Forum menu
This is the worst goverment I can recall. However its also the worst opposition.
The fact that May still clings to power and that Gove and Johnson still have careers shows how poor the political landscape is at the moment. That's not to say that Labour are any better, they aren't. There is no political middle ground and I genuinely feel that there is no party deserving of my vote. Dragon mentioned that you don't have to actively endorse everything a party stands for in order to vote for them and this is very true. However I find it profoundly depressing that there is NO party that I can realistically vote for.
Same time that Labour admit that they would be no better.
Please remember that this is politics that we are talking about. The only difference is that the Tories are rather more honest in that at times they say that they see capitalism as the way forward. Labour not only cannot do any better but pretend that they can through huge amounts of hypocritical cobblers. Was about of noise about sharing it all but what they mean is " some one else can share theirs but I'm keeping mine". How many socialists take that first step by handing over their property to, lets say , the homeless. Bugger all I bet.
When it boils down to it , neither side will sort these problems out because the individuals are too selfish to start the ball rolling.
"<span style="color: #444444;"> </span><span style="color: #444444;">However I find it profoundly depressing that there is NO party that I can realistically vote for."</span>
Same here, I decided to vote Plaid in the last election, not for any real nationalistic reason, I've no love for an independent Wales, but they're 'Socially aware capitalists" (aka New Labour) at heart and very pro-EU, but they were never going to win my seat.
A few days before the election a rep of our proposed Labour MP knocked on my door, they promised that Labour would fight Brexit, or at very least ensure that we would 'leave' whilst retaining the same sort of relationship with the EU so I voted like I had in every previous election for Labour - she won, over-turning a Tory which pleased me - but the Tories still managed to hold onto power (just) and since what's the Labour party done about Brexit? SFA as they did on the lead up to the vote.
I have to accept that the Tories and the Lib Dems are the only real pro-EU national parties. Labour, or at least this version of it, is at it's core Anti-EU and why wouldn't they be? Dennis Skinner the most left of centre MP is rabidly Anti-EU and Anti-Immigration and Corbin, despite all his fluffy PR is politically in the same camp, he just doesn't have the principles to be honest about it, the best he can do is offer a few placating words around maintain workers right post-brexit - truthfully his version of a socialist utopia for the UK involves a low-value £ and a return to factories up and down the country and closed borders so 'cheap' workers from other countries can't under-cut us.
The fact that May still clings to power and that Gove and Johnson still have careers shows how poor the political landscape is at the moment.
The unfortunate thing we are seeing at the moment is a distinct lack of talent in politics. People like May and Corbyn are career politicians, and as such will carry on doing what they are doing regardless of how disastrous their "policies" are, May at the home office, now as PM demonstrates this.
Some people don't like the idea of "conviction politicians" maybe because the most recent one was Tony Blair, but as mentioned earlier in the thread, voters are voting for their least hated option which is not a good sign at all.
We only need to look to France to see how someone with some conviction can become a leader in a short space of time.
Reading through the above. Some one says that greed is socially acceptable. This is why people want what they cannot afford and borrow to buy luxuries.*
Serves them right if stupidity creates debt.
* A TV is a luxury, so is a phone, fags, booze or a bike that is any better than what is needed to get you to work and back.
Now lets see. Of course none of this applies to the labour supporter who is a hard working underdog who barely survives the winter, shivering in a slum and feeding their kids bread.
<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12.8px;">Some one says that greed is socially acceptable. This is why people want what they cannot afford</span>
Hmm not exactly...
<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12.8px;">Of course none of this applies to the labour supporter who is a hard working underdog who barely survives the winter, shivering in a slum and feeding their kids bread.</span>
Well, that's patent nonsense. Any self-respecting champagne socialist (I think the real target of your ire, like me) has long since realised that bread is bad for you and cut it from the Ocado order.
FFS.
