PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Massive New Tory Electoral Scandal breaking
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Government and Society
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5441
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Recent polls make it clear that a growing percentage of Remainers think the UK should walk away if the EU does not play ball and a massive majority of Leavers think this and always have done.

So, clearly, May is in a position to deliver such a Brexit, should push come to shove.

I am suggesting, however, that she has no intention of doing so and never did and will look for a way to sell to the public whatever compromise she is intending to make.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 8466
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Little John wrote:
Recent polls make it clear that a growing percentage of Remainers think the UK should walk away if the EU does not play ball and a massive majority of Leavers think this and always have done.

So, clearly, May is in a position to deliver such a Brexit, should push come to shove.

I am suggesting, however, that she has no intention of doing so and never did and will look for a way to sell to the public whatever compromise she is intending to make.


Are you suggesting I vote UKIP? Razz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Beria3



Joined: 25 Feb 2009
Posts: 3998
Location: Moscow Russia

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

May has shifted to the Left on economic policy - state intervention in the energy markets, a "industrial strategy" and a Brexit strategy which doesn't obsess about the City.

These are all big shifts from the Cameron era of politics. The fact that free-market Tories are very worried about the shift in thinking in 10 Downing Street says it all. I read the Torygraph every day and a number of the more neo-liberal writers are in despair about the May economic programme.

It's evolutionary, not revolutionary stuff, but the Tories know that winning elections involves appealing to the working/middle class voters who want protection from savage globalization and mass migration. The Tories under May are starting to address these concerns.

Around half the population support the Tories (some polls show the Tories at 49%) and we will see what the eventual outcome will be.

I'm afraid Corbyn, by his own actions is unsuited to being a PM. His Brexit position remains confusing, he doesn't have a issue with open door migration policy and would let in large numbers of refugees. I haven't mentioned yet his long record of support for the IRA during the terror years and his softness towards Islamic fundamentalism.

You don't have to like or even particularly agree with the Tories to recognize that May is the best option to vote for in the context of the Brexit negotiations.
_________________
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
fuzzy



Joined: 29 Nov 2013
Posts: 487
Location: The Marches, UK

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The saddest situation is the 'greens' - the party which we should all be able to support, has never reasonably represented the interests of me, my countrymen or the planet itself. If they could ditch the baby farming/middle class/free market bollox and actually choose necessary, hard to stomach policies, their support could be massive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5441
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

They can't because, despite ecological issues properly belonging to science and so, in principle, being free of cultural contamination, the truth on the ground is that the green movement is fully allied to the interests of and built upon the bourgeoisies class. We can see that clearly enough with the tenor of some of the so-called "green" posters on here.

This is why so many proletariat Trump voters completely rejected the Green agenda by voting for Trump. In other words, they have not only rejected the existing ruling class. They are rejecting all of their accompanying values as well.

The baby and the bathwater.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13561
Location: way out west

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2017 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Corbyn has some great policies lined up, including nationalisation of rail, energy and post. That alone is worth voting for him for.

The trouble is, people will be told by the right-wing press that it's "back to the bad old days" of "being held to ransom" by those industries. It need not be so, as we all know.

We've learned a lot since the days of public ownership and such a claim should be seen for what it is - scaremongering.
_________________
The human appears to have no idea what its ideal diet should be; has self-inflicted diet-related diseases; causes extensive environmental destruction through basic food production & creates pathogenic infestations that widely infect its food supply.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cubes



Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 497
Location: Norfolk

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tbh royal mail is irrelevant nowdays, let it rot in the private sector. Water is the one that should never have been privatised, you can make arguments both for and against energy and rail.

I can't say public ownership (in the old sense) would be good though, it really did lead to some inefficiencies for political reasons (making people redundant is bad for votes).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 8466
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:

The trouble is, people will be told by the right-wing press that it's "back to the bad old days" of "being held to ransom" by those industries.


Is The Sun still that powerful? It makes little difference what the Telegraph, Mail and Express say - anyone who reads those papers was never going to vote Labour anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 8466
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fuzzy wrote:
The saddest situation is the 'greens' - the party which we should all be able to support, has never reasonably represented the interests of me, my countrymen or the planet itself. If they could ditch the baby farming/middle class/free market bollox and actually choose necessary, hard to stomach policies, their support could be massive.


Agreed. I can't be bothered to even comment or think about them anymore, so useless they've become. Lost the plot, quite literally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 8466
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Little John wrote:
They can't because, despite ecological issues properly belonging to science and so, in principle, being free of cultural contamination, the truth on the ground is that the green movement is fully allied to the interests of and built upon the bourgeoisies class. We can see that clearly enough with the tenor of some of the so-called "green" posters on here.


It is worse than that. Yes, there is the "Biff Problem", which we don't need to discuss any further. But the Environmental Movement itself has even deeper problems, which I've been personally struggling to come to terms with for much of my adult life. It has failed, comprehensively. It has lost the war it set out to fight.

This sums it up:

https://thebreakthrough.org/archive/the_death_of_environmentalism

Quote:

In the fall of 2004, Breakthrough co-founders, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, triggered a firestorm of controversy with their essay, "The Death of Environmentalism." In it they argued that the politics that dealt with acid rain and smog can't deal with global warming. Society has changed, and our politics have not kept up. Environmentalism must die, they concluded, so that something new can be born.


To give it a bit of my own spin, the underlying problem is that the environmental movement views human civilisation as an "unnatural" entity/process which is separate from "The Environment" - and destroying it. But the reality is that humans are part of the environment and everything that is happening is just the next stage the evolution of life on Earth. These processes are natural. Evolution proceeds by punctuated equilibrium and this is just the latest punctuation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Beria3



Joined: 25 Feb 2009
Posts: 3998
Location: Moscow Russia

PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2017 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agree UE.

