• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

scaramanga said:
Why would anyone about to walk an election take part in a debate that draws far too much attention to minority parties?

I've got no love for May, but if she's stupid enough to take part in a debate from her position then she's far too stupid to run the country.
Click to expand...

It's called respecting the democratic process and the voting public and not taking them for mugs. Both ITV and the BBc must show the empty chair. What cowards these Tories are. I thought Corbyn was meant to be easy meat. What a bunch of pussies.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
It's called respecting the democratic process and the voting public and not taking them for mugs. Both ITV and the BBc must show the empty chair. What cowards these Tories are. I thought Corbyn was meant to be easy meat. What a bunch of pussies.
Click to expand...
It's got nothing to do with being cowards and you well know it. Parties with a tiny share of the popular vote always get a huge bump from debates like these.

The conservatives are currently the only party due to get anything more than a tiny share of the popular vote so why give the minor parties like Labour an equal amount of screen time?
 
elltrev said:
No you haven't, which is fair enough - that's why I wanted to confirm it here, to see the root of disagreement between you and others (incl. myself) rather than endlessly going round in circles.

A second question though - do you believe that everyone has the same opportunity in life? And if not, do you think something should be done to try and increase the opportunity of those who start with less? And if so, what thing and who should it be done by?
Click to expand...
I don't believe everyone has the same opportunity and I'd like everyone to have the same opportunity as long as it doesn't mean the state taking anything away from anyone.

Most important is that everyone has a chance - that's far more important than any perceived imbalance in the quality of chances.
 
@Gilzeantoscore - you'll be glad, I assume, to see that May has outdone Comrade Corbyn in terms of brickness of her manifesto.

Whilst it was unusually bad for Labour to have taken a 1-2 point drop when theirs leaked, May has managed to lose 3 points by accidentally publishing Ed "The wrong" Miliband's manifesto.
 
she is wacking the middle class with elderly care, she must be massively confident of a huge majority

i think it could be the lowest turn out ever for an election

In all seriousness I do not know who to vote for, I ruined the ballot last time. I do quite like Corbyn, so despite my long held beliefs i might just go for the one i trust despite not beliving in a lot of his policies.
 
scaramanga said:
I don't believe everyone has the same opportunity and I'd like everyone to have the same opportunity as long as it doesn't mean the state taking anything away from anyone.

Most important is that everyone has a chance - that's far more important than any perceived imbalance in the quality of chances.
Click to expand...

I think it's quite hard to define 'a chance' in those black and white terms. Out of interest, roughly what percentage of the population do you think has 'a chance'?

And if you don't want the state to give a chance to people who lack it, who do you think should - just charities? And/or someone else?
 
Gutter Boy said:
It's one of two ways for mankind to cope with automation. The other is essentially an Elysium (the 2013 film) scenario - a gated community for 1% and an anarchic struggle for survival for the rest.
Click to expand...

Don't worry we'll fill the gaps with new ways to entertain ourselves, new ways to live, with new jobs, and fresh aspirations. Automation won't simplify labour, it will complicate it with more diverse possibilities.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
I've always maintained that the Tories have contempt for democratic principles and the British people in particular and May's gutless response to the offer of televised debates demonstrates this. She claims that her government have a magnificent story to tell to the British people, so why doesn't she take the opportunity to shout it from the roof top during the debate? We all know the answer to that. May wants to subvert democracy, by hiding from the accountability that the scrutiny of the debates would provide for her opponents. How weak and unconvincing was her cop out explanation? "I'm a constituency based politician and I want to meet members of the public face to face." Is she kidding? Does she think that as prime minister she has no moral obligation to face up to the nation as a whole? All this evasion begs the question, what do May and her Merry Band of Incompetent Tories have to hide?
Click to expand...

Why debase politics to tv quality? You can't vote for any of the leaders unless you are one of the 74000 who lives in their constituency. Local hustings are where democracy happens. We have a parliamentary, not a presidential system.
 
galeforce said:
the immigration policy alone suggests they are too stupid to run the country
Click to expand...

Anything other than controlled immigration of skilled workers and spouses is a ponzi scheme which serves big business at the expense of local communities. Western countries needs to learn to balance the books with their naturally declining populations.
 
elltrev said:
I think it's quite hard to define 'a chance' in those black and white terms. Out of interest, roughly what percentage of the population do you think has 'a chance'?

And if you don't want the state to give a chance to people who lack it, who do you think should - just charities? And/or someone else?
Click to expand...
I think almost everyone has a chance and an opportunity. Those who don't are incredibly rare IMO. Pretty much everyone has an education, most will be at least as good as mine. There are all kinds of jobs that offer quick routes to free management training - even McDonalds can have you on leadership courses within a year or two.

