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.
Well, I watched a documentary about it on the BBC, so there
I trust the BBC, and seeing as I give them £150 every year, I have too
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/03 16:31:43
"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
I don't like defending statements that I on principle disagree with but can we please try to debate genuinely? IE Be better than the various politicians around the planet.
We really need to send EDF packing. The nation that invented civil nuclear power reduced to this...
That suggests to me that the discussion is about, for example, being the first country to have a nuclear power plant contributing to the national grid in peoples homes, for example. Or one constructed for non Military or non Government related purposes. Particularly in the context of the discussion.
So arguing about inventing the nuclear reactor, or inventing nuclear power in general, feels, well, quite frankly, disingenuous to me.
And that's without me even knowing [i]who[i] the answer to the question is, but I would be quite surprised if it did end up being the UK, it doesn't seem massively likely.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/03 17:22:38
I'm sure there's many people with a spare £20K or so sat around who would have voted for the tories but went for Corbyn instead.
It's a stellar argument that to avoid debt all you need to do is be rich, one's hat is truly doffed.
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,
Compel wrote: I don't like defending statements that I on principle disagree with but can we please try to debate genuinely? IE Be better than the various politicians around the planet.
We really need to send EDF packing. The nation that invented civil nuclear power reduced to this...
That suggests to me that the discussion is about, for example, being the first country to have a nuclear power plant contributing to the national grid in peoples homes, for example. Or one constructed for non Military or non Government related purposes. Particularly in the context of the discussion.
So arguing about inventing the nuclear reactor, or inventing nuclear power in general, feels, well, quite frankly, disingenuous to me.
And that's without me even knowing [i]who[i] the answer to the question is, but I would be quite surprised if it did end up being the UK, it doesn't seem massively likely.
The answer is the Soviet Union. Hence why that's what I wrote.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
It was a New Zealander Brit who kicked off nuclear power by splitting the atom in 1917, and a lot of Brits were involved in the Manhattan Project, so the British can lay a good claim to be a big part of the multi-national effort to invent nuclear energy production.
Future War Cultist wrote: They're under eu regulations at present but that can be changed in future.
The London Fisheries Agreement predates membership of the EU, though since it concerns a lot of EU member states it is likely to come up in the Brexit negotiations.
To put it a different way, we could have scrapped the fisheries agreement any time we wanted, whether in or out of the EU, and no doubt our EU partners would have had something to say about it. However they definitely would have had something to say if the EU didn't exist anyway, because scrapping any kind of wide-ranging international agreement affects the members.
A distinction that makes no difference, if you will.
I think I can hazard a guess what might be going on here. The UK will have to form some type of view of how to manage fish long term. At the moment this undertaken by EU fish quotas. It is likely as part of the EU negotiations we will lose our very favourable fishing terms and percentages compared to other countries. As it stands we can also fish in EU waters. By withdrawing from the agreement we also have no wider access to fish near the shores of other EU countries. Hence UK fisherpeople are likely to lose significantly from Brexit negotiations simply because of access (not the huge ocean going ones mind you). To offset this my hunch is that quotas will be dropped (except in marine protection areas) in the London Fisheries Agreement zone. This has two 'benefits':- Firstly DEFRA doesn't have to spend considerable resources managing a catch scheme (given that the Department has staff numbers akin to one person and their dog). Secondly it gives local UK fisherpeople access to more fish that they have lost from losing access to wider EU fisheries. Thirdly it lets the government tell the UK 'we took back control' to our own fleets. The disadvantage is that these local seas suddenly become ripe for mass fishing, both by the individual ships (with less impact) but also by the huge trawler fleets. If this is taken forward then I'd predict that we might bumper catches for a few years but give it 30-40 years then the fish stocks collapse and we will have a repeat of the grand banks cod collapse all over again.
Of course the other thing very few people are noting is that the UK doesn't actually have a workable fleet to stop foreign ships fishing in 'UK waters'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It was a New Zealander Brit who kicked off nuclear power by splitting the atom in 1917, and a lot of Brits were involved in the Manhattan Project, so the British can lay a good claim to be a big part of the multi-national effort to invent nuclear energy production.