The Green Party is a shambles. They don't seem even focused on the environment anymore which is tragic.

Britain could do with a "real" hard green party. The Greens are worse then useless.
_________________
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lurkalot



Joined: 08 Mar 2014
Posts: 145

PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2017 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fuzzy wrote:
The saddest situation is the 'greens' - the party which we should all be able to support, has never reasonably represented the interests of me, my countrymen or the planet itself. If they could ditch the baby farming/middle class/free market bollox and actually choose necessary, hard to stomach policies, their support could be massive.


I can share your disappointment in the Green Party but I'm less sure about the last part of your comment. In our democracy people tend to vote with their own immediate interests at heart and a party advocating "necessary, hard to stomach policies" wouldn't find itself with massive support. I really don't think the majority would vote for a lower consumption , more frugal lifestyle. Many already see the Greens as trying to get us to live "in draughty , cold shacks living on vegatables" , to paraphrase quotes I've seen on numerous other forums and a harsher line would only see them less electable than they are now.
One big failing I can't understand is their stance on immigration. Britain is a small already crowed island that isn't self sufficient in fuel , food , or a miriad of other things yet they seem perfectly happy to allow in many more. That will only gobble up more land and increase the need for more imported resources. They just don't seem to see overpopulation as an issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5441
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2017 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lurkalot wrote:
fuzzy wrote:
The saddest situation is the 'greens' - the party which we should all be able to support, has never reasonably represented the interests of me, my countrymen or the planet itself. If they could ditch the baby farming/middle class/free market bollox and actually choose necessary, hard to stomach policies, their support could be massive.


I can share your disappointment in the Green Party but I'm less sure about the last part of your comment. In our democracy people tend to vote with their own immediate interests at heart and a party advocating "necessary, hard to stomach policies" wouldn't find itself with massive support. I really don't think the majority would vote for a lower consumption , more frugal lifestyle. Many already see the Greens as trying to get us to live "in draughty , cold shacks living on vegatables" , to paraphrase quotes I've seen on numerous other forums and a harsher line would only see them less electable than they are now.
One big failing I can't understand is their stance on immigration. Britain is a small already crowed island that isn't self sufficient in fuel , food , or a miriad of other things yet they seem perfectly happy to allow in many more. That will only gobble up more land and increase the need for more imported resources. They just don't seem to see overpopulation as an issue.
see here:

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=284374#284374
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
fuzzy



Joined: 29 Nov 2013
Posts: 487
Location: The Marches, UK

PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2017 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lurkalot wrote:
fuzzy wrote:
The saddest situation is the 'greens' - the party which we should all be able to support, has never reasonably represented the interests of me, my countrymen or the planet itself. If they could ditch the baby farming/middle class/free market bollox and actually choose necessary, hard to stomach policies, their support could be massive.


I can share your disappointment in the Green Party but I'm less sure about the last part of your comment. In our democracy people tend to vote with their own immediate interests at heart and a party advocating "necessary, hard to stomach policies" wouldn't find itself with massive support. I really don't think the majority would vote for a lower consumption , more frugal lifestyle. Many already see the Greens as trying to get us to live "in draughty , cold shacks living on vegatables" , to paraphrase quotes I've seen on numerous other forums and a harsher line would only see them less electable than they are now.
One big failing I can't understand is their stance on immigration. Britain is a small already crowed island that isn't self sufficient in fuel , food , or a miriad of other things yet they seem perfectly happy to allow in many more. That will only gobble up more land and increase the need for more imported resources. They just don't seem to see overpopulation as an issue.


Actually, you have hit the nail on the head. I wasn't very clear in my statement. My take is that all parties do whatever 'focus groups' lead them into. The greens want to reward baby farmers and 'right on' people because [and it's the same weakness for all parties] they are chasing votes the PPE way. If they just stated, dictatorially:
much less immigration, huge lorries out, cars + planes hammered, massive cycle + canal support, land ownership reform, environmental strategy that isn't for the Duke of Westminster, tariffs where helpful, public ownership of common monopolies, no profit basic retail banking run by gov, social housing to give people choices, taxation that works, an end to grovelling to pensioners, parents, lobbyists, the city, the US etc. at everyone else's expense, lobbyists on a gibbot, 1/2 of whitehall, MPs and Lords scrapped, local gov no bigger than a 1/2 day walk in diameter, reintroduce 100s courts. Replace modern legal system with a computer program, saponify the lawyers, judges and other cronies - basically a strategy for a contracting economic world etc. Nothing too tricky - personally I reckon a lot of [eg old labour] people would be interested.

If they want anymore, they are going to have to pay me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raspberry-blower



Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 1364

PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2017 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More blowback from the Manchester atrocity:

Jonathan Cook: MI6 Theresa May and the Manchester attack

Jonathan Cook wrote:
And who gave the approval for such a policy, one that was bound to radicalise at least some of Britainís Libyan community and provide them with military training and experience they were certain to bring back to the UK?

And hereís the rub. Because when MI6 began funnelling British-Libyan fighters to Libya in 2011, Theresa May was Home Secretary. May must have known of the MI6 policy and doubtless approved it. And now she is in the midst of a general election campaign. If she loses, Jeremy Corbyn is placed to become prime minister in her stead. That is not a prospect any of the corporate media appear willing to accept, even the supposedly left-liberal elements of it, like the Guardian.

_________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Government and Society All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group