Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
if only there was some organisation like that ....
off to a good start then.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
and is a slightly bizarre choice for her department as she is
pro fox hunting;
pro fracking in national parks;
votes against renewable energy projects;
and is a climate change sceptic
So I postulate that DEFRA will be renamed in the next few days to the:-
Department of (not the) Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs
Also we have Sajid Javid in charge of communities who is pretty much opposed to anything that is run by the state. So that's going to help the local authorities he is responsible for then...
And then we have Liam Fox in charge of international trade who resigned 5 years ago because he let an unauthorised friend 'advise' him during international defence trips. We can expect these to be reliable then...
In other news there is a growing unease from other governments that when they are trying to contact the UK they are getting the following message:-
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
So the National Labour Party has suspended the Brighton and Hove Labour Party, apparently. Seems they're maybe a bit sore after pro-Corbyn members were elected in democratic votes.
Feth me, these lunatic MPs have crossed the Rubicon now. There's no going back,after you start suspending and booting out entire sections of your party. A Labour split is a foregone conclusion now.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Feth me, these lunatic MPs have crossed the Rubicon now. There's no going back,after you start suspending and booting out entire sections of your party. A Labour split is a foregone conclusion now.
The Guardian says that bullying, abuse, and an improper ballot are alleged to have been part of the process, so it needs to be rerun. Considering someone's just been arrested for making death threats to Eagle, that's not unlikely.
I don't think half the Corbyn supporters realise what they're actually supporting, they weren't around in the 70's & 80's, and it's not exactly taught in schools. McCluskey owns Corbyn now. This is the hard left reasserting control. And they're out for themselves. Not 'the masses', not 'Corbyn', not 'the working man'.
whembly wrote: <--- this 'Murrican redneck is all confused. How can this party suspend that party?
O.o
There's the national labour party which is meant to represent the party at a national level. Then you have a large number of local labour party branches, with their own leadership, to represent the party members at a local level. The national party has suspended one of their local branches, seemingly trying to annul a vote which didn't go the way they wanted.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
whembly wrote: <--- this 'Murrican redneck is all confused. How can this party suspend that party?
O.o
It's mostly due to our parliamentary system.
The Labour party is not just one homogenous entity, it consists of various branches and associations, and historically, because of it's links to the co-op movement and trade unionism, this complicates things further.
Each branch or association, is responsible for selecting candidates for MP, and if all goes well, whoever gets selected gets to contest the election.
In American terms, that would be a primary...I think
As for the party suspending that party, this is a simple analogy, but say the Republican party HQ in Washington was unhappy with the Alaskan branch, they could suspend it, or impose sanctions or whatever.
EDIT: Malus, get your tanks off my lawn!!!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/15 15:29:36
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Feth me, these lunatic MPs have crossed the Rubicon now. There's no going back,after you start suspending and booting out entire sections of your party. A Labour split is a foregone conclusion now.
The Guardian says that bullying, abuse, and an improper ballot are alleged to have been part of the process, so it needs to be rerun. Considering someone's just been arrested for making death threats to Eagle, that's not unlikely.
I don't think half the Corbyn supporters realise what they're actually supporting, they weren't around in the 70's & 80's, and it's not exactly taught in schools. McCluskey owns Corbyn now. This is the hard left reasserting control. And they're out for themselves. Not 'the masses', not 'Corbyn', not 'the working man'.
Though nobody has actually filed any official complaints of bullying or abuse and the only recorded event of bullying and abuse was by right-wing labour members, from what I've heard (though admittedly it was a biased source, so will have to wait and see).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/15 15:32:49
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Though nobody has actually filed any official complaints of bullying or abuse and the only recorded event of bullying and abuse was by right-wing labour members, from what I've heard.
Really? From the BBC:
Labour's national executive committee said the suspension followed "alleged abusive behaviour" at Saturday's AGM.
That'll be a public meeting with lots of witnesses.
A letter sent by Katherine Buckingham, the national party's head of disputes and discipline, said Labour had received "many complaints and reports of concern" following the meeting.
