Politics

[Rayvin 4964]

Honestly I don't think councils are structurally fit for purpose anyway so it's more of a symbolic thing. I wouldn't vote Tory at a local council election because it suggests that my vote condones all manner of fucking nonsense that is happening at the national level.

 

It's the same reason I won't vote Labour nationally until they move back to a pro-EU stance, if they ever do.

[scoobos 297]

16 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

Honestly I don't think councils are structurally fit for purpose anyway so it's more of a symbolic thing. I wouldn't vote Tory at a local council election because it suggests that my vote condones all manner of fucking nonsense that is happening at the national level.

 

It's the same reason I won't vote Labour nationally until they move back to a pro-EU stance, if they ever do.

Yeah, a good stance imo. I vote on manifesto alone - but nowadays even that doesn't matter so much.  I'd vote ANY party if the manifesto leans towards social conscience and public service improvement. I don't believe a government's function is to maximise GDP , I believe its to maximise SoL .

not that anyone asked

[Meenzer 14053]

21 minutes ago, scoobos said:

I don't believe a government's function is to maximise GDP , I believe its to maximise SoL .
 

 

Aye, this really shouldn't be up for debate. Unfortunately (quite aside from the issue of vested financial interests) there are plenty of ordinary folk who equate those two things, and so here we are.

 

[ewerk 26339]

1 hour ago, scoobos said:

 I don't believe a government's function is to maximise GDP , I believe its to maximise SoL .

Another one who thinks that the mackems should be playing in a 64,000 seater stadium.

 

Pathetic.

[Rayvin 4964]

1 hour ago, scoobos said:

Yeah, a good stance imo. I vote on manifesto alone - but nowadays even that doesn't matter so much.  I'd vote ANY party if the manifesto leans towards social conscience and public service improvement. I don't believe a government's function is to maximise GDP , I believe its to maximise SoL .

not that anyone asked

 

I agree with the caveat also of long term planning, planting the seeds of trees that our children will live in the shade of, etc.

 

Not that any government I've ever seen has been remotely interested in this concept.

[Craig 6306]

I've always like the concept that you should vote on a local candidate's manifesto alone, without knowing which political party they represent. I recognise this isn't practical in application though. 

 

As someone said recently, there's many figures in politics today where it is difficult to determine their agenda because they are so woolly in their delivery. There's far too much election material from candidates which focuses more on why you shouldn't vote for the opposition rather than why you should vote for them. 

[scoobos 297]

2 hours ago, Rayvin said:

 

I agree with the caveat also of long term planning, planting the seeds of trees that our children will live in the shade of, etc.

 

Not that any government I've ever seen has been remotely interested in this concept.

I'm daring to guess your age and say you are perhaps younger than 30?

It used to be "the thing" - every party had a "national plan" and what they were going to do and published it.

Now comes the potential rose tinted spectacles, in that I was a teenager during the 80's - but it seemed that change came more slowly - there were more unions and protections in place (like anti monopoly laws etc) . This seemed to get killed off in the 2000's onwards to this slash and burn "reform" we are perpetually told everything needs.

but yeah, it was supposed to be about building a better country for all and future generations - that's all a bit unfashionable now , as people have been conditioned well to believe in "fairness" . Problem is the people who are telling us what fair is and what it means. E.G austerity and "dont look at public funds going to private companies by the billions" - look at the underclass claiming benefits and still watching TV etc.

[Rayvin 4964]

4 minutes ago, scoobos said:

I'm daring to guess your age and say you are perhaps younger than 30?

It used to be "the thing" - every party had a "national plan" and what they were going to do and published it.

Now comes the potential rose tinted spectacles, in that I was a teenager during the 80's - but it seemed that change came more slowly - there were more unions and protections in place (like anti monopoly laws etc) . This seemed to get killed off in the 2000's onwards to this slash and burn "reform" we are perpetually told everything needs.

but yeah, it was supposed to be about building a better country for all and future generations - that's all a bit unfashionable now , as people have been conditioned well to believe in "fairness" . Problem is the people who are telling us what fair is and what it means. E.G austerity and "dont look at public funds going to private companies by the billions" - look at the underclass claiming benefits and still watching TV etc.

