Left Wing Post. Pre Thatcher Britain

Yeah because wanting what's best for an entire society of people has nothing to do with Labour. Send them up the swanny.

 

But your justifying what's happening now.
Its about now not what ought to happen.you either disagree on what they are doing now under the current situation or agree.its no good saying you agree if this were in place or that was in place the fact is they are passing legislation within the current system this is totally double standards.
So not what you just said at all tbh

 

The problem in 21st century Britain, as I keep saying to my good mate Redstar, is that people don't really want an alternative. Human nature is to be materialistic so what it comes down to for the average person is what's in MY pocket. People associate a left wing government with higher taxation and in this day and age that's a huge turn off.

I was against increasing the tax threshold because it gives people the impression that they are the better off under the T****s when £120 per annum is neither here nor there. People may claim to be anti-austerity but I wonder how many of these people would be willing to pay an extra £50 per month to guarantee the future of the NHS. We've all got cable tv to pay for after all.

There are things I would love to see a labour government do, but they are not vote winning in 2015.

 

Hang on a minute. I know the words themselves are only 10% of communciation - but you're definately not reading the same thing I'm writing. i'm not justifying anything. I'm asking what I'm missing.

Like the majority of the non unionised population I don't know the detail of what's happening.


On the face of it - the law seems reasonable - except that the people insisting on these Platinum standards don't apply them themselves. But this hypocracy in itself should not be a barrier to the law being implemented - after all the Unions themselves on many issues say we should not all race to the lowest common denominator and we should maintain and indeed improve our standards.

However - these are the tories - of course I'm missing something.

So - as far as I can tell - you haven't said 1. Anything different or 2. told me what I'm obviously missing.

In the mean time I've read some other stuff. Apparently despite the seemingly reasonable requirement of a simple democratic majority the new rules do appear to be putting barriers in place of getting there. Banning measures which would ensure turnout is maximised - stopping internet voting and the like.

I've also read some stuff about strike action which is frankly childish and OTT (rather than draconian and brutal) and seemingly put in place simply to frustrate strike action (such as the registering of megaphones and twitter accountes 2 weeks in advance of any strike action etc)

All these things are unreasonable - and should be completely and utterly opposed.

However I'm still failing to see what is wrong in principle with the basic stance that more than 50% of the people who loose income from strike action should positively and activley agree to the strike action before it can take place.

Unless you can help with that.

 

When 50% of the electorate vote for a political party they really will have a mandate so I have nowt against the proposed change as long as applied to all votes which impact society. I

 

I don't think you can say they aren't vote winning though because no Labour party has tried making this arguments in the last 15 years. It will be interesting to hear someone finally pointing out that libraries, schools, swimming pools, roads, parks, etc do cost money but are far more beneficial to your wellbeing than getting a better car

 

.

 

Except it wasn't, more people voted for anti-austerity parties than voted for pro-austerity parties.

 

Well for starters virtually no-one is forced to lose income. Very few unions actually take any action against individuals who don't strike, and the notion of militant pickets is a million miles away from the actual reality of any strike I have been involved in. As a consequence many people in unions don't bother to vote. A 50% turn out rate (often not achieved in local or European elections do we count those results as void?) isn't achieved in unions because those that don't want to strike (again a lot - many people are in unions without any particular interest at all) just don't bother voting.

Personally I would seek to expel people who don't strike from the union. The whole power of a union is strength in unity and all strike action is based on a democratic mandate. If people don't vote they are choosing not to have a say in that democratic process and should abide by the outcome. If they want to influence it then they should vote. If they vote and they still don't like the outcome, well the majority has spoken, and if they fundamentally disagree with it they can always leave the union and the benefits that it brings. Of course if they were principled they would donate any of the hard won gains secured by the union members to a good cause.

 

I agree with this. I just think that they'll have hard job convincing enough of the electorate. Hope I'm wrong.

 

Better to have tried and failed and all that.

 

Do you mean unelectable as in the last two elections when the party were led by complete idiots who were tories in disguise? ?????

 

Unlike the buffoons we have had in charge for the last 5 years? Cromwell had a bigger army than we do now ...

 

Unlike the buffoons we have had in charge for the last 5 years? Cromwell had a bigger army than we do now ...

 

OK. I accept your argument to some extent. But we must remember that Mandela was involved, from the 1940's, with an organisation that, amongst other atrocities, carried out the following:

"...The Church Street bombing was a car bomb attack on 20 May 1983 in the South African capital Pretoria by Umkhonto we Sizwe, the military wing of the African National Congress. The bombing killed 19, including two perpetrators, and wounded 217,[1][2] and was one of the largest attacks engaged in by the ANC during its armed struggle.

The attack consisted of a car bomb set off outside the Nedbank Square building on Church Street at 4:30 pm on a Friday. The target was South African Air Force (SAAF) headquarters, but as the bomb was set to go off at the height of rush hour, those killed and wounded included civilians. The bomb went off ten minutes earlier than planned, killing two of the perpetrators, Freddie Shangwe and Ezekial Maseko. At least 20 ambulances took the dead and wounded to hospitals..."

The point I was trying to make is that, unfortunately, bringing about fundamental change is not always possible using exclusively peaceful means. Particularly where powerful vested interests are threatened. I absolutely wish this were not the case, but history appears to suggest otherwise. I was also making the point that politicians will use whatever arguments fit with whatever suits their purpose at that particular time.

That said, I'll now get back to thinking about the problems of playing one up front!

 

Well said Marlon...

 

Aye and all with public debt at 237 % of GDP

 

I was watching, someone who try's to make himself out as a champion of the left. C4 news Jon Snow..What an absolute 5hitehouse of a fraud he is. Nearly spitting Corbyn's name out, calling him a... climate change denier.. like that is an evil deed.. proper debate is summert long overdue..

Remember.. By there fruit, you shall know them..

 

Tbh sometimes be careful what you wish for