She wrote: "These allege abusive behaviour by some attendees, as well as reports that the ballot results were not properly reached.
"We are particularly concerned that the safety of members at the meeting was compromised."
Those sound like official complaints to me. What else would you call a letter to the party head of disputes and discipline?
I'm not saying that there /were any issues. But the whole deal with momentum and Corbyn's supporters abusing the opposition is well-documented by now, so it wouldn't surprise me if it were true here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/15 15:38:07
No it isn't, you are completely misunderstanding how sampling works, please see below.
Ketara wrote: Your original assertion is getting so mangled with assumptions, all of which are debatable, that it's almost unrecognisable! .
No I'd argue that you are taking a load of different discussions mangling the points and then putting them back together in a way that suits your argument (which always makes forums debates tricky) and why I try to only refer to the points in the previous post rather than mash it altogether wave a magic wand and go 'ta da' look none of it makes sense!
Ketara wrote: Now we've already kind of had out the concept that being outside the EU does not preclude functioning on the world stage. I would posit Japan is a perfect example of that capacity, but you and I seemed to have different concepts of industrialisation and future events, so we left that one behind.
Yes Japan is a perfect example of what happens to an isolated country that is susceptible to shocks with an ailing economy because it doesn't have that global influence. But now you seem to be arguing for my side of the debate???
http://dollarcollapse.com/japan/japan-brexit-currency-war-loser/ This is the sort of situation we run the risk of by going on our own ,we would have reduced weight on the global stage, the ability to negotiate good terms and fend off these shocks is only minimised by being part of a larger group acting in a co-ordinated fashion.
Ketara wrote: I also pointed out that people in Norway seem happy to not need to function on the world stage but retain independence from the EU, your counter is that the fact that so many young people in the UK voted to stay in, so you believe they must feel differently to Nordic teens.
I'm not sure I ever mentioned Nordic teens specifically. Norway chose to remain outside the EU, but it hence lacks as much global influence (which is why some of eastern European countries do not wish to see us leave because many of our principles align with theirs and it provides a stronger block with the EU that won't be there anymore). Without a poll otherwise I'm not sure we can say what Nordic teens want?
Ketara wrote: a certain degree of rigour is required in order to ascertain any essential limitations or biases inherent in the sample, no matter how large.
As I said the error
Ketara wrote: And right now, the most self-evident bias inherent in the sample, is simple. Only people who actually care about politics and the future of this country will have been inclined to vote. People who felt they were too ignorant, or were simply lazy, or just didn't care would have all stayed at home. And such people arecompletely unrepresented in the sample, on account of the fact that they stayed at home. Now you can try to claim that such people would be so small in numbers as to not affect the numbers, but how do you know? Where is your evidence for that assertion when they're completely unrepresented in your sample? Even if you polled all of them again right now, they'd still be excluded on the basis of the fact that they wouldn't be bothered to respond.
If your sample is large enough then within a statistical error the unsampled proportion will fall within your existing result. As a simple example take a hundred 2D6 rolls. We know (assuming unloaded dice) that the average roll should be 7 but in reality the average roll will be somewhere slightly off of this value say 7.05. Your error for a 99% result could be say (+/- 0.1). Effectively your actual result lies anywhere between 6.95 and 7.15 within a 99% error margin. Now say you took 40 randomly 2D6 from your original 100. The true average roll is still the same 7 but there is greater probability you have picked a few more higher/lower rolls but you still have a sample that is large (2/5ths of the total population) so lets say the average you measure is actually 6.6, but because the sample is smaller your error is larger (say +/-0.5). Hence for the lower sample of 40 you have a 99% confidence that your value is within 6.1 to 7.1 (so still correct within the error). Now lets say we didn't know the average roll and someone strolled into the room and said "that's rubbish we all know the average roll is 9, you've just picked out the wrong sample!". Well we can test this by simulations. Say we simulate 10,000 times a hundred rolls of which we pick 40 randomly determine how many give us an average result of 9. This number then tells you what the probability is that true result is actually 9 (so say out of 10000 simulations, 10 gave you an average of 9 that would imply there is a 0.1% chance the actual average is 9, i.e. not very likely).
