Since the labour party under ol windbag removed clause IV- the 'modern ' version of labour seem very much auto cue readers-- they all talk in management speak , non committal , --where are the ideas, we are in a huge crisis of capitalism-- the spawn of Ralph M are scared to even speak in case they upset the media .....democracy ... your'e avin a laff !
Not sure if you've noticed, but its modern life, everywhere...
Some of the stronger opposition (UKIP) getting dismissed as racists when they aren't doesn't help...
If I lived in Malvern, I'd shout it at Stoner every single day. 😈
To be fair, I dismissed UKIP after reading there manifesto
Some of the stronger opposition (UKIP) getting dismissed as racists when they aren't doesn't help...
"stronger opposition"
How are you defining that? Given that they seem to be all but unelectable, I'm not sure how they can be a strong opposition to anything - they control no councils, have no MP's and are not even the official opposition in any council chambers - independent candidates rank higher than UKIP in terms of UK political opposition.
I personally wouldn't dismiss them as racists. I would dismiss them, but not just as racists. When the leader of the youth wing of UKIP has been removed for his support for the legalisation of necrophilia, then there is a wider problem in an organisation, and racism becomes only part of the potential list of problems.
ah, but Id never call you a Socialist, comrade. 😉
bokonon - the necrophilia thing is an interesting point.
What is your problem with it?
Some of the stronger opposition (UKIP) getting dismissed as racists when they aren't doesn't help...
Might be because they [i]are[/i] racist?
When I was at Cardiff Uni some tory mp was coming to speak in the great hall.
there were people their selling socialist worker, and loads of socialists and lefties in the audience, ready to heckle the tory mp.
BBC Wales were there as well.
A tory student bought a copy of the socialist worker (from an unsuspecting seller), climbed the steps and walked to the center of the main stage, and proceeded to rip it up in front of the audience.
Absolutely excellent - massive uproar, the coverage made the news, and the tory mp never got to speak!
Id never call you a Socialist
True, comrade. I'm a Thoreauvian Bontrageralist. 8)
Just got to sort out my manifesto.
What is your problem with it?
Warm or cold?
Thumbshifters to each only according to their need, brother. I demand some redistribution of the means of shifting!
What is your problem with it?
The moral case against it is based on informed consent - this becomes difficult if not impossible to give in this context. Consent is something which a person can give and take away as they choose, at the time of their choosing. You can base a position on on a previously given consent - and people generally do in terms of burials, but with something as intimate as sex, it's not acceptable to not give them the opportunity to judge on their consent on a case by case basis (as is an agreed societal norm, unlike GG, I do think that permission should be sought "prior to each insertion") as such, it's something that should remain out of bounds.
The more practical case against necrophilia more generally is that, it's a dead body, that is, a no longer functioning one, which can reasonably quickly become somewhere which harbours dangerous nasties which you then might pass on to someone else. It is a case against not doing it in the first case, rather than legislating against it.
Have you been to Malvern recently noteeth? It's one big hippy naturist commune, curiously centred around the one they call "The Giant". 😯
naturist
I'm in. Point the way.
I hear they worship sheds.
It's one big hippy naturist commune
I bet you can see a young Stoner on Youtube, 'avin it at Castlemorton.
I haven't been there since the 1993 Malverns Classic. I'll have to find my Bula hat.
I demand some redistribution of the means of shifting!
I won't be re-distributing any of my XT Thumbies. They are a major part of my pension plan! 🙂
You still don't get it?
Politics is easy:
[img] 
?w=263&h=201[/img]
The first party to come out and say if they get in power they will legalise weed, a whole raft of stoners will wake up from their stupor and shuffle their way to the voting booth. Lets make this happen.
a whole [s]raft[/s] shed of stoners
The first party to come out and say if they get in power they will legalise weed, a whole raft of stoners will wake up from their stupor and shuffle their way to the voting booth. Lets make this happen.
How about:
DU405 Cannabis would be removed from the 1971 Misuse of drugs act. The possession, trade and cultivation of cannabis would be immediately decriminalised,
from - http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/du
Lets do this!! *puff puff*
What were we doing again? oh yeah, going down the garage for some crisps and pop.
Socialism-- -- a word that must not be used
Communism would be more like it, so lets ban the word socialism and "make it real"
I'm a Fifth Internationalist.
Point the way.
Using a finger please!
democracy ... your'e avin a laff !
It is in fact democracy in action. Society has shifted to the point where it would never vote for an old school socialist party, so the party that used to provide it has changed to one that provides something that people WOULD vote for.
It's democracy working perfectly.
However, it's taken for granted that democracy is automatically the ideal way to run a country but there are patently some huge issues with it. The biggest of which can be revealed in a five minute conversation with the average voter (I think Churchill said that).
Democracy and civil education absolutely MUST go hand in hand, otherwise the whole exercise is worthless. It becomes an exercise in who can be the most persuasive, or can brainwash the most people by spending the most money.
'Service guarantees citizenship' perhaps Molgrips?
