Left wingers are getting a bit scared
Discussion
Gaspode said:
I don't think STV would deliver that, quite the reverse. In cases where there was no clear majority, the party that represented an acceptable alternative to most people who tend to dominate - so it favours centrist parties rather than extremes.
exactly , if not 'centrist' certainly the moderate / acceptable parties, this is the problem Neue Arbeit had/ has that underneath all the TOny blair ernest grins, open gesture, sweaty patchs on shirts during speechs, there was the Old Labour party of Union Block votes and anatagonism just underneath. not to say the tensions between the europhiles and euro septics in the conversative party makes them any more united ...
Ridgemont said:
XJ Flyer said:
It is those who refer to it supposedly being all about 'left' v 'right' who seem to making all the rules regarding following either one or the other.
The only hypocrisy which I'm referring to is the fact that its impossible for anyone who is standing on an ideological anti federalist independence ticket to then try to also stand on exactly the opposite in the case of being pro Unionist/federalist.
IE it's possible to cross the artificial boundaries of so called 'left' or 'right' but there's no way that anyone can contradict the ideology which they are standing on within that.
In which case as I've said in this case I support Capitalism which the so called 'left' would see as being 'right' wing.
I also support Fordism which means a high wage environment in a labour market that is biased as far as possible in favour of demand not supply with strong unions being an integral part of that too.Which the so called 'right would view as being 'left wing'.
I also support a policy of anti immigration and trade barriers in favour of domestic industry.Which would obviously upset both the so called 'left' and the so called 'right'.
In which case what I've described above is an ideology which crosses all the artificial boundaries of so called 'left' as opposed to so called 'right'.But if I were to support anything which isn't totally consistent with or which contradicts any of the above that would make me a hypocrite.As in the case of Farage ( rightly ) criticising the SNP for being selectively both nationalist and federalist.While at the same time leading a party which is obviously ideologically selectively federalist and anti federalist itself.
IE there is a big difference between crossing the artificial and erroneous boundaries of so called left and right as opposed to blatant contradictory hypocricy in stated ideology in the form of selectively supporting the opposing ideologies of two totally opposite forms of government.
That makes you a modern day mercantalist. The fact that you claim to support capitalism, but then advocate trade barriers, wage control, immigration control etc suggests you don't believe in capitalism.The only hypocrisy which I'm referring to is the fact that its impossible for anyone who is standing on an ideological anti federalist independence ticket to then try to also stand on exactly the opposite in the case of being pro Unionist/federalist.
IE it's possible to cross the artificial boundaries of so called 'left' or 'right' but there's no way that anyone can contradict the ideology which they are standing on within that.
In which case as I've said in this case I support Capitalism which the so called 'left' would see as being 'right' wing.
I also support Fordism which means a high wage environment in a labour market that is biased as far as possible in favour of demand not supply with strong unions being an integral part of that too.Which the so called 'right would view as being 'left wing'.
I also support a policy of anti immigration and trade barriers in favour of domestic industry.Which would obviously upset both the so called 'left' and the so called 'right'.
In which case what I've described above is an ideology which crosses all the artificial boundaries of so called 'left' as opposed to so called 'right'.But if I were to support anything which isn't totally consistent with or which contradicts any of the above that would make me a hypocrite.As in the case of Farage ( rightly ) criticising the SNP for being selectively both nationalist and federalist.While at the same time leading a party which is obviously ideologically selectively federalist and anti federalist itself.
IE there is a big difference between crossing the artificial and erroneous boundaries of so called left and right as opposed to blatant contradictory hypocricy in stated ideology in the form of selectively supporting the opposing ideologies of two totally opposite forms of government.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 26th September 23:42
And you banging on about federalism/unionism hypocrisy would be fine in the world of the written constitution. But that is highly unlikely to be where we end up; it is perfectly feasible we end up with some kind of settlement that allows a semi federal structure within a union. The question will be whether the settlement is flexible enough to deal with separatist notions. If it is the the union will hold. All your other points then become moot, and relegated to constitutional arcana.