Exactly the same thing applies to the proportion of young voters. We have a sample, we don't know what the true average, but the result gives us an answer within a certain error. However what we can say that the 40% sample gives us confidence with approx 99% probability that the result within the errors is reflective of the true average across all voters. The probability that the result is skewed so massively that the actual voter ratio is massively out is likely to be very small indeed (not impossible but unlikely enough that it can be discounted)
Ketara wrote: Going empirically for a minute here, I would say I've met just as many young people who didn't give a damn about politics/international affairs as those who did, if not more. From the smart to the stupid, young people I know tend not to care so much.
Then the circles we run in are different, but neither of us will be able to say it would be representative so it doesn't mean that much.
Ketara wrote: If this were accurate to any substantial degree, our government would never change as there wouldn't be a sufficient number of voters changing sides to swing it.
Well in reality it doesn't if you take a wider more holistic view rather than the froth (randomness) on the surface
Ketara wrote: So you believe that despite voting to curb immigration, Swiss citizens would not view large scale immigration as a reason not to join the EU? The point being made here is that Switzerland has reasons other than financial to not want to join, and unless you're going to assert what's in the previous sentence, you have to capitulate on this one.
You don't know this at all. They voted to curb immigration, not join the EU. They are linked but no-one knows which holds more weight. It is quite possible that they relent on the issue if the EU does threaten to withdraw banking passport controls and so forth. You are relating a desire to control immigrants in Switzerland with the desire or not to be strongly tied with the EU and that is just hypothesising. As I said Switzerland historically didn't want to join the EU because of it's financial system/organisations, no one has asked which is more important for the future (yet, though that might be coming to a head).
Ketara wrote: There is an alternative explanation, namely that people were channelled towards an appropriate place to learn the skills they needed to be successful in life. After all, by the time Uni is an option, they're already 18. They're adults. That kid with a 2:2 in Politics from Bolton University may know a handful more about politics, but he'll have spent three years struggling for a qualification with few job prospects, and mired himself in debt. Don't you think it's irresponsible to burden that student with that University debt for the benefit of a little extra political knowledge, as well as profligate with limited taxpayers funds?
And so we are saying the State, or just you, or the wicked witch of the west have the right to make that decision? It is their life and they are entitled to make that decision. By all means as a society we should provide advice to assist what may be the best course of action but why should the state force that decision? How does anyone know that the person getting a 2:2 at Bolton University will not become the best PM we have ever had or bring world peace. At worst you saying that the state 'in it all its glory' should make a decision about a person at a specific time in their life about what their future holds; so those the state doesn't think are up to much can go to the workhouse, those lucky few can go to University. It's Authoritarianism government at it's worst and something I am completely opposed to. At best as I said earlier it's elitism; it's assuming that University degree at Bolton is not worth the paper it is written on and all those that get that piece of paper are going to worse off with it.
Ketara wrote: But they went because they didn't know what else to do and everyone expects you to these days.
But was still their choice, it unfortunately shows a lack of support from society as whole that they did that, but then at the same time as an individual you still have to make choices for yourself.
Ketara wrote: Is that a touch of cynicism I hear? I'll make a Private Eye reader of you yet.
No plenty of cynicism especially when it comes to the Conservatives, but I do try and ensure that all possible other possibilities are considered (after all most of the time things that go wrong are genuine mistakes). But I do also ensure that I am always hopeful that we can improve and be better. I think endless cynicism is just as bad as hopeless optimism, it's about maintaining a balance.
Ketara wrote: I'm sorry, but you've started generalising away from the specific point being discussed; namely the hard material benefits of being within the EU, and how many people benefit from them, and not only that, are aware of doing so (in order for them to miss them later on to make them want to rejoin). I maintain it is a negligible number of the total population of the UK. I'd be surprised if it were higher than a few million.
So? That's how the conversation started (and that more younger people realise this than older), you asked for the benefits of being in the EU were and I gave you a non-comprehensive list of what I thought the benefits were. You wanted to specifically talk about grants and as I pointed out that was one of items that I highlighted so going back to the more generalised conversation is reasonable considering you were saying that the grants themselves did not make up enough of a reason on their own?