Just to clarify (and to nitpick) no human was responsible for fission of atoms. That happens naturally all the time and there have natural nuclear reactors in geological formations as well...better wording would be "controlling the reactions in sustainable way".
We really need to send EDF packing. The nation that invented civil nuclear power reduced to this...
This is not a surprise. You have both the exchange rate and leaving Euratom that has caused costs to increase and uncertainty in the industry (with our own nuclear regulator completely under resourced to do the job). Secondly they were pushed to bring costs down. EDF almost always had an "actual cost" and "actual timeline" hidden from the UK government to ensure things got through. Then you wait a year until you have got past the point of no return (in reality there never is except politically) and then wait for the government to change something (e.g. Euratom) thaqt they the company couldn't have perceived and lo and behold the costs suddenly escalate. There's an unwritten rule in project management. If you don't review from the start correctly the costs and timescales then your best guess of the cost and timescales is likely to be 1.5x to double what you thought.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/03 18:55:18
"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
I don't think the UK fisheries will lose much by being excluded from EU fishery areas. The problem with the UK fishing industry is that it is basically a kind of cottage industry which doesn't have the capability or need to go into the Med to snaffle up big catches of anchovies, for example.
Our fishermen do pretty well at small coastal fishing like Cornish sardines (recently granted EU DOCG status,) mackerel and lobsters, and the bits of cod left after we mismanaged the North Sea in the 1970s, and so on.
reds8n wrote: ..so post the election certain elements of the Tory party are doing a bit of soul searching about what they need to do to attract people back to them.
Certain ministers are also lying to us about wages but that's pretty self evident so moving on..
I'm sure there's many people with a spare £20K or so sat around who would have voted for the tories but went for Corbyn instead.
It's a stellar argument that to avoid debt all you need to do is be rich, one's hat is truly doffed.
You only have to read the first sentence of the next paragraph to see that all this chap is advocating is the scrapping of inheritance tax. So much for a far reaching and visionary conservative appeal to the young, this is just some of exactly the same old Tory ideology.
But, tbf, the old duffer is a knighted ex-MP, ex-Minister of State first elected in 1979, who's clearly got his finger on the pulse of youthful public opinion.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Ketara wrote: I'm not exactly what you'd call a fan of Murdoch (understatement of the year), but I'd elect to have Murdoch outside No.10 in a sleeping bag before taking us back to the chaos of '70's any day. There's always going to be people with a certain level of influence over the government, but there's a difference between influence and control. Murdoch has the former, the Unions back then were the latter.
To be fair to the unions, while they went too far in their overweening pride and power, at least they were democratic organisations of millions of ordinary British workers. Murdoch OTOH is an American ex-Australian oligarch. Thus I am not clear why his influence is preferable to the unions' power.
reds8n wrote: ..so post the election certain elements of the Tory party are doing a bit of soul searching about what they need to do to attract people back to them.
Certain ministers are also lying to us about wages but that's pretty self evident so moving on..
I'm sure there's many people with a spare £20K or so sat around who would have voted for the tories but went for Corbyn instead.
It's a stellar argument that to avoid debt all you need to do is be rich, one's hat is truly doffed.
You only have to read the first sentence of the next paragraph to see that all this chap is advocating is the scrapping of inheritance tax. So much for a far reaching and visionary conservative appeal to the young, this is just some of exactly the same old Tory ideology.
But, tbf, the old duffer is a knighted ex-MP, ex-Minister of State first elected in 1979, who's clearly got his finger on the pulse of youthful public opinion.
That's not exactly true. Inheritance tax is a tax on the estates of the deceased. Tax on gifts potential affects people every year, not once a lifetime. (The main argument against inheritance tax is that a lot of fairly modestly "rich" middle-class people will end up paying it because of the high value of their houses. Then again, why not?)
That said, very few people are rich enough to be able to dosh out a lot of £3,000 tax free gifts a year, and I don't see any particular reason to let the rich dosh out even more to their over-privileged relations without them having to pay a decent level of tax.