As for a system based on federal government,run on global free market lines.In which we have an open door immigration policy,to pander to both the socialist ideology and that of an exploitative form of so called Capitalism.In which the labour market is rigged in favour of over supply together with a trading regime which benefits the export of jobs to exploitative Communist type economies,to create an environment of lowest denominator wage rates,to benefit a few at the top,that's what we've got now.
The economic figures and ongoing issues caused by the drawbacks of federalism speak for themselves in that regard.
XJ Flyer said:
Firstly if it is a 'union' of non sovereign states that form one sovereign state that is a federation.You can't have semi federal just as there's no way of having 'semi sovereign government'.Either you have full sovereignty over the government or you don't there is no half measure regarding sovereignty.
As for a system based on federal government,run on global free market lines.In which we have an open door immigration policy,to pander to both the socialist ideology and that of an exploitative form of so called Capitalism.In which the labour market is rigged in favour of over supply together with a trading regime which benefits the export of jobs to exploitative Communist type economies,to create an environment of lowest denominator wage rates,to benefit a few at the top,that's what we've got now.
The economic figures and ongoing issues caused by the drawbacks of federalism speak for themselves in that regard.
'First off' - "Firstly if it is a 'union' of non sovereign states that form one sovereign state that is a federation.You can't have semi federal just as there's no way of having 'semi sovereign government'.Either you have full sovereignty over the government or you don't there is no half measure regarding sovereignty."As for a system based on federal government,run on global free market lines.In which we have an open door immigration policy,to pander to both the socialist ideology and that of an exploitative form of so called Capitalism.In which the labour market is rigged in favour of over supply together with a trading regime which benefits the export of jobs to exploitative Communist type economies,to create an environment of lowest denominator wage rates,to benefit a few at the top,that's what we've got now.
The economic figures and ongoing issues caused by the drawbacks of federalism speak for themselves in that regard.
Really? Why? Just because you say so? Bulls
t.Defintion of sovereignty; in political theory, is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation.
This has not been the case in the UK for god knows how long. You are getting het up about principles. Forget that: work out what can work and then realise that is how the UK constitution has worked for 500 years.
As to your economic points... laughable.
Ridgemont said:
'First off' - "Firstly if it is a 'union' of non sovereign states that form one sovereign state that is a federation.You can't have semi federal just as there's no way of having 'semi sovereign government'.Either you have full sovereignty over the government or you don't there is no half measure regarding sovereignty."
Really? Why? Just because you say so? Bullst.
Defintion of sovereignty; in political theory, is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation.
This has not been the case in the UK for god knows how long. You are getting het up about principles. Forget that: work out what can work and then realise that is how the UK constitution has worked for 500 years.
As to your economic points... laughable.
And I really would reiterate: just because you think there is some kind of problem caused by x really fails to meet the basic princple of 'oh fReally? Why? Just because you say so? Bulls
t.Defintion of sovereignty; in political theory, is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation.
This has not been the case in the UK for god knows how long. You are getting het up about principles. Forget that: work out what can work and then realise that is how the UK constitution has worked for 500 years.
As to your economic points... laughable.
k'. We have yet to meet that principle. The point at which the British political establishment gives up I might agree with your view, but I'll be bloody surprised.Ridgemont said:
XJ Flyer said:
Firstly if it is a 'union' of non sovereign states that form one sovereign state that is a federation.You can't have semi federal just as there's no way of having 'semi sovereign government'.Either you have full sovereignty over the government or you don't there is no half measure regarding sovereignty.
As for a system based on federal government,run on global free market lines.In which we have an open door immigration policy,to pander to both the socialist ideology and that of an exploitative form of so called Capitalism.In which the labour market is rigged in favour of over supply together with a trading regime which benefits the export of jobs to exploitative Communist type economies,to create an environment of lowest denominator wage rates,to benefit a few at the top,that's what we've got now.
The economic figures and ongoing issues caused by the drawbacks of federalism speak for themselves in that regard.
