news & politics:discussion

[pink_triangle]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

and herein lies labour's eternal problem... factional bickering.

I honestly don’t believe there is any more bickering in labour than the tories or SNP. I think twitter makes divisions look bigger than they are.

[steviewevie]

12 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I honestly don’t believe there is any more bickering in labour than the tories or SNP. I think twitter makes divisions look bigger than they are.

Maybe. There is a lot of starmer hate on twitter though, he's basically Satan.

[squirrelarmy]

25 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

The problem is more that people continually find issue with anything Labour do whilst letting the Tories get away with ruining the country. 

There’s a whole swathe of people who are ingrained in a mindset where they have to rebel against the status quo. 
 

When the Tories were on top they naturally took on Labour views in order to oppose the people in power, now that Labour are poised to take control those people who were supporting Labour are now looking for any faults within the party. 

[lost]

Farage appears to be more of an outlet for the right of the Tory party. There didn't seem to be the same anger at Truss being removed and replaced with a centrist.

[pink_triangle]

41 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Trying to understand how I could get myself to see the world through the eyes of a centrist.

Maybe hit myself repeatedly in the head with a hammer?

I’m not even sure what a centrist is. It seems to be a term made up by left wingers to mock those on the centre left who want to get things done.  To me a centrist is the person in my office who spends zero times discussing politics beyond an election, voted for Blair, Cameron and ( through gritted teeth as they didn’t like Jez) Boris.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, lost said:

Farage appears to be more of an outlet for the right of the Tory party. There didn't seem to be the same anger at Truss being removed and replaced with a centrist.

Sunak is a centrist?

Discuss.

[pink_triangle]

23 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Maybe. There is a lot of starmer hate on twitter though, he's basically Satan.

I suspect Starmer will think if he is upsetting people on twitter he is probably on the right line.

[lost]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Sunak is a centrist?

Discuss.

Maybe Technocrat is a better term. They'll both follow the economic consensus whilst Corbyn/Truss wanted to try something different.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I’m not even sure what a centrist is. It seems to be a term made up by left wingers to mock those on the centre left who want to get things done.  To me a centrist is the person in my office who spends zero times discussing politics beyond an election, voted for Blair, Cameron and ( through gritted teeth as they didn’t like Jez) Boris.

Yeah, term changes whoever uses it ..I guess means not that ideological, not socialist, not neolib, not communist, not fascist, not anarchist, and definitely not corbynist. 

 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

I suspect Starmer will think if he is upsetting people on twitter he is probably on the right line.

Probably. So, a lot of hate from some, but not much love from others to counter it, more just a meh.

[squirrelarmy]

12 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I’m not even sure what a centrist is.

I prefer the term realist. 
 

I’ve accepted that somethings have to happen in a certain way, we don’t live in a magic world full of rainbows where everyone will happily help each other out and has an equal share of everything.

What we definitely don’t want is people at the top over exploiting those at the bottom. We need rid of the people whose only aim is to line the pockets of themselves and their friends.

We still have to accept that tough decisions have to be made and there will always be a social order, it’s just part of life. 
 

I just want to see an honest politician in charge who isn’t there for financial gain or some personal agenda. 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

Trying to understand how I could get myself to see the world through the eyes of a centrist.

Maybe hit myself repeatedly in the head with a hammer?

a world view based on facts, how do you expect something better that's based on fantasies?

[Neil]

5 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

I prefer the term realist. 

me too, there's no better world to be had from fantasists.

[mattiloy]

20 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Yeah, term changes whoever uses it ..I guess means not that ideological, not socialist, not neolib, not communist, not fascist, not anarchist, and definitely not corbynist. 

 

Kind of. In so far as they are generally interested in not rocking the boat much.

But it isn’t an absence of political beliefs that motivates that, but a belief in the institutions and economics of the uk as they are now- that is to say, a belief in first past the post, a belief in the union, a belief in private monopolies operating in the public sector, a belief in policies that reward capital more than labour as a means to generate growth in the economy.

Whereas the left point to increased inequality and stagnation in living standards for the majority in recent decades as signalling that those policies don’t work and further, that to undo that and to arrest the decline of the environment requires a radical change in direction rather than a tinkering here and there.

Edited April 9, 2023 by mattiloy

[Neil]

20 minutes ago, lost said:

 the economic consensus

that everything is based on resources.

[Ozanne]

27 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

There’s a whole swathe of people who are ingrained in a mindset where they have to rebel against the status quo. 
 

When the Tories were on top they naturally took on Labour views in order to oppose the people in power, now that Labour are poised to take control those people who were supporting Labour are now looking for any faults within the party. 

I think it’s more than that, look at the state of things when Labour do anything, people will constantly move the goalposts and try to claim that Labour are failing because they haven’t achieved these new made up goals. Yet those people seemingly never bat an eyelid or say anything when the Tories actually make the country worse.

It’s partly why the country is the state it’s in now. 

[mattiloy]

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

a world view based on facts, how do you expect something better that's based on fantasies?

Heres a fact- the water companies have been in breach of their operating agreements for decades. There are grounds to take over their businesses without compensation. A possibility to take water into public ownership for free.

Water is a monopoly. It is inefficient by nature. The companies have paid out £57bn in dividends since 1991. Every week they pump tonnes of shit into the rivers and seas all over the uk.

There is no reason not to nationalise water other than an idealogical commitment to minimising the role of the state in the economy. Starmer is on record saying that ’now is not the time..’

Then when? 

[steviewevie]

13 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Kind of. In so far as they are generally interested in not rocking the boat much.