Why does the right (again, what a misnomer) persist with this bizarre view of the world that says to care for one's fellow planet inhabitants is equivalent to wishing to live in poverty or equates to sacrificing everything they own. The Scandinavian countries are not without their difficulties (i.e. they are not utopia) but they seem to manage socially aware capitalism very well, thank you.
We should all be a bit more Scandi.
@mattsccm:
I have to take issue with you posting about “the left” as some nameless entity whereby it’s easy to sling accusations of hypocrisy or whatnot. It’s not really helpful.
Hands up here, I’m probably guilty of being a champagne socialist of some form. My own views are that “we” a a society ate too focussed on those who enjoy privilege, at the expense of those who don’t. The scales have tipped too far and I believe they need to be rebalanced. My parents enjoyed a high standard of living in middle age because they were elevated from working class backgrounds by post war Labour policies. They don’t see it that way, but they both bemoan the rampant unfairness of post 1979 Britain, even though they’re on the right of the political spectrum.
I’m off to enjoy some smashed avocado and prosecco now...
Thanks all - lots of R4 listeners on the thread, surprise surprise 😀 !
<span style="color: #444444; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: #eeeeee;">My parents enjoyed a high standard of living in middle age because they were elevated from working class backgrounds by post war Labour policies. </span>
Or possibly demographics and economics?
In that case, there were a lot of demographics and economics in the 1950s/60s.
No student debt of £48k and 6% interest either. Affordable housing too.
It's testament to how strong the newspaper's echo about what an appalling job Labour did on the economy - bar a global rescission - were actually doing a decent job. The fact that the Tories capitalised on the debt/deficit saga like the brexit campaign proved those with best marketing agency won.
Rather than the truth.
Good job no one is arguing that these muppets should be controlling/running more of the economy
remember nationalisation back in the day 😉 ?
I’d like to see government nationalised, thanks. The sooner it’s separated from corporate cash, the better IMHO.
And Nationalised entities don’t have to be crap - not every worldwide state owned business is as awful as British Leyland or Lucas.
What do we expect? there are 9.2 million people foreign born people now living in the U.K. - do you really expect that not have some form of effect on housing, income, the NHS, schools or crime?
To take the OP’s first example - homelessness. Over half of London’s rough sleepers are foreign nationals (GLA/CHAIN data)
A major contributor over the past feW years has been the growing representation of Central and Eastern European (CEE) nationals among London’s rough sleepers. Since 2010/11 the number of CEE London rough sleepers has grown by 182 per cent,
remember nationalisation back in the day 😉 ?
We are no longer living back in the day.
What I see now is that we currently send money to foreign governments who run some of our services for their state benefit.
Why would we give the benefit to them when we could retain it ? EDF and the likes of Abellio etc.
Now that's muppetry of the first order, pimping out contracts to state ownership of other countries. You can't make it up.
If foreign governments want to subsidise us by investing in low return projects that’s fine by me. The more the merrier. The xenophobes might not agree
I realised that in 1974.
Probably never. People have their own preconceived world views, and even when there is irrefutable evidence to the contrary are too stupid, egocentric, or lack critical thinking / mental capacity and merely continue down the path that satisfies their bigoted beliefs.
....and people are ****s.
I am sure if anyone walked into my life they would judge me as a champagne socialist, however the reason I have a lump of property, land and a business is because at 20 years old unemployed and on the bones of my arse living in my parents tied agricultural house I worked out that all the folks who were not affected by 1983 and Thatchers world had an education, property or a business. So I set about getting those things to protect myself - not to be like them.
Just because you appear to be something does not make you something...
Ninfan did you just come out of the UKIP closet?
It's funny really.
If left wing activists want to carry on their approach of insulting and aggressively shit mouthing people going about their lawful day-to-day life. Don't be surprised if we have our own Donald Trump style backlash from those that don't want be to dictated too.
Expecting people on mass to respond to reason and facts won't happen! Never has as long as I've been alive. 9 times out of 10, on mass we get a lurch to the right, not the left in times of perceived crisis.
A change of approach would be wise IMO. Perhaps adopting the effective silent majority tactics used against them!