'First off' - "Firstly if it is a 'union' of non sovereign states that form one sovereign state that is a federation.You can't have semi federal just as there's no way of having 'semi sovereign government'.Either you have full sovereignty over the government or you don't there is no half measure regarding sovereignty."As for a system based on federal government,run on global free market lines.In which we have an open door immigration policy,to pander to both the socialist ideology and that of an exploitative form of so called Capitalism.In which the labour market is rigged in favour of over supply together with a trading regime which benefits the export of jobs to exploitative Communist type economies,to create an environment of lowest denominator wage rates,to benefit a few at the top,that's what we've got now.
The economic figures and ongoing issues caused by the drawbacks of federalism speak for themselves in that regard.
Really? Why? Just because you say so? Bulls
t.Defintion of sovereignty; in political theory, is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation.
This has not been the case in the UK for god knows how long. You are getting het up about principles. Forget that: work out what can work and then realise that is how the UK constitution has worked for 500 years.
As to your economic points... laughable.
The fact is the UK isn't working and never has.It came into being by force not choice.Then it has been a case of infighting ever since firstly in the case of Ireland and now in the case of Scotland.The Irish having obviously decided to go to war over the issues.While the Scottish have only narrowly accepted the status quo of the UK federation having been given guarantees that the English will continue to be a net contributor to the scam.
As for my economic points not so laughable when those figures are compared with where we were in 1972 before the economy was sold out to the EU federation and the global free market economy.IE the figures don't lie unlike the LabLibdemCon alliance
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 27th September 15:50
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
edh said:
I'm looking forward to labour winning a parliamentary majority with 35% of the vote 
I'm not as it'll be bad news for what's left of the UK, but then I'll be better off personally. I'm looking forward to many more years of Labour in Opposition where they deserve to be for a very long time. If not, kerching, such is life. Not bad as hedging goes.What else is HM Opposition in opposition to?
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
edh said:
I'm looking forward to labour winning a parliamentary majority with 35% of the vote
I'm not as it'll be bad news for what's left of the UK, but then I'll be better off personally. I'm looking forward to many more years of Labour in Opposition where they deserve to be for a very long time. If not, kerching, such is life. Not bad as hedging goes.What else is HM Opposition in opposition to?
IE ironically the LabLibdemCon alliance is actually all one and the same Party sharing the common link of being pro EU and pro immigration either by way of socialist ideology and/or the cheap labour angle to keep the CBI happy.
In which case Farage and a David Davis led Conservative alliance are probably either going to be the next government and the LabLibdemCons in opposition,or vice versa.With the former being by far the best probable option,with the exception of just how genuine their anti federalist credentials are being in question.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 27th September 16:11
DJRC said:
I still haven't worked out what he is on about.
I'll try to make it simple.Labour,the Libdems and Cameron's Cons all stand for the same policies which the election will be fought on.IE immigration,federalism and the effects/costs which that pro immigration,federal government situation is having to the indigenous English working class both in the case of the UK and the EU.Which obviously means a UKIP rebel Conservative alliance either being the next government or in opposition.In which case forget all the old outdated 'left' v 'right' arguments because it is now a totally different ball game.
XJ Flyer said:
DJRC said:
I still haven't worked out what he is on about.
I'll try to make it simple.Labour,the Libdems and Cameron's Cons all stand for the same policies which the election will be fought on.IE immigration,federalism and the effects/costs which that pro immigration,federal government situation is having to the indigenous English working class both in the case of the UK and the EU.Which obviously means a UKIP rebel Conservative alliance either being the next government or in opposition.In which case forget all the old outdated 'left' v 'right' arguments because it is now a totally different ball game.
"Wibble".
XJ Flyer said:
DJRC said:
I still haven't worked out what he is on about.
I'll try to make it simple.Labour,the Libdems and Cameron's Cons all stand for the same policies which the election will be fought on.IE immigration,federalism and the effects/costs which that pro immigration,federal government situation is having to the indigenous English working class both in the case of the UK and the EU.Which obviously means a UKIP rebel Conservative alliance either being the next government or in opposition.In which case forget all the old outdated 'left' v 'right' arguments because it is now a totally different ball game.