Also based on the previous part of the post above there are definitely 3.3 million "of the total population" that have benefited from the UK being in the EU, and likewise the UK has benefited from those 3.3 million of the population.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/15 15:40:47
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
whembly wrote: <--- this 'Murrican redneck is all confused. How can this party suspend that party?
O.o
There's the national labour party which is meant to represent the party at a national level. Then you have a large number of local labour party branches, with their own leadership, to represent the party members at a local level. The national party has suspended one of their local branches, seemingly trying to annul a vote which didn't go the way they wanted.
whembly wrote: <--- this 'Murrican redneck is all confused. How can this party suspend that party?
O.o
It's mostly due to our parliamentary system.
The Labour party is not just one homogenous entity, it consists of various branches and associations, and historically, because of it's links to the co-op movement and trade unionism, this complicates things further.
Each branch or association, is responsible for selecting candidates for MP, and if all goes well, whoever gets selected gets to contest the election.
In American terms, that would be a primary...I think
As for the party suspending that party, this is a simple analogy, but say the Republican party HQ in Washington was unhappy with the Alaskan branch, they could suspend it, or impose sanctions or whatever.
EDIT: Malus, get your tanks off my lawn!!!
Thanks for the insight.
Still seems, dangerous. (@Do_I_Not_Like_That, the most the National RNC could do is shut off the funding spigot. The local/states partys are very autonomous... which has it's own problems )
The NEC is damned no matter what they do. same with the PLP and everything else that is part of the Labour machine.
I wouldn't be surprised by the allegations coming out of Brighton though. My experiences tell me that bullying is considered a legit method by JC supporters. Not that the right of the party have anything to crow about.
Apparently Chairman Thatch is to blame for Labours current woes as well.
Mr. Burning wrote: The NEC is damned no matter what they do. same with the PLP and everything else that is part of the Labour machine.
I wouldn't be surprised by the allegations coming out of Brighton though. My experiences tell me that bullying is considered a legit method by JC supporters. Not that the right of the party have anything to crow about.
Apparently Chairman Thatch is to blame for Labours current woes as well.
It has been argued by others, and I tend to agree with it, that the Labour Party died in 1983...
What we've had these past 30 years is a movement that never really recovered from the collapse of the wall, and the historical decline of Trade Unionism...
It's a 20th century party that has assumed zombie like status as it lurches into the 21st century.
Corbyn's not to blame for this historical decline, but IMO if the party did split, my reaction would be: what took you so long?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
No I'd argue that you are taking a load of different discussions mangling the points and then putting them back together in a way that suits your argument (which always makes forums debates tricky) and why I try to only refer to the points in the previous post rather than mash it altogether wave a magic wand and go 'ta da' look none of it makes sense!
If you disagree with the way I've put it together, I can literally substantiate it point by point with direct quotes for the back and forth. I re-read everything when I put together the summary.
The reason I summarised and brought it full circle is because otherwise in forum debates, if you don't do that you end up arguing back and forth about the definition of the colour purple when your original topic was the interior design industry in Kazakhstan. Which is kind of pointless
Yes Japan is a perfect example of what happens to an isolated country that is susceptible to shocks with an ailing economy because it doesn't have that global influence.
Yes, such an ailing economy that it's regularly listed as being in the top three worldwide...
Don't get me wrong, I accept that there are pros and cons to being outside the EU economically speaking. But you're shifting the goalposts there slightly, the point was that we'd have less influence on the world stage. But as things stand, we have 1/28th of the influence of a trading bloc, which could be considered to be less than that of an independent nation. Because the collective influence is not British influence.
And Japan, for all it's economic woes, is still a reasonable economic powerhouse in terms of production, consumption, and muscle. No, it's not China or the US or the EU, but who is? It's unrealistic to equate the two. It's still doing far better for itself, than say, Ghana, Norway, or Canada in terms of world influence. Who all do very well for themselves also.