People usually vote for the party they belive will do them good, so the ones with money will vote for the tories, and those in council houses and a working class upbringing, will vote labour, those who dont/cant think, vote liberal.
The new labour lot have got what is easily described as a wet tea bag in charge,full of holes, little strength, and needs to be stirred up to get a result,but then before the next election he will be gone,thankfully after keeping the bog seat warm for a good leader.
Rawlsian Liberal here.
The trick to being elected is to offend the least number of people, so parties compete to stand for as little as possible, hoping someone else alienates more voters than they do. No one knew what Cameron and Osbourne stood for (other then self enrichment), but they managed to scrape their way into power.
'Service guarantees citizenship' perhaps Molgrips?
A world that works.
Civil education is hard to implement. But I wonder if the political parties realise that if everyone actually understood the issues properly they would not be able to convince people to vote for them purely with hot air...
Maybe some sort of canon of essays or more likely tv programmes that all parties could agree on and be presented in schools or on the internet. What's that you say? Parties would never agree? Well, if they really wanted to help people understand what they do, then they would find a way to aqree. They should be able to set out their ideologies straightforwardly, and economics is trying to be a science so we should be able to talk about that without getting into an argument.
Most complicated things come with a handbook and a FAQ to help you understand what you've got. Except your franchise - they seem to want to obfuscate that as much as possible.
Rawlsian Liberal here
youll grow out of it,hopefully, if not medication can help.
'Service guarantees citizenship' perhaps Molgrips?
Great film!
[img] 
[/img]
project - MemberPeople usually vote for the party they belive will do them good
Not really convinced this is true tbh. it's a factor but is it that dominant?
Look at the US election- Romney famously wrote off 47% of the electorate as they would never vote for him due to self-interest, yet obviously many of the 47% did- and not just despite self-interest, but despite having been told by the man himself that they would vote for the other guy.
Where you have a socialist party, presumably many people do vote for them because they believe that they'll be personally better off, but many also vote for them despite knowing they'll be personally worse off, financially at least.
The book is better Footflaps
(aren't they always!)
Actually, its quite an interesting diatribe on the whole concept of democracy and electoral franchise - but never quite clear what Heinleins interpretation of 'service' was, as his later statements that to him it encompassed a wider concept than purely military service were hard to read from the book - but on a purely conceptual basis, if that was his intent then I'd say he may well have had a point 🙂
Have you been to Malvern recently noteeth? It's one big hippy naturist commune, curiously centred around the one they call "The Giant".
Only because of his height. Nothing else.
but never quite clear what Heinleins interpretation of 'service' was
There are whole thesis on the subject eg:
With regards to the OP, here's my tuppence worth.
Socialism is a dirty word because the second you admit to having [u]any[/u] socialist sympathies (even within a basic framework of capitalism) the likes of the ratings agencies and 'global finance' (whatever the hell that is) will stick the boot in. This is because they are inherently interested in keeping the rich in clover, whether the rest do OK or not is beside the point to them. Strange really, because I don't remember electing Moodys or Standard & Poors to run the economy of this country.
What I think we need is a departure from this arse-about-face relationship. I would like a party (of whatever stripe) to try to form some sort of international agreement to tell these ratings agencies to get stuffed. If you managed to get some kind of momentum behind something like this the agencies would become less relevant as they only succeed by playing countries off against each other - replace the competition with consensus and we could be on to something.....
Also, I believe the Labour Party is a victim of historical misfortune. After the poll tax, being in hoc to the Ulster Unionists in the commons, recession and sleaze, it was a slam-dunk that Labour would win the 97 election. If John Smith (RIP) hadn't died at the time he did, we would still have a more traditionally socialist Labour Party that would have ridden the wave of economic boom in the late 90's and early noughties anyway - it would be in more traditional shape today whatever. The arch hypocrite Blair didn't have to sell all of Labour's principles down the river to be elected, but he did anyway!
Now you have the bizarre situation where Ed Milliband (an empty suit IMO) cannot even espouse the most watered down Labour ideals without being called 'Red Ed' and Labour has surrendered some of the socialist high ground to a nutter like Galloway (at least in the eyes of some sections of the populace who aren't clever enough to realise what he is).
We would also not have had to put up with all the side-issues associated with Blair trying to carve a legacy for himself as an international statesman - let's face it, he could just have happily been a Tory PM - it wasn't about conviction for him, just about narcissism.
project - Member
People usually vote for the party they belive will do them good
It's not what I've been doing.
After the poll tax, being in hoc to the Ulster Unionists in the commons, recession and sleaze, it was a slam-dunk that Labour would win the 97 election.
But to be fair, they were widely acknowledged to be in to win the election in '92 as well!
I agree that I am obviously commenting with 20-20 hindsight, and that it would probably not have appeared to be a cert at the time.
Still, the sight of 'open-collar, guitar-toting' Tony and his champagne socialist loud-mouthed Mrs lording it around downing street still makes me want to vomit and laugh in equal measure.
Style over substance is what the public seem to want, and what the public want, they usually end up getting. In political terms anyway.