Zod said:
XJ Flyer said:
DJRC said:
I still haven't worked out what he is on about.
I'll try to make it simple.Labour,the Libdems and Cameron's Cons all stand for the same policies which the election will be fought on.IE immigration,federalism and the effects/costs which that pro immigration,federal government situation is having to the indigenous English working class both in the case of the UK and the EU.Which obviously means a UKIP rebel Conservative alliance either being the next government or in opposition.In which case forget all the old outdated 'left' v 'right' arguments because it is now a totally different ball game.
"Wibble".
crankedup said:
XJ Flyer said:
DJRC said:
I still haven't worked out what he is on about.
I'll try to make it simple.Labour,the Libdems and Cameron's Cons all stand for the same policies which the election will be fought on.IE immigration,federalism and the effects/costs which that pro immigration,federal government situation is having to the indigenous English working class both in the case of the UK and the EU.Which obviously means a UKIP rebel Conservative alliance either being the next government or in opposition.In which case forget all the old outdated 'left' v 'right' arguments because it is now a totally different ball game.
It will be the ability of UKIP to further distance itself from that status quo that will at least be difference between me voting for them or just not bother to vote.Being that at best a tactical vote for the Libdems to keep the Cons honest just means even more federalism and even more of our green belt probably getting built on than if Cameron gets a majority.
XJ Flyer said:
crankedup said:
XJ Flyer said:
DJRC said:
I still haven't worked out what he is on about.
I'll try to make it simple.Labour,the Libdems and Cameron's Cons all stand for the same policies which the election will be fought on.IE immigration,federalism and the effects/costs which that pro immigration,federal government situation is having to the indigenous English working class both in the case of the UK and the EU.Which obviously means a UKIP rebel Conservative alliance either being the next government or in opposition.In which case forget all the old outdated 'left' v 'right' arguments because it is now a totally different ball game.
It will be the ability of UKIP to further distance itself from that status quo that will at least be difference between me voting for them or just not bother to vote.Being that at best a tactical vote for the Libdems to keep the Cons honest just means even more federalism and even more of our green belt probably getting built on than if Cameron gets a majority.
Your trouble here is this federalism obsession. There is going to be no big election fight over this. There will be a simple change of English elected MPs vote on English only issues in Parliament , that is it. Nothing else will change.
Wales doesn't want anything more it currently has, is a facade of devo as nobody pretends anything offer than economic f
king if it loses English support. NI needs the Union at its core. The English don't want localism. We have a pathological loathing of local politicians, beaurocrats, busy bodies ,etc. So the simplest solution to this will be implemented.Your trouble lad is you think too much and you think too little.
DJRC said:
XJ Flyer said:
crankedup said:
XJ Flyer said:
DJRC said:
I still haven't worked out what he is on about.
I'll try to make it simple.Labour,the Libdems and Cameron's Cons all stand for the same policies which the election will be fought on.IE immigration,federalism and the effects/costs which that pro immigration,federal government situation is having to the indigenous English working class both in the case of the UK and the EU.Which obviously means a UKIP rebel Conservative alliance either being the next government or in opposition.In which case forget all the old outdated 'left' v 'right' arguments because it is now a totally different ball game.
It will be the ability of UKIP to further distance itself from that status quo that will at least be difference between me voting for them or just not bother to vote.Being that at best a tactical vote for the Libdems to keep the Cons honest just means even more federalism and even more of our green belt probably getting built on than if Cameron gets a majority.
Your trouble here is this federalism obsession. There is going to be no big election fight over this. There will be a simple change of English elected MPs vote on English only issues in Parliament , that is it. Nothing else will change.
Wales doesn't want anything more it currently has, is a facade of devo as nobody pretends anything offer than economic f
king if it loses English support. NI needs the Union at its core. The English don't want localism. We have a pathological loathing of local politicians, beaurocrats, busy bodies ,etc. So the simplest solution to this will be implemented.Your trouble lad is you think too much and you think too little.