If your sample is large enough then within a statistical error the unsampled proportion will fall within your existing result.
With the qualification that it is has to be possible for it to do so. I comprehend every piece of the statistical reasoning, but maintain it is wrong because of the inherent bias of the nature of the test being undertaken. You are trying to do the equivalent of assessing the opinion of homeless people on a piece of policy by asking homeowners. No matter what all of the homeowners think, their opinions in no way include what homeless people think, because there are no homeless people participating.
In other words, you cannot ascertain the opinions of people who do not care about politics enough to vote on a given political matter by examining the opinions of people who have voted. Because the fact that they voted excludes them automatically from being part of the group of 'people who did not care enough to vote'. If I walked out the door tomorrow, and polled every single person who had not voted in the last election, and included the option 'don't know, don't care' on the card, I daresay I would get several million hits for that option. But the opinion of those people would be completely statistically unrepresented in the results of a general election, despite them making up a statistically significant proportion of the responses there. All you can ascertain from the GE data is that x number of people did not care enough to submit a vote.
That's not to say that some of the young un's who didn't vote in the brexit referendum wouldn't be inclined towards remain. And that another proportion might be inclined towards brexit. But the quantity of the 'meh' or 'don't know don't care' vote is completely unknown, and may well be (and judging by the fact they didn't vote, is inclined to be) really quite large. You could potentially guess from the votes counted that for every one person that did not vote who was inclined towards brexit, three would be inclined towards remain. That would be a permissible interpretation.
But what is not known, is out of those four voters with an inclination, how many 'don't know don't care' voters there were. If there are even six of those for every four with an inclination had they been at the polls, suddenly your result of '3/4 young people supports remain' changes quite violently. Considering 65% of young people didn't vote, that would suddenly mean that the actual result is 39% of young people don't care. And given that these were people who didn't care enough to share up, I daresay that the 'Don't know, don't care' contingent would be higher than three for every two with a natural inclination.
You are relating a desire to control immigrants in Switzerland with the desire or not to be strongly tied with the EU and that is just hypothesising.
It's not an unreasonable assumption. If a citizen is opposed to X, and membership of an organisation includes X by default, it would be an unusual person indeed who didn't consider X to be a problem with joining that organisation. They might choose to do it anyway, but they're unlikely to suddenly not mind X.
I hate small children screaming, and Thorpe Park has a lot of them in the queue to get in. I might choose to stand in the queue and endure the screaming, but it doesn't mean I'm suddenly okay with it. Likewise, if the Swiss are opposed to uncontrolled immigration, but uncontrolled immigration is the price of being in the EU, it would logically follow that whilst they might choose to endure it, they're still not going to be happy about it.
Spoiler:
And so we are saying the State, or just you, or the wicked witch of the west have the right to make that decision?
Yes. Because as a taxpayer, I'm paying for it, instead of a local homeless shelter. We live in a world of finite resources, and appropriate decisions must be made as to the best utilisation of those limited resources.
It is their life and they are entitled to make that decision.
If they're willing to pay for it, they can do whatever they want.
By all means as a society we should provide advice to assist what may be the best course of action but why should the state force that decision?
Because the state is footing the bill and has limited resources. If the person does not agree with that use of resources, they are free to campaign politically for a re-evaluation of priorities.
How does anyone know that the person getting a 2:2 at Bolton University will not become the best PM we have ever had or bring world peace.
How do we know that person wouldn't do it without the 2:2?
At worst you saying that the state 'in it all its glory' should make a decision about a person at a specific time in their life about what their future holds; so those the state doesn't think are up to much can go to the workhouse, those lucky few can go to University.
Or, alternative possibilities that are likely to be of more benefit both to them and society can be opened up with that money that would have sent them to University. There's things in between the 'workhouse' (seriously, what's with the Victorian rhetoric?) and the sparkling utopia of university debt. Some are better. Some are worse. Often those two things change depending on the person.
You will note how social mobility has fallen despite the abolition of grammar schools and 50% of kids going to University.
Eh. I still maintain several millions is too high, I suspect it would be closer to three million at an absolute ceiling, but the specific point is conceded.