 

Mid 30s, so yeah I missed this wave of the 80s. Presumably somewhere between then and now we entered into the exciting world of late stage capitalism.

[scoobos 297]

Yeah, although I think no-one knew - we called it "Globalisation" back then.

[Rayvin 4964]

I'm a big believer in the interdependency of markets and I would broadly consider myself to be a globalist. But I think we're doing it in a very exploitative way. Have no concept at all of what any sort of alternative would be to it that doesn't involve civilizational regression.

[scoobos 297]

Sometimes theres nothing wrong with admitting mistakes are made and going backwards - and in honesty I strongly believe it would have public support to "deglobalise" given how JIT supply lines and our reliance on far away countries has been exposed in the last 10 years.

While I'm moaning, a bug bear I will take to the grave is the late 80's ideology to privatise and deregulate everything , including banks (which used to be almost a public service like the police or doctors!) - the argument being that "Market Forces" can regulate and "bad businesses" will fail - either because other companies take their custom , or that consumers won't spend money with them.

Fast forward just 20 years (if that) and we are taking literally 130BN out of public funds, in this country and pretty much giving it to the financial sector and bypassing Market Forces altogether, because we cannot have the public losing trust in the banking system and making a run on it (in other words, trying to take their business elsewhere)... 

It's now the norm, any excuse to divert public funds and its used. 

Global Financial Crisis
Covid - public to private.

Furlough - again public to private - and also again bypassing Market Forces. If you've a multi million pound chain of pubs (Wetherspoons), hiring cheap labour - and taking out ALL the profits every month to the point where you cannot survive one month of closure - then that's a bad business. It's down to businesses to have a "reserve asset ratio" for unforeseen events, like war, environmental problems, failure of supply chain etc etc.. I still fail to understand why Public to Private was the answer here, when we could have just paid the Public directly, out of the public purse on last years declared PAYE earnings or self assessment, OR a basic emergency living fund - it would be a LOT easier for HMRC to do than what we asked of them (and they failed with, with  billions written off as unrecoverable).

I considered deleting this line, as its a hot topic and I'm not an apologist , but again with the Ukraine - Public to private (all this "aid" isn't so much aid, as it is undocumented and unregulated public funded purchase of weapons from private companies again).  Just how much profit has gone to BAE systems shareholders - from the money that we didnt have 3 months ago to help with UC, Child Poverty, Covid Testing for free etc etc.

The arguments for Nationalism being "inefficent" seem pretty weak nowadays (although, in honesty in the early 80's and late 70's - inefficiency or laziness were becoming British watchwords )

Edited April 26, 2022 by scoobos

[PaddockLad 14585]

 

[Isegrim 8870]

 

[Renton 17767]

20 hours ago, PaddockLad said:

 

 

 

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3205]

51 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

 

If it was JRM it would be kids.

[Craig 6306]

I've just had the local Tory councillor canvassing at my doorstep, I feel violated! 

Suddenly the pikeys asking if I'd like my driveway tarmacked doesn't seem so bad! 

[Monkeys Fist 38757]

Reported- no need for language like that man. 
 

1 hour ago, Craig said:

Tory councillor

[Isegrim 8870]

 

[Monkeys Fist 38757]

What about the ones that didn’t hop on? 

[Isegrim 8870]

What kind of porn do you end up with if you are looking for tractors?

Edited April 30, 2022 by Isegrim

[Monkeys Fist 38757]

32 minutes ago, Isegrim said:

What kind of porn do you end up with if you are looking for tractors?

Give a me moment …

 

Oof- he likes fat Russian amateurs. 
 

 

( NSFL, obvs) 

[Sonatine 9991]

[Monkeys Fist 38757]

He’s actually done the decent thing and resigned . 
 

Which reminds me of this quote from Iain Banks. 

[Monkeys Fist 38757]

2 minutes ago, Monkeys Fist said:

He’s actually done the decent thing and resigned . 
 

Which reminds me of this quote from Iain Banks. 

Then again…

ffs. 

[Isegrim 8870]