I don't mind the state offering opportunities, I just don't think they should take anything from people to do so. Grammar schools are a good example of giving everyone a better opportunity without any extra cost.
 
n
scaramanga said:
I don't think I've ever denied that - empathy is a complete waste of time.

As long as every has the opportunity to do better then I'm happy. Those who take that opportunity least well will always be less well off. Those who make the most of those chances will, on the whole, do better out of life.
Click to expand...

Oh an acolyte of that nut job of Ayn Rand I see.
 
Last edited:
Gutter Boy said:
Why debase politics to tv quality? You can't vote for any of the leaders unless you are one of the 74000 who lives in their constituency. Local hustings are where democracy happens. We have a parliamentary, not a presidential system.
Click to expand...


That is all correct and all very well, but we all know the woman is hiding. Gutless! Elections entered the modern age in 1966, (ironic given that she looks like an extra from Carry On Teacher.) It seems May and her band of reactionaries haven't quite caught up with that yet. Typical, as it pretty much sums up their backward looking agenda for the nation.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Why debase politics to tv quality? You can't vote for any of the leaders unless you are one of the 74000 who lives in their constituency. Local hustings are where democracy happens. We have a parliamentary, not a presidential system.
Click to expand...

All well and good, but the Tories want it all ways. It is the right who try to turn elections away from policy and into a vote for a party leader (don't vote Miliband, he can't eat a sandwich, don't vote Corbyn etc.) They even go as far as portraying a Tory vote as a vote for May rather than their party.

And yet they don't want her in a TV debate with Corbyn -- this isn't down to not "debasing" politics, this is down to May being absolutely awful at speaking in an environment that isn't strictly controlled in her favour. They don't want to shatter the "strong and stable" illusion into "stumbling and weak."
 
The Torys introduced the tv debates in the first place because they knew Cameron was much more popular than his party, and would destroy Brown.

You can't really complain about your prospective leaders being smart enough to be strategic. It's a good quality for government. In all walks of life the winners are usually those who determine the rules.
 
Gutter Boy said:
The Torys introduced the tv debates in the first place because they knew Cameron was much more popular than his party, and would destroy Brown.

You can't really complain about your prospective leaders being smart enough to be strategic. It's a good quality for government. In all walks of life the winners are usually those who determine the rules.
Click to expand...

I can complain, because as you illustrate, the Tories want it all ways -- tv debates when they perceive it suits them. If May doesn't want a debate, don't try and pretend that it's about some b0ll0cks of not debasing politics, and how everybody huddles around at local hustings and pays no attention to party leaders. She doesn't want to debate because she would be phucking useless in the format and Lynton Crosby is doing everything he can to protect the "strong and stable" illusion.
 
the dza said:
I can complain, because as you illustrate, the Tories want it all ways -- tv debates when they perceive it suits them. If May doesn't want a debate, don't try and pretend that it's about some b0ll0cks of not debasing politics, and how everybody huddles around at local hustings and pays no attention to party leaders. She doesn't want to debate because she would be phucking useless in the format and Lynton Crosby is doing everything he can to protect the "strong and stable" illusion.
Click to expand...

Of course they do what will favour them the most

But I didn't mean to confuse my objection to them with theirs. I just think they are detrimental to the public perception of politics - it turns it into an episode of Jeremy Kyle, and dislike the implied presidentialism of them.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Of course they do what will favour them the most

But I didn't mean to confuse my objection to them with theirs. I just think they are detrimental to the public perception of politics - it turns it into an episode of Jeremy Kyle, and dislike the implied presidentialism of them.
Click to expand...

I agree with you to an extent, I think we should move away from the 'presidentialism' of politics. It should be about policy, what a potential government wants to do and how they are going to do it.

I do, however, think TV debates could be effective in getting the policy differences out there to the general public. I wouldn't write them off entirely, but perhaps do them in a different way.
 
the dza said:
I can complain, because as you illustrate, the Tories want it all ways -- tv debates when they perceive it suits them. If May doesn't want a debate, don't try and pretend that it's about some b0ll0cks of not debasing politics, and how everybody huddles around at local hustings and pays no attention to party leaders. She doesn't want to debate because she would be phucking useless in the format and Lynton Crosby is doing everything he can to protect the "strong and stable" illusion.
Click to expand...

UUUGGGHHH, Lynton Crosby what an evil lying Cnut he is!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back