If nurses and midwives are to get a pay increase less below inflation that the current one, the money has to come from somewhere.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/03 19:08:27
To be fair to the unions, while they went too far in their overweening pride and power, at least they were democratic organisations of millions of ordinary British workers. Murdoch OTOH is an American ex-Australian oligarch. Thus I am not clear why his influence is preferable to the unions' power.
.
As stated before, the worst Murdoch can do is write a nasty article about someone. The worst the Unions could do was grind the country to a halt (power cuts or unburied dead anyone?). You say they were democratic. And they were. To a point. Then you have the various tales of 'Join the Union or get your head kicked in or fired', the rigged elections (which happen even now, Private Eye has been following McCluskey's actions with great glee), the 'jobs for the boys' union officials who look the right way, and lest we forget, the number of them that turned out to be in the pay of or taking money from a foreign Communist superpower.
Compared to all that? Murdoch is a kitten and the veritable bastion of democracy.
Unions are a bit like churches. When they work for a common good for the average man, they work beautifully. When they go wrong? They turn into dictatorial, violent, corrupt, and thoroughly unpleasant organisations.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/03 20:30:58
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think the UK fisheries will lose much by being excluded from EU fishery areas. The problem with the UK fishing industry is that it is basically a kind of cottage industry which doesn't have the capability or need to go into the Med to snaffle up big catches of anchovies, for example.
Our fishermen do pretty well at small coastal fishing like Cornish sardines (recently granted EU DOCG status,) mackerel and lobsters, and the bits of cod left after we mismanaged the North Sea in the 1970s, and so on.
That's not really the issue. Almost certainly deregulation will result better catches for all initially. But it will proportionally benefit the larger trawler fleets as they have both the peoplepower and fleet to benefit most from deregulation. They are also the ones most hit by not being able to fish elsewhere to provide more 'unique' fish in UK ports. However deregulation will mean that the larger trawler fleets will be able to start hoovering up all the fish near UK waters (Cornish sardines and all). It will all be fine for a while until you a hit a certain threshold and then fish stocks are likely to collapse as the over fishing has long term impacts like it did in the grand banks. For those that aren't aware in the 60-70s when large scale ships became viable, whole fleets of ships arrived in an extremely cod rich area in the grand banks and basically fished the area to oblivion. There was an assumption that it would just restock but the over fishing changed the area dramatically. The cod ate small sea creatures and kept them under control. With the cod decimated nothing stopped these sea creatures exploding in numbers. However these sea creatures ate the cod fry/eggs which meant that the few cod left couldn't repopulate the grand banks as all the cod fry just were swallowed. In a few decades of overfishing it completely changed the regions ecosystem (eventually we are likely to do this to a critical species to human survival and it's likely to be game over then). However there is a lesson here for the UK and I fear we haven't really learnt that lesson (noting Tories only listen to evidence when it is convenient, otherwise they "just have had enough of experts").
Unions are a bit like churches. When they work for a common good for the average man, they work beautifully. When they go wrong? They turn into dictatorial, violent, corrupt, and thoroughly unpleasant organisations.
Unfortunately the average person once given power seems to go a bit power hungry and will do everything they can to stay there regardless of how good it does the people generally. That appears to happen in all walks of life, whether that be in politics, unions, business, tv broadcasters and so on. There is a view that most people at the top are basically one step away from being psychopaths because to get where they are they pretty much have to tread on a lot of people and not really care about the damage they cause on the way). As such I'm not particularly sure there is that much difference between Murdoch and McCluskey. As for Murdoch's power he might not have direct control but I'm sure he has a lot of indirect influence and has plenty of dirt on people he wishes to control.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/03 20:38:20
"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
Whirlwind wrote: As such I'm not particularly sure there is that much difference between Murdoch and McCluskey. As for Murdoch's power he might not have direct control but I'm sure he has a lot of indirect influence and has plenty of dirt on people he wishes to control.
McCluskey is a different kettle of a fish. I'd agree there isn't much difference between those two today, I despise them both.