As for immigration yes that's bad assuming anyone is bright enough to realise the link between that and low wages caused by the over supply of the labour market and the excessive demands for housing and services.Although as I've said that obviously goes against the interests of those who are making money out of that rigged labour market and the socialists who are all about ethnic integration wherever possible.
While you've already admitted there that just like the EU the UK is all about making the English subsidise the rest.In which case the only powers that a so called 'English' parliament would have is to keep that scam going by having more powers to tax and cut the English budget not to increase the English share of the UK budget.
As for the English not wanting localism or anti federalism that seems to contradict the calls coming from the North East let alone the the idea of devolution itself or the reason for being of UKIP from the start.While we already know what it is like to be ruled by an arrogant Northerner in the form of Prescott and now having Cameron etc telling us what we should be doing here in the South East.
UKIP's problem is that its own policies are shot full of holes in the case of anyone who has the ability to think.While the rest are just a bunch of federalist, exploitative,and/or socialist no hopers who aren't even worth going out to vote for other than a tactical vote on the basis of the least worst.
turbobloke said:
edh said:
turbobloke said:
Gaspode said:
STV has always seemed to me to be the best way of ensuring we get a set of MPs that more genuinely reflect the preferences of the electorate than FPTP, and it could be done easily within the current format, so you'd still get all the advantages of having a local constituency MP.
But, as the last referendum showed, the people aren't interested. That's democracy for you - we end up with the government we deserve, not the one we want...
I can't speak for others but I suspect I have company in not wanting to allow a coterie of maverick minority groups any access to national policymaking. It's bad enough when a couple of communities lose all sense and vote them in, at least in those cases the idiocy falls on a limited number of people in an area or two where the electorate was collectively daft enough to ask for it. But, as the last referendum showed, the people aren't interested. That's democracy for you - we end up with the government we deserve, not the one we want...
edh said:
Anyway, some form of PR works in many countries, so why not here?
As above, tiny minority dross polluting policy. edh said:
So many people are disenfranchised under the current system.
They don't get what they want, due to being a tiny minority view? Tough. If their ideas were so good, more people would support those views. With 8% they might even get into a coalition
What people are disenfranchised under the current scheme? It is my belief that it is disillusionment with politics as a whole, not disenfranchisement.
You speak of 'communities losing all sense and vote them in' this is just another piece of turbo claptrap with zero foundation.
crankedup said:
'they got to influence some policy areas'. More half truths, the Lib-Dems have also introduced lower taxation levels via personal allowance before tax. They have also provided a very important brake upon the worst excesses of the Tories.
That seems to be a very vague and highly subjective claim...sidicks said:
crankedup said:
'they got to influence some policy areas'. More half truths, the Lib-Dems have also introduced lower taxation levels via personal allowance before tax. They have also provided a very important brake upon the worst excesses of the Tories.
That seems to be a very vague and highly subjective claim...Or alternately you can ask some Tories for their POV on the matter, you will find its a fact that on balance the Lib-Dems moderated or halted many of the Tory policy proposals, thankfully.
crankedup said:
I will leave you to debate that with Turbobloke then, its also his claim dressed up in different words but I do agree with him on this particular issue.
Or alternately you can ask some Tories for their POV on the matter, you will find its a fact that on balance the Lib-Dems moderated or halted many of the Tory policy proposals, thankfully.
I'm sure they did amend or halt some Tory policy proposals.Or alternately you can ask some Tories for their POV on the matter, you will find its a fact that on balance the Lib-Dems moderated or halted many of the Tory policy proposals, thankfully.
Whether that was for the better or worse is debatable...
crankedup said:
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
'they got to influence some policy areas'. More half truths, the Lib-Dems have also introduced lower taxation levels via personal allowance before tax. They have also provided a very important brake upon the worst excesses of the Tories.
That seems to be a very vague and highly subjective claim...The LibDems have provided dead weight that held back Conservative policies which even in dilute form have led to sustained economic recovery while ignoring the predilections of 'guru' Vince, who is, they say, lined up to star as Pod in a City-based remake of The Borrowers.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff