This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The Greens
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
legaleagle  21 Jan 15 9.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Thats interesting.If Labour ever seriously adopted anti-austerity (unlikely I know) would you then have no interest in the Greens or does some of the other stuff about climate/technoloigal change/ etc interest you too?
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 21 Jan 15 9.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 21 Jan 2015 9.26pm
Thats interesting.If Labour ever seriously adopted anti-austerity (unlikely I know) would you then have no interest in the Greens or does some of the other stuff about climate/technoloigal change/ etc interest you too?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 The White Horse 21 Jan 15 9.54pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
One thing that does frustrate me is the "anti-austerity" banner as some kind of "true left" indicator. I like to think that on almost every issue, I'd generally take a left-wing viewpoint. But the actual meaning of the word "austerity" has been warped for political gain. The real meaning is quite desirable I think. Having rigorous self-discipline, omitting luxury and being profoundly moral are good in my view, particularly as components of a good public service ethos. The Tories tried to appropriate it as a cover for spending cuts, but rather than argue the toss and point out that there's nothing austere about slashing budgets, some on "the left" started to use austerity as a byword for spending cuts. But by doing so, you let the Tories call what they're doing austerity. If someone said they were "against thrift", you'd call them a f*cking idiot. The best way to challenge Tory cuts is to call them just that, in my opinion. Otherwise you can just end up sounding silly.
"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| The White Horse 21 Jan 15 10.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 21 Jan 2015 9.43pm
Quote legaleagle at 21 Jan 2015 9.26pm
Thats interesting.If Labour ever seriously adopted anti-austerity (unlikely I know) would you then have no interest in the Greens or does some of the other stuff about climate/technoloigal change/ etc interest you too? The greens are the most ideologically left wing of them all (save for TUSC) Labour are right of centre and have been for years. Normally I'd argue the toss on this by pointing towards free childcare promises, NHS spending commitments and so on and so forth, but surely the main function of any left/right spectrum is to have the average voter somewhere in the centre? Shouldn't "centrist" be defined by what's broadly the average opinion, rather than someone's definition of what constitutes a left/right wing view? Under your definition (assuming the Lib Dems are also right-wing), 95% of people who voted went for a right-wing party in 2010.
"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 21 Jan 15 10.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The White Horse at 21 Jan 2015 10.02pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Jan 2015 9.43pm
Quote legaleagle at 21 Jan 2015 9.26pm
Thats interesting.If Labour ever seriously adopted anti-austerity (unlikely I know) would you then have no interest in the Greens or does some of the other stuff about climate/technoloigal change/ etc interest you too? The greens are the most ideologically left wing of them all (save for TUSC) Labour are right of centre and have been for years. Normally I'd argue the toss on this by pointing towards free childcare promises, NHS spending commitments and so on and so forth, but surely the main function of any left/right spectrum is to have the average voter somewhere in the centre? Shouldn't "centrist" be defined by what's broadly the average opinion, rather than someone's definition of what constitutes a left/right wing view? Under your definition (assuming the Lib Dems are also right-wing), 95% of people who voted went for a right-wing party in 2010. Yes they did because the 3 main parties all want(ed) to slash public services. That said, at least labour did invest in public infrastructure (just in time for the Tories to sell it off!)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 21 Jan 15 10.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 21 Jan 2015 10.15pm
Quote The White Horse at 21 Jan 2015 10.02pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Jan 2015 9.43pm
Quote legaleagle at 21 Jan 2015 9.26pm
Thats interesting.If Labour ever seriously adopted anti-austerity (unlikely I know) would you then have no interest in the Greens or does some of the other stuff about climate/technoloigal change/ etc interest you too? The greens are the most ideologically left wing of them all (save for TUSC) Labour are right of centre and have been for years. Normally I'd argue the toss on this by pointing towards free childcare promises, NHS spending commitments and so on and so forth, but surely the main function of any left/right spectrum is to have the average voter somewhere in the centre? Shouldn't "centrist" be defined by what's broadly the average opinion, rather than someone's definition of what constitutes a left/right wing view? Under your definition (assuming the Lib Dems are also right-wing), 95% of people who voted went for a right-wing party in 2010. Yes they did because the 3 main parties all want(ed) to slash public services. That said, at least labour did invest in public infrastructure (just in time for the Tories to sell it off!)