The question being posed wasn't 'Are contemporary Unions any better than Murdoch' though, but rather those of forty days yesteryear. To which the answer has to be that they were infinitely more powerful, more influential, and more damaging to this country than Murdoch could ever hope to be.
Whirlwind wrote: As such I'm not particularly sure there is that much difference between Murdoch and McCluskey. As for Murdoch's power he might not have direct control but I'm sure he has a lot of indirect influence and has plenty of dirt on people he wishes to control.
McCluskey is a different kettle of a fish. I'd agree there isn't much difference between those two today, I despise them both.
The question being posed wasn't 'Are contemporary Unions any better than Murdoch' though, but rather those of forty days yesteryear. To which the answer has to be that they were infinitely more powerful, more influential, and more damaging to this country than Murdoch could ever hope to be.
I don't disagree for a minute about the 1970s and Unions running amok, but the flipside also happened in the 1980s, and this was it:
A police force attacking like paramilitaries for the Conservative government. MI5 infiltrating trade unions and acting as agent provocateurs, and a massive cover up that took years to see the light of day.
I am of course referring to South Yorkshire police, their role in the Miners' strikes, and of course, their shameless attempt to cover up the Hillsborough disaster.
The Conservative government knew full well what was going on, but it suited their purposes to turn a blind eye. We know this from inquiries, memoirs, eyewitnesses, and papers released under the 30 year.
rule.
This is not whataboutery on my part, merely an attempt to highlight what came after the power of the unions had been broken.
Point is, both sides were as bad as each other.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/03 22:11:16
"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
reds8n wrote: ..so post the election certain elements of the Tory party are doing a bit of soul searching about what they need to do to attract people back to them.
Certain ministers are also lying to us about wages but that's pretty self evident so moving on..
I'm sure there's many people with a spare £20K or so sat around who would have voted for the tories but went for Corbyn instead.
It's a stellar argument that to avoid debt all you need to do is be rich, one's hat is truly doffed.
You only have to read the first sentence of the next paragraph to see that all this chap is advocating is the scrapping of inheritance tax. So much for a far reaching and visionary conservative appeal to the young, this is just some of exactly the same old Tory ideology.
But, tbf, the old duffer is a knighted ex-MP, ex-Minister of State first elected in 1979, who's clearly got his finger on the pulse of youthful public opinion.
That's not exactly true. Inheritance tax is a tax on the estates of the deceased. Tax on gifts potential affects people every year, not once a lifetime. (The main argument against inheritance tax is that a lot of fairly modestly "rich" middle-class people will end up paying it because of the high value of their houses. Then again, why not?)
That said, very few people are rich enough to be able to dosh out a lot of £3,000 tax free gifts a year, and I don't see any particular reason to let the rich dosh out even more to their over-privileged relations without them having to pay a decent level of tax.
If nurses and midwives are to get a pay increase less below inflation that the current one, the money has to come from somewhere.
What are you saying is not exactly true? That article was about a Tory peer attempting to say that the tories must attract the young, but then rubbishes and belittles social media and money trees and espouses cuts to inheritence tax as the key to winning over the young.
Is that not what you took from the article, because when I read it, that's exactly what it said to me.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/03 22:33:11
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
The difference, to put it bluntly, is that one side is the government. The people we vote for. Your democratic, elected representative. Not some trumped up Trotskyite taking shillings from Joe across the pond. The minute that another unelected faction or group is wielding that sort of power over the country, it starts becoming more existential. Christ knows enough Union officials of the day were sitting there quoting Marx and portraying it as the people's struggle for revolution (some still do, in fact....).
If you set yourself up as an alternative power base and contend with a government, that government has to ultimately break you or be replaced by you. That's how it works, and the Unions ultimately instigated that. So I don't really have an issue with the like of MI5 infiltration, they wouldn't have been doing their jobs otherwise. Brutality is to be condemned no matter the perpetrator. I shed few tears for the Unions though, they spent no less than fifteen years gradually driving various governments into a corner until they felt they had to act like that. Had the Unions stayed true to their roots, to what they were founded for, to the spirit of the Jarrow March, representing their working men as best they could instead of playing red politics? Much distress could have been avoided.