So? That's how the conversation started (and that more younger people realise this than older), you asked for the benefits of being in the EU were and I gave you a non-comprehensive list of what I thought the benefits were.
Not quite. I asked what they were on a material concrete regular level for your average citizen, and then listed visa free travel and the occasional odd grant agency as potential ones, and asked for others. You then mentioned how visa free travel was no inconsequential thing, and that grants were a huge thing (linking to a website). (I can pull quotes if you think I'm misrepresenting this)
We have now established that grants benefit only a very small number of people, but that visa free travel has a very hard benefit for 1.2 million people living abroad, and most likely another few million who travel frequently. Now that's out of a population of close to 70 million.
The reason for asking originally was to ascertain (to come full 180) whether or not people would miss the benefits of being within the EU substantially, and whether or not this would incline them to change their mind in the future. So far, the examples presented would appear to indicate that those benefits are only enjoyed by a minority of a few million. Even if I take your figure of seven million for travel, and then add on a ludicrous million receiving personal grants, we are still nowhere near a sufficiently high number of beneficiaries for the majority of people to be 'missing' the EU's supposed many hard tangible benefits to them in twenty years time.
Also based on the previous part of the post above there are definitely 3.3 million "of the total population" that have benefited from the UK being in the EU, and likewise the UK has benefited from those 3.3 million of the population.
I'm not entirely sure you can include foreign immigrants contributing towards 'How many British citizens have benefited from EU membership in a concrete material way that is perceivable by them on the empirical level'. You could potentially argue it as a benefit to existing British citizens, but good luck arguing that one, judging by the Brexit rhetoric, many of them perceive it as a bane, not a boon.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Oh ffs. Could you both please take the bickering over statistics to a PM or at least use spoilers?
Bickering? I'm quite enjoying the conversation, there's no animosity here. I was a little rude at first, but I apologised for that. I accept you might not want to read it, and the spoiler suggestion is fair enough. There's no need to be unpleasant about it though.
This message was edited 19 times. Last update was at 2016/07/15 17:00:35
Tell me about it. I'm trying to institute spoiler tags and it just isn't working properly for some reason.
EDIT: Whelp, apologies for the rest of your gents and your tired fingers, but I'm afraid I can't seem to spoiler tag properly right now. Very strange. One of the points had to be left unspoilered, I suspect it's something to do with a BB code configuration/usage I'm not aware of.
Ketara wrote: Tell me about it. I'm trying to institute spoiler tags and it just isn't working properly for some reason.
EDIT: Whelp, apologies for the rest of your gents and your tired fingers, but I'm afraid I can't seem to spoiler tag properly right now. Very strange. One of the points had to be left unspoilered, I suspect it's something to do with a BB code configuration/usage I'm not aware of.
If the party were to split AGAIN, it wouldn't surprise me
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Name me a single political party that isn't. I would far rather a genuine left wing government than any of the gak that I have seen in my lifetime though.
Name me a single political party that isn't. I would far rather a genuine left wing government than any of the gak that I have seen in my lifetime though.
Let me clarify. What I mean is that they're out for a return to the olden days, where the Labour party danced to Union strings and Callaghan had tea with the Union leaders in Downing Street once a week to learn what the Labour party's stance would be on affairs. Kinnock subsequently threw the hard left out of the upper tier of the Labour party, and they've been waiting for a chance to get back in ever since.
Now we have Corbyn completely at McCluskey's mercy. I don't think we're going to have another winter of discontent, the Unions don't have the power. But the remnants of the old hard left are emerging, and most young people today simply don't have the historical background to know what happened last time that occurred.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/07/15 17:47:53
Ketara wrote: where the Labour party danced to Union strings and Callaghan had tea with the Union leaders in Downing Street once a week to learn what the Labour party's stance would be on affairs.
You mean compared to today when the Tories dance to the tune of the city of London?
Ketara wrote: where the Labour party danced to Union strings and Callaghan had tea with the Union leaders in Downing Street once a week to learn what the Labour party's stance would be on affairs.