I always bear in mind the words of Richard Neville, who was one of those jailed in the Oz magazine obscenity trial in the seventies."There may only be an inch of difference between the parties but its that inch that we live in". Edited by legaleagle (21 Jan 2015 10.55pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 21 Jan 15 10.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote bright&wright at 21 Jan 2015 6.02pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 4.23pm
Quote ghosteagle at 21 Jan 2015 3.56pm
This seems so obvious to me, of course people should not be criminalized for what they think, i would argue its one of the pillars of a free society. Saying that, i am interested that you think it would not sell to the public. I think it's a matter of presentation, but if you are right i would find that a very sad indictment of the society we live in. Anti-Terrorism laws in the UK explicitly allow for persecution of individuals, on the basis of what they are believed to think, as opposed to what they have done. These laws have repeatedly been used for convenience throughout British History to control 'unpopular or inconvenient beliefs and activities, even when they haven't been aimed at harm to the nation or its citizens'. When you look at the history of oppression, its almost always under the guise of 'National Security Concerns and enemies of the state' that 'political dissidents' are rooted out. You don't actually have to be involved in terrorism in the UK to be subject to terrorism laws. Just protesting is generally enough. I've never understood why people arrive in the UK and then protest against it's government. Surely you knew what you were getting into when you got here? In terms of our clamping down on 'free speech' if you think we have any issues then feel free to try your luck in one of those clearly wonderful Islamic nations like Saudia Arabia or Iran... Green Party = anarchy. Maybe they're just exercising their legal right to protest and pursue social justice. Free speech has no meaning as speech devoid of consequence has no value. All the much vaunted 'free speech' does is raise the idea that opinions have value and its a myth anyhow. Speech isn't free, it bought and paid for, tailored and sold back to you as an ideal, when in fact its simply the opinions of those with the power of large scale media influence who have free speech. Something you believe in should be something you defend, not something you just say. All free speech means is that no one should be prosecuted or persecuted by the state for what they say. Presumably as a great defender of free speech you'll be a fan of the Human Rights act, which actually introduced a legal right for the first time, in the UK, to free speech. Edited by jamiemartin721 (21 Jan 2015 11.01pm)
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 21 Jan 15 11.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The White Horse at 21 Jan 2015 10.02pm
Quote nickgusset at 21 Jan 2015 9.43pm
Quote legaleagle at 21 Jan 2015 9.26pm
Thats interesting.If Labour ever seriously adopted anti-austerity (unlikely I know) would you then have no interest in the Greens or does some of the other stuff about climate/technoloigal change/ etc interest you too? The greens are the most ideologically left wing of them all (save for TUSC) Labour are right of centre and have been for years. Normally I'd argue the toss on this by pointing towards free childcare promises, NHS spending commitments and so on and so forth, but surely the main function of any left/right spectrum is to have the average voter somewhere in the centre? Shouldn't "centrist" be defined by what's broadly the average opinion, rather than someone's definition of what constitutes a left/right wing view? Under your definition (assuming the Lib Dems are also right-wing), 95% of people who voted went for a right-wing party in 2010. I prefer left and right to be determined by the economic policy as it creates an consistant model point whilst using the vertical political axis to define positions on issues of state authority vs personal freedoms. The problem is people tend to see anything around the personal freedom such as being left wing, rather than anti-authoritarian.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 21 Jan 15 11.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 21 Jan 2015 9.11pm
My reasoning for voting green is their anti austerity stance. On a side issue, will be interesting to see what happens in Greece if Syriza win. So not the fact they're a cheekily successful internationalist movement, with a penchant for left wing politics.... I'd say that Austerity really is a core element of Green thinking, only they're talking about austerity in order to avert impending ecological and environmental disaster (and potentially 'a end of civilisation').
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 22 Jan 15 8.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 21 Jan 2015 9.08pm
Quote dannyh at 21 Jan 2015 2.01pm
Quote ghosteagle at 21 Jan 2015 12.17pm
Quote dannyh at 21 Jan 2015 12.09pm
Quote ghosteagle at 21 Jan 2015 11.55am
Quote dannyh at 21 Jan 2015 11.47am
Whatless unrealistic flower power utopian bollicks, that whilst may seem to have positive sentiment at it's heart, is utterly unworkable, and more to the point totally unfinaceable. Unless of course all you workers out there are happy to pay most of your hard earned in TAX to feed to the workshy. IMO there is no difference between the trustafarians and the monster raving looney party. I must have missed that bit in the manifesto....
THEY RAISE TAX'S that you and I have no choice about paying. (unless your a fcukin thick one eyed porridge womble, then you can raise it by selling the nations gold reserves to Webuyanygold.com). You failed to notice my sarcasm. That's fine, but forgive me if i don't take your maths at face value as i suspect it is wrong. You also failed to give any indication where your 'workshy' comment hails from, but i can see that you and logic are not good friends.....
THE CITIZENS’ INCOME The flagship policy is an unconditional, non-withdrawable income of £71 a week for everyone living in Britain “as a right of citizenship”, regardless of wealth or whether they are seeking work. Benefits and the tax-free personal allowance will be abolished, and top-ups given for people with children or disabilities, or to pay rent and mortgages. No-one will see a reduction in benefits, and most will see a substantial increase. Parents will be entitled to two years’ paid leave from work. The policy will enable people to “choose their own types and patterns of work”, and will allow people to take up “personally satisfying and socially useful work”. It will cost somewhere between £240-280 billion a year – more than double the current health budget, and ten times the defence budget. Those costs will be off-set by some reduction to the welfare bill, through the replacement of jobseekers’ allowance. It would seem you and reading before you post are not good friends.
Edited by legaleagle (21 Jan 2015 9.11pm)
I think the work undertaken may be less and less of a manual nature, but that is a progression of our ability to manipulate our surroundings through improved means, first steam, now the microchip. The point I am trying make, (badly To be honest I think your post is a bit Orwellian. And whilst I may agree with a lot of the tree huggers sentiment (who wouldn’t want all that time off for having kids) it really is just unworkable hippie rhetoric, pie in the sky nonsense.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
) is that just because machines and technology are replacing some parts of the workforce, doesn't mean less jobs, it just means a shift in what jobs are out there.| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 22 Jan 15 9.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 10.57pm
Quote bright&wright at 21 Jan 2015 6.02pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 Jan 2015 4.23pm
Quote ghosteagle at 21 Jan 2015 3.56pm
This seems so obvious to me, of course people should not be criminalized for what they think, i would argue its one of the pillars of a free society. Saying that, i am interested that you think it would not sell to the public. I think it's a matter of presentation, but if you are right i would find that a very sad indictment of the society we live in. Anti-Terrorism laws in the UK explicitly allow for persecution of individuals, on the basis of what they are believed to think, as opposed to what they have done. These laws have repeatedly been used for convenience throughout British History to control 'unpopular or inconvenient beliefs and activities, even when they haven't been aimed at harm to the nation or its citizens'. When you look at the history of oppression, its almost always under the guise of 'National Security Concerns and enemies of the state' that 'political dissidents' are rooted out. You don't actually have to be involved in terrorism in the UK to be subject to terrorism laws. Just protesting is generally enough. I've never understood why people arrive in the UK and then protest against it's government. Surely you knew what you were getting into when you got here? In terms of our clamping down on 'free speech' if you think we have any issues then feel free to try your luck in one of those clearly wonderful Islamic nations like Saudia Arabia or Iran... Green Party = anarchy. Maybe they're just exercising their legal right to protest and pursue social justice. Something you believe in should be something you defend, not something you just say. All free speech means is that no one should be prosecuted or persecuted by the state for what they say. Presumably as a great defender of free speech you'll be a fan of the Human Rights act, which actually introduced a legal right for the first time, in the UK, to free speech. Edited by jamiemartin721 (21 Jan 2015 11.01pm)
Like the proverbial fat kid in a sweet shop.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jan 15 9.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 22 Jan 2015 8.56amPoint taken and I get that part of the Green argument, but it only works if, and it's a massive if, (and a huge assumption) that the majority of the population won't be employed in the traditional sense, of course they will, whose going to fix the robots, whose going to mend stuff drive stuff, pilot stuff, carry out health care, sell us clothes etc etc.
I think the work undertaken may be less and less of a manual nature, but that is a progression of our ability to manipulate our surroundings through improved means, first steam, now the microchip. The point I am trying make, (badly To be honest I think your post is a bit Orwellian. And whilst I may agree with a lot of the tree huggers sentiment (who wouldn’t want all that time off for having kids) it really is just unworkable hippie rhetoric, pie in the sky nonsense. If history has taught us one thing, its that technology doesn't come without a consequence, it is not a means to utopia, it only improves the lives of some, the result, especially in terms of employment is a rising 'underclass' of low paid manual labour and unemployment, typically in areas of previously high employment. Without something meaningful to do, humans tend to struggle to define their own meaning and place in society. What tends to happen with automation is a lot of people become worse off, and a new class of 'technology specialist' arises benefiting from the new tech (which is a much smaller group benefiting than those previously employed), whilst those who lose out typically are forgotten about.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.