Sorry, what? I'm not sure what =/= means in this context? Are you saying gifts are not equal to inheritance tax?
I was alking about the paragraph in the article after reds8n's quote,
Inheritance tax paid by families has now reached £5 billion a year. This is a tax on an assets acquired from taxed income. House prices have dramatically risen but the threshold for the tax has remained unchanged since 2010. This is a most unconservative policy which does not support the family. Surely it is time to change.
As far as I'm aware, many conservatives have sought to get rid of inheritance tax for ideological reasons. This old chap appears to be trying to dress that old ideology up in a way to make it appear as if it is purely to benefit the young.
Removing inheritance tax, which is a tax on unearned income, for the recipient, would mean a loss of £4.6 billion in tax revenue, and seeing as the threshold starts at £325k, it's not really going to affect the average household.
It will, however, affect sort of people who support and bankroll the conservatives, which is why this old boy is against it, the fact that it may help out the young generation of the wealthy is likely just a favourable side effect.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/03 22:59:10
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
The difference, to put it bluntly, is that one side is the government. The people we vote for. Your democratic, elected representative. Not some trumped up Trotskyite taking shillings from Joe across the pond. The minute that another unelected faction or group is wielding that sort of power over the country, it starts becoming more existential. Christ knows enough Union officials of the day were sitting there quoting Marx and portraying it as the people's struggle for revolution (some still do, in fact....).
If you set yourself up as an alternative power base and contend with a government, that government has to ultimately break you or be replaced by you. That's how it works, and the Unions ultimately instigated that. So I don't really have an issue with the like of MI5 infiltration, they wouldn't have been doing their jobs otherwise. Brutality is to be condemned no matter the perpetrator. I shed few tears for the Unions though, they spent no less than fifteen years gradually driving various governments into a corner until they felt they had to act like that. Had the Unions stayed true to their roots, to what they were founded for, to the spirit of the Jarrow March, representing their working men as best they could instead of playing red politics? Much distress could have been avoided.
You make good points about the Unions of the 70s, but Murdoch is still a power obsessed, and highly influential scumbag, right now. It's not the power of the Unions that are the current threat, but the power and influence of unfettered oligarchs, and monopolies of the tiny band of super wealthy who are seeking to shape the country to suit themselves, to the detriment of the nation. They may not be as obvious, but power still attracts the power hungry, and we must make sure Govt is able to resist outside influence, from whomever that maybe. We need a new "Thatcher" to break the power of the oligarchs.
A new set of people are trying to control our government. Talking about the unions of the 70s maybe a reminder of past issues, but it also distracts people from the current threat. We don't even have a reliable media to expose the threat, as much of it is owned by the very people who seek to hold the reins of power.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Future War Cultist wrote: ...When I see these sorts of sad old losers with their Che Guevara merchandise I just think to myself, why don't you just fething grow up.
Says the adult on Dakka Dakka.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
As much as the Conservatives shout about it from the rooftops, the power of the Unions in this country has been broken. The days of Red Robbo and the flying pickets are long gone.
Alas, the pendulum has swung the other way, and without at least a half-decent trade union, who is standing up for workers against the exploitation of uber, zero hour contracts, the shambles that is our railways etc etc
The difference, to put it bluntly, is that one side is the government. The people we vote for. Your democratic, elected representative. Not some trumped up Trotskyite taking shillings from Joe across the pond. The minute that another unelected faction or group is wielding that sort of power over the country, it starts becoming more existential. Christ knows enough Union officials of the day were sitting there quoting Marx and portraying it as the people's struggle for revolution (some still do, in fact....).
If you set yourself up as an alternative power base and contend with a government, that government has to ultimately break you or be replaced by you. That's how it works, and the Unions ultimately instigated that. So I don't really have an issue with the like of MI5 infiltration, they wouldn't have been doing their jobs otherwise. Brutality is to be condemned no matter the perpetrator. I shed few tears for the Unions though, they spent no less than fifteen years gradually driving various governments into a corner until they felt they had to act like that. Had the Unions stayed true to their roots, to what they were founded for, to the spirit of the Jarrow March, representing their working men as best they could instead of playing red politics? Much distress could have been avoided.