You mean compared to today when the Tories dance to the tune of the city of London?
The Tories dance to their own tune, and always have done. Whatever mischief they make, whatever taxes they raise or lower, it's because they've decided to do it. The Chairman of Goldman Sachs isn't running the country by proxy. The Union leaders back then though, were a bunch of hardcore Trotskyites with a ridiculously unhealthy level of influence in government. Frustration with that is what lead to Thatcher.
And even if it were the case, under the supposed rule of Goldman Sachs, I can at least get my telephone connected inside of a year, the trains replace their rolling stock, and we're not crippled by industrial strikes. We don't want to go back to the seventies, nuh-uh.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/15 17:51:34
The Tories dance to their own tune, and always have done..
Its strange that the tune that is always being played seems to be particular beneficent to the City though isn't it?
That's because the Tories have a political ideology that endears them to it, and social links to people who work in it. Not to mention that ever since downgrading the civil service, they rely on consultancy firms a ridiculous amount.
But I repeat, that's different to the Union leaders. You know, people like the lovely Arthur Scargill, who turned out to be on Soviet pay. I've heard enough tales of the what happened to people who jumped picket lines, or who went to work somewhere and didn't want to join the Union. Or god forbid, withheld their Union dues. Half of the leaders were no better than gangsters in terms of how they got there.
The Unions tried to control the country through mass strikes and violent clashes with the police. Stupid fethers ruined the labour movement for everyone for the next thirty years and caused such unpopularity Thatcher got away with murder in some regards.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/15 17:58:04
Ketara wrote: where the Labour party danced to Union strings and Callaghan had tea with the Union leaders in Downing Street once a week to learn what the Labour party's stance would be on affairs.
You mean compared to today when the Tories dance to the tune of the city of London?
The Tories dance to their own tune, and always have done. Whatever mischief they make, whatever taxes they raise or lower, it's because they've decided to do it. The Chairman of Goldman Sachs isn't running the country by proxy.
Rupert Murdoch has been, though
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Workers gaining power is the point of unions. Withholding production is one of the simplest ways of fighting back against your employer, whose exploitation of you is why you have a job in the first place. People why try to sabotage your efforts at reclaiming the worth you produce are not people you need to be kind to at all. They're called scabs, you know? The police exist precisely to stop workers from taking the factories over. They are not an ally.
Unions that join together and do mass strikes and recognise the police as their enemy are good unions. This is basic leftism.
Rosebuddy wrote: Workers gaining power is the point of unions. Withholding production is one of the simplest ways of fighting back against your employer, whose exploitation of you is why you have a job in the first place. People why try to sabotage your efforts at reclaiming the worth you produce are not people you need to be kind to at all. They're called scabs, you know? The police exist precisely to stop workers from taking the factories over. They are not an ally.
Unions that join together and do mass strikes and recognise the police as their enemy are good unions. This is basic leftism.
And when legislation can't get through Parliament without the support of the Unions? When they're holding the Government and country to ransom? You essentially end up with a bunch of unelected Trotskyites running the country, and when as mentioned, enough of those unions aren't even representing their own members so much as they're forcing people to join or get the crap kicked out of them round the back, you have problems.
I want to live in a democracy. Not a country where my elected Prime Minister has to wine and dine the head of TUC and other unions and desperately try and persuade them to let the economy start moving again, like over pay rates in 1974. And then to have to accede to whatever they dictate.
You can live in a Trotskyite fantasy if you like. I'll pass. What you're describing isn't Unions preventing workers from exploitation so much as it is workers being exploited by a small group of hard-left people who manipulate them to realise their own political wet dreams. Much like New Labour, but more kicking the gak out of people who don;t want to join you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/15 18:54:20
As opposed to a country where our Chancellor wines and dines Googles Chief Executive..... oh wait.
Also there was the endemic bullying in the Tory Youth Wing, but that's also different. Right?
Also where were all these trotskyists the last 30 years? Seems odd that they've only joined up with JC on the ballot, kinda lazy really, and not proper Trotsky behaviour.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/15 19:07:47
)