Most British people IME are two faced, with a liberal public persona (to keep things polite) which relates little to their real views. They jump on any bandwagon (often exploited) to prevent/stall change they don't want, get little victories over their neighbours and people they don't like.
Looking forward to the government sorting out problems they have created with good old fashioned crack downs and justice, yawn, we have been here before.
The electorate like to be lied to and find the truth difficult to understand.
I remember the last time Labour were in power, the camaraderie in the half-mile queue for the job centre was almost blitz like in spirit.
I'm no fan of the tories, but do get irritated when the well off try and tell me I was better off under those conditions
Nothing like getting told by a champagne socialist that as one of the poorer members of society you're being selfish by not being pro-labour.
Do I have to be a *disabled half black bisexual Jew on benefits before I have the right to be better off?
Partisan politics are for the dim of thought.
*This is a trap, don't walk into it.
I just couldn't vote Tory.
Seen too many people directly impacted by their policies. Particularly in recent years.
The deaths and despair caused by a criminally underfunded NHS and completely decimated mental health system alone are enough to ensure I couldn't sleep if I voted for them.
If foreign governments want to subsidise us by investing in low return projects that’s fine by me. <
That would be completely ignoring the fact that the public would probably enjoy much lower bills.
Chestercopperpot wins best post(s) closet facists the lot of us...
I still don't understand peoples general dismissal of the Lib Dems.
I agree that they have had to make compromises in the past, as a junior partner in a coalition, but here we are on a thread discussing how shit Labour and the Tories are, and yet the middle ground option- that seems to be a option that would suit a lot of peoples beliefs on here - are being discounted out of hand.
Are the Lib Dems perceived transgressions any worse than the actual transgressions of L & C ?
It seems to me that Lib Dems are scorned by the 'left' for getting into bed with the Tories, and derided by the right as being too left wing, but IMHO the LD's occupy the middle ground of British politics that L & C were fighting over for a decade.
I'm honestly baffled as to why they are not bigger than they are.
-opens the floodgates for - you're so naive type comments.......
<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12.8px; background-color: #eeeeee;">Hands up here, I’m probably guilty of being a champagne socialist of some form</span>
I've never understood this as an insult. It means someone who's well off but wants to see policies that help those poorer than them, possibly at the expense of wealthier people like themselves.
If you want the same policies as a 'champagne socialist' but you're poor then the 'politics of envy' line gets wheeled out. It's just a way to attack the person suggesting a policy without addressing the policy itself.
As someone else said, years ago parties were trying to win voters by saying how much they'd spend on public services. Now it's all about lowering tax and to hell with the consequences (NHS A&E waiting times, homelessness, social care on the verge of collapse).
The problem with politicians is that they're all unqualified to do the job.
The only criteria to becoming an MP is to get people to vote for you, and the best way to do that is to bribe them and lie to them. Normally they lie about the bribe as well.
Having said that, I'm a (not particularly engaged) member of a political party as it's the system we've got and it's better to engage with that system than to froth impotently.
<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12.8px;">I agree that they have had to make compromises in the past, as a junior partner in a coalition</span>
Because they were utterly incompetent at it. They failed on all their big issues, especially electoral reform.
<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12.8px;">but IMHO the LD’s occupy the middle ground of British politics that L & C were fighting over for a decade.</span>
It goes back to this myth of the "middle ground". The two problems with it are a)there are lots of different middle grounds. Economics, social policy, policing and so on and b)its not fixed.
The "middle ground" can also be shifted if one party chases another. So the current middle ground is fairly hard right economically for example. Look at the USA and whats considered "middle ground" there.
Also there arent that many votes in the middle ground at least not in a concentrated way (see Libdems failed electoral reform problem).
Labour and Tories werent chasing the middle ground because thats where the most voters are they were chasing it because thats where the swing voters were.
Its a subtle but important distinction. Since it relies on the traditional party base remaining loyal and not thinking sod this for a game of soldiers and finding someone else to vote for or just giving up on the process.