I don't disagree with this, but in the 1980s, South Yorkshire police, and other British police forces, were a law onto themselves, and it was done with the full knowledge of the government of the day, and not just against striking miners. . It's one of the reasons why I distrust the police so much.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/04 09:26:25
"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
There's a really good video art installation at Tate Britain on the Embankment. It takes nearly half an hour to watch, and covers a notorious police versus miners battle from the strike, re-enacted in the modern day.
Back when the Unions used to walk into Downing Street for tea once a week to tell the Prime Minister what he should be doing, or they'd cripple the country
How's that any different from Rupert Murdoch walking into Downing Street and doing the same?
God forbid actually working people get a say in the government! Better leave that to the plutocrats
See, we do this thing called voting, which ostensibly permits the working people of the country to say who gets to be the government. We had an election just the other week in fact.
When you start throwing in other (unelected) factors exerting actual control (instead of merely influence) over the government, that's what most people would call a subversion of democracy.
Doesn't seem to stop the rich and powerful from controlling the government outside of election day, so why shouldn't working people try to gain some influence?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/04 12:27:16
r_squared wrote:
You make good points about the Unions of the 70s, but Murdoch is still a power obsessed, and highly influential scumbag, right now.
You'll get no disagreement from me there,
It's not the power of the Unions that are the current threat,
They're not an immediate 'threat' per se, but I would add the disclaimer that the likes of McCluskey are in the middle of trying to take control of the Labour Party (again...), and considering he operates in the same mold as those who came before, it is vaguely topical. As mentioned, Private Eye's been following McCluskey's shenanigans for some time; it looks like he might actually be about to get dragged to court for misusing funds and cronyism. Not much point in changing the system if it's a case of 'Here comes new boss, same as old boss', y'know? We want the pendulum to go from the right back to the centre, not a sharp deviation to the hard left.
but the power and influence of unfettered oligarchs, and monopolies of the tiny band of super wealthy who are seeking to shape the country to suit themselves, to the detriment of the nation. They may not be as obvious, but power still attracts the power hungry, and we must make sure Govt is able to resist outside influence, from whomever that maybe. We need a new "Thatcher" to break the power of the oligarchs.
Couldn't agree more. I think the Government is far too susceptible to the likes of PWC and other large corporations right now. I think the entire system needs re-examining from the ground up to an extent, from the length of Parliament (which should probably go up a year or two to permit more long term planning) to constituents having the power to yank out their MP's if they're not doing what they said they would. Not to mention the Lords.
ulgurstasta wrote:
Doesn't seem to stop the rich and powerful from controlling the government outside of election day, so why shouldn't working people try to gain some influence?
Their democratically elected MP's ARE their influence in the halls of government. That's the point of them. You can't have a Parliament with 70 million people in it, so we elect people to do things on our behalf. They represent the influence of the 'working people', as you put it. Certainly, they do it far better than a bunch of unelected Marxists in the employ of a foreign Government.
Unless you're seriously going to sit there and tell me that the likes of Arthur Scargill (the unelected bloke who was very happily lining his own nest with money from the SU and Libya) or Jack Jones (who swapped internal Labour files for cash from the KGB) better represented the democratic will of the people than their own MP's?
There's a serious argument to be made that our MP's aren't susceptible enough to pressure from their constituents. That argument is not best made by pointing at Unions of the 1970's and '80's as an alternative though.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/07/04 13:50:04
Accept them as a flawed, reformable but necessary brake on Parliamentary power?
Consider the Labour landslide of 1997. Three Line Whip, and they could've forced through anything, absolutely anything they wanted.
The Lords are there to help prevent abused of power.
It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but without a serious political revolution (a non-violent one, mind) there's nothing we can do - the current system allows retired politicians something else to do.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