But it isn’t an absence of political beliefs that motivates that, but a belief in the institutions and economics of the uk as they are now- that is to say, a belief in first past the post, a belief in the union, a belief in private monopolies operating in the public sector, a belief in policies that reward capital more than labour as a means to generate growth in the economy.

Whereas the left point to increased inequality and stagnation in living standards for the majority in recent decades as signalling that those policies don’t work and further, that to undo that and to arrest the decline of the environment requires a radical change in direction rather than a tinkering here and there.

Oh, I guess I'm not a centrist then.

Still voting Labour though.

[squirrelarmy]

6 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Starmer is on record saying that ’now is not the time..’

Then when? 

When they’re actually in power to change things. Best thing to do is cast your vote Labour as they are in the strongest position to remove the Tories. Then things can start to be put right. 
 

I completely agree about the water company corruption. It’s an absolute scam. I don’t want to give my local water company my business but I have no other choice but to. 
 

The water industry does need sorting out however it’s not the top priority. 

[Ozanne]

This country is in such a bad state that if Labour come to power at the next election they won’t be able to fix everything in one term so will have to prioritise the most important factors first. That means there will be some areas that won’t get as much attention. 

[Justiceforcedave]

4 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

I prefer the term realist. 
 

I’ve accepted that somethings have to happen in a certain way, we don’t live in a magic world full of rainbows where everyone will happily help each other out and has an equal share of everything.

What we definitely don’t want is people at the top over exploiting those at the bottom. We need rid of the people whose only aim is to line the pockets of themselves and their friends.

We still have to accept that tough decisions have to be made and there will always be a social order, it’s just part of life. 
 

I just want to see an honest politician in charge who isn’t there for financial gain or some personal agenda. 

I think this sums up my views pretty perfectly. I sit on the left, I would like it if we (as a country) could do more to help to help the most vulnerable and achieve more balance between the top and bottom earners...but, I also accept that business, politics and economics are a dark art which I cannot fully comprehend and may not fit neatly into my ideology.

As a country we often don't know what's good for us (and that goes for both sides of the political spectrum) and are so tribal with our politics that we'll automatically a dismiss policy because it came from the OTHER party... even if on paper it's actually pretty good. Same goes for giving a pass to tactics we'd frown upon if it were coming from the other side.

Sometimes a policy which the right would turn their noses up at, decriminalising drugs and investing on rehabilitation for example, might actually be more effective at achieving a desired outcome such as reducing crime in a geographic location. But "Lock them up, be tougher on criminals" will always be a bigger vote winner. Suggesting the opposite is a political own goal. Of course It works the other way round too, this was just the first example that popped into my head.

The truth is a balance is what's needed, to get everyone the best possible result and to unite people. Unfortunately our completely farcical political system makes this difficult. Stirring up division or massaging the truth is far more fruitful!

[Justiceforcedave]

Just now, Justiceforcedave said:

I think this sums up my views pretty perfectly. I sit on the left, I would like it if we (as a country) could do more to help to help the most vulnerable and achieve more balance between the top and bottom earners...but, I also accept that business, politics and economics are a dark art which I cannot fully comprehend and may not fit neatly into my ideology.

As a country we often don't know what's good for us (and that goes for both sides of the political spectrum) and are so tribal with our politics that we'll automatically a dismiss policy because it came from the OTHER party... even if on paper it's actually pretty good. Same goes for giving a pass to tactics we'd frown upon if it were coming from the other side.

Sometimes a policy which the right would turn their noses up at, decriminalising drugs and investing on rehabilitation for example, might actually be more effective at achieving a desired outcome such as reducing crime in a geographic location. But "Lock them up, be tougher on criminals" will always be a bigger vote winner. Suggesting the opposite is a political own goal. Of course It works the other way round too, this was just the first example that popped into my head.

The truth is a balance is what's needed, to get everyone the best possible result and to unite people. Unfortunately our completely farcical political system makes this difficult. Stirring up division or massaging the truth is far more fruitful!

Like imagine how fantastic it would be if both Labour and the Conservatives were to step forward and be honest about the impact of Brexit? And yunno... actually start working to improving things? Not going to happen anytime soon. There's too much political capital to lose!

[Neil]

30 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Heres a fact- the water companies have been in breach of their operating agreements for decades. There are grounds to take over their businesses without compensation. A possibility to take water into public ownership for free.

Water is a monopoly. It is inefficient by nature. The companies have paid out £57bn in dividends since 1991. Every week they pump tonnes of shit into the rivers and seas all over the uk.

There is no reason not to nationalise water other than an idealogical commitment to minimising the role of the state in the economy. Starmer is on record saying that ’now is not the time..’

Then when? 

When Labour is in power which happens if you don't scare the horses with unsupportable views.

[pink_triangle]

39 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Kind of. In so far as they are generally interested in not rocking the boat much.

But it isn’t an absence of political beliefs that motivates that, but a belief in the institutions and economics of the uk as they are now- that is to say, a belief in first past the post, a belief in the union, a belief in private monopolies operating in the public sector, a belief in policies that reward capital more than labour as a means to generate growth in the economy.

Whereas the left point to increased inequality and stagnation in living standards for the majority in recent decades as signalling that those policies don’t work and further, that to undo that and to arrest the decline of the environment requires a radical change in direction rather than a tinkering here and there.

Most of the public are scared by rocking the boat too much, we can wave a magic wand and make everyone think like us, or try to find common ground.

The trouble is some on the left would rather come second being pure than first with compromise. Some may have the bank account to afford that way of thinking, others are not so fortunate.

[steviewevie]

32 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

This country is in such a bad state that if Labour come to power at the next election they won’t be able to fix everything in one term so will have to prioritise the most important factors first. That means there will be some areas that won’t get as much attention. 

questionable how much they can borrow too.