot the ball.
But you may well have to accept that it's a long game, the balls break the way they break and routes to winning the frame are convoluted and fiendishly complex. You may end up playing a few tactical shots and find yourself having to pot some balls you'd ideally like to have avoided. The black isn't always available on its spot and maximum breaks are very rare.
But you have to play. Not only is it quite good fun, but you often arrive at your preferable, though not ideal, destination without quite knowing how you got there.
Seven reds and seven yellows is worth three blacks in terms of points.
I quit before my beize metaphor disappears into the Eoin Clarke hall of fame!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Dec 14, 2023 9:42:39 GMT
What we all want is a fairer and more secure world where are all decently accommodated, healthy, educated, able to work and are generally cared for. Who disagrees with that? It is for us to show that Starmer and Labour will bring this closer. Of course same as people would want motherhood and apple pie, but it's the specifics that matter For example people in polling invariably say they want better services. But in polling they will also say they want tax cuts. There is a contradiction there, indeed if there wasn't the tories wouldn't get any votes Hope this doesn’t sound too peevish, but I think you diminish my remarks. It is not like motherhood and apple pie. It is up to us to show how Labour will shift things in that direction and show that taxation (for example) will actually lead to this. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,618
|
Post by steve on Dec 14, 2023 9:48:08 GMT
Rishi Sunak denies being ‘tetchy’
Remind me of The Traitor's "I think I am, actually humble. I think I'm much more humble than you would understand." Saying it doesn't make it true.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,362
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 14, 2023 9:49:12 GMT
'Parliament's Standards Commissioner finds that suspended Conservative MP Scott Benton:
- Offered to lobby ministers and ask questions on behalf of gambling lobbyists for cash
- Offered to leak confidential info
- Made it clear he was "corrupt and for sale" and so were other MPs'
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Dec 14, 2023 9:50:08 GMT
steve A very articulate and eloquent exposition of the iniquities of our current unrepresentative electoral system and why it needs to be replaced with a system that democratically reflects more accurately how people vote in elections. I clearly see how important an issue this is for the party of which you are a member and I have been encouraged by the growing support for radical electoral reform amongst Labour members, MPs, voters and affiliated trade unions. It's an idea whose time has come and in terms of my continued membership of the Labour Party, as well as my continued voting for them, it is a complete deal breaker for me. I understand Starmer and his leadership team's current caution as we head into an utterly crucial election for our nation's future, and I'm patient and expediently minded enough, to see some greater immediate priorities for an incoming Starmer government, for now anyway, but if the party leadership sets its face against electoral reform and supports the continuation of FPTP, then my lifetime of support for them is over and I'm well and truly done with them. It really is that important an issue for me. And the health of our democracy too. So, Steve, in the event of that baleful scenario transpiring, keep a place warm for me in the Lib Dem household! I just don't see PR ever happening without a hung parliament and let's face it the only time something nearly happened was with the coalition but the Lib Dems settled for the miserable compromise which at the time pretty much meant that the only party to benefit would have been Lib Dems because that's the obvious alternative vote in the centre. Not exactly blaming Starmer for his antipathy towards PR as the same would apply with Corbyn (although he might have been more malleable to the members opinions). It's just human nature- if you are elected as PM under FPTP with absolute power then very little reason to want to change absolute power into one you have to compromise with other parties and viewpoints. There's even logic to this if you believe and want your vision to succeed and don't want to be wrapped up in negotiations and compromises the whole time. We can see the throttling of a coherent agenda in America because of their political system. Additionally once you are invested in a political party then you want the best for that party and the best for a party who is one of two that can form a government is a two horse race under FPTP. It would take a very special leader to go beyond party gain and remember why they went into politics in the first place, to sit back and think under PR how many times could we have had a Labour PM under a coalition rather than a Tory PM with unlimited power. If Brown had thought ahead in 2010 then the Tories on little over 36% would not have formed a government or at least not formed one without the Lib Dems having clear alternative options rather than relying on the seats maths as justification for the coalition. Clegg would certainly have had lots more internal opposition to getting so close to the Tories and not being able to pull the plug if they decided to. Good luck with your campaign but I think it is doomed to fail. |
|
|
|
Post by eotw on Dec 14, 2023 9:50:50 GMT
At the risk of straying into Van-Tam-esque sporting metaphor territory, I've always felt that voting in UK elections, encumbered as they are by a first of past the post voting system, and the huge monolithic and unwieldy/internally contradictory coalitions cum political parties produced and sustained by that system, is akin to a game of snooker. Very rarely are clean and straightforward pots available. You have to think two or three shots ahead and much of the strategy is devoted to making things impossible for your opponent. Cue ball positioning is the key art, although the overall objective is to pot the ball. But you may well have to accept that it's a long game, the balls break the way they break and routes to winning the frame are convoluted and fiendishly complex. You may end up playing a few tactical shots and find yourself having to pot some balls you'd ideally like to have avoided. The black isn't always available on its spot and maximum breaks are very rare. But you have to play. Not only is it quite good fun, but you often arrive at your preferable, though not ideal, destination without quite knowing how you got there. Seven reds and seven yellows is worth three blacks in terms of points. I quit before my beize metaphor disappears into the Eoin Clarke hall of fame!! And Ronnie O'Sullivan is a true sporting genius or the snooker GOAT, as he sees all this in an instant. |
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Dec 14, 2023 9:51:36 GMT
Regards the idealists v pragmatists debate on who to vote for at the GE which seems to be an issue overwhelmingly for those who are LOC. I'm in the second camp as indicated last night. I understand that for some of the Idealists the Labour party is not where you want it to be policy wise, but please may I respectfully ask that you look at the gap, the parties are not 'nearly the same' as those with their own agenda suggest and Britain will be a different country in 5 years time depending on who wins. I don't see the act of voting as bestowing a blessing, but rather as achieving the best outcome reasonably available.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,362
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 14, 2023 9:58:45 GMT
Of course same as people would want motherhood and apple pie, but it's the specifics that matter For example people in polling invariably say they want better services. But in polling they will also say they want tax cuts. There is a contradiction there, indeed if there wasn't the tories wouldn't get any votes Hope this doesn’t sound too peevish, but I think you diminish my remarks. It is not like motherhood and apple pie. It is up to us to show how Labour will shift things in that direction and show that taxation (for example) will actually lead to this. Of course, but Labour will be asked in interviews about their manifesto. For example you said "fairer and more secure world where are all decently accommodated" The first question would be what do you mean by that What counts as decently accommodated Then the killer questions, have you costed this, if so how much does it cost How much will you have to raise taxes to pay for it I don't want to sound dismissive, but as we run up to the next election Labour plans will come under much great scrutiny, more so probably than the tories. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,618
|
Post by steve on Dec 14, 2023 9:59:44 GMT
Last minute gift ideas still available on eBay but going quickly.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2023 10:04:15 GMT
It all comes down to money and the financial reality that the UK is over borrowed and paying masses more than is ideal in interest. To implement what the hard left want would substantially add to that and whilst taxing the ultra rich more sounds good and equitable, it yields relatively little. So firstly you need to get finances under control or you end up making matters worse, think of Liz Truss in reverse. Indeed. But it goes further than the public finances I think-this agonising over what sort of administration will emerge under Starmer. The insurgency viewpoint seems well represented here. In two strands i think:- The Nervous Radicals-get in then change course. and The Relieved Anti-Tories-its going to be better so relax. What is missing here is representation of the belief that KS actually IS a Centrist Dad. Believes in Sound Public Finances , a Mixed Economy, Enterprise and Aspiration with Equality of Opportunity & not Equality of Outcomes. Secure Borders and Pride in Community etc etc. Actually believes the offering to disaffected Brexit /Tory voters in speeches like his last one . Relieved Anti-Tories don't really care. Nervous Radicals care deeply. But I think KS knows only too well from Boris Johnson's failure what happens if you "borrow" votes and don't repay. |
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Dec 14, 2023 10:22:16 GMT
Barbara (re Rafwan's: "Necessary, but not sufficient."): "Can you explain that I don't know what you mean by that comment. Sorry."
Perhaps I can add a down-to-earth example to Rafwan's response?
Take the case of being done for speeding in a 30 limit.
Assuming the camera is accurate and gets the right car, the police aren't bent etc - the equivalent of the 'fair coin' condition in coin-flipping probability calculations - then:
NECESSARY: Driving at more than 30mph is a necessary condition of being caught. ie you can't be guilty of exceeding 30mph unless you exceed 30mph.
SUFFICIENT: But millions of people exceed 30 limits every day without getting caught. So exceeding the limit is not a sufficient condition.
It's a useful distinction and often relevant. For instance, I'd argue that rejoining the EU is a necessary condition for a thriving UK, but I certainly wouldn't argue that it's sufficient. There are so many other ways our governments can cock things up!
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,568
Member is Online
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 14, 2023 10:23:22 GMT
As the total sample size of both plague and non-plague deaths was 145 (49 from plague) and I think it's safe to say that those of African heritage would have been a pretty small percentage of the population in those days, it seems invalid to draw any conclusions because of the small sample size. To suggest as the authors apparently do that any apparent greater mortality amongst Africans was because of 'structural racism' is ridiculous. Even if (BIG if) the conclusions were true it could be because of different susceptibilities to the disease. Plague was more or less endemic for hundreds of years so the native population would have had some immunity. Whether politicians should be concerned about stuff published in an obscure academic journal is another matter. On the science, I entirely agree. The sample of those with African heritage in medieval London would be too small for any meaningful conclusions, those with Asian heritage most likely zero. However, that doesn't stop Badenoch's reaction being completely ludicrous. This is the same woman who demanded an Ofsted inspection into something that never happened. And she is supposed to be the Tory saviour. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Dec 14, 2023 10:44:30 GMT
I recall this as an old exam question. Distinguish between the ‘necessary’ and the ‘sufficient’. In this case, what we want is a transformation in the political landscape. For this, removal of the Tories is ‘necessary’, but it is not ‘sufficient’. This is a fair point for c-a-r-f-r-e-w and shevii to make. It is then for you (and me) to show how unconditional support for Starmer is most likely to bring us closer to the transformation we all want. Actually imo it's for those who want the 'tranformation' to get off their arses and make the revolution happen. We'll then see how the Brtish people respond. If you consider my suggestions for transformation (a fairer and more secure world where everyone is decently accommodated, healthy, educated, able to work and generally cared for) to be “revolutionary”, you should have a word with neilj who considers them excessively bland. I have no time for revolution. Romantic nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Dec 14, 2023 10:47:10 GMT
neilj I don’t suggest for one moment that it will be easy. Just that it is a very worthwhile aim and we should keep pushing for it.
|
|
