You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
The UK politics thread
In the interests on keeping the thread going, having some good debate and not having the thread removed...
Please keep it civil.
Such a broad topic, where to start. Possibly the main headline on the BBC news page...
I had plenty other reasons to not vote for the conservative party but the thought of fox hunting legislation being repealed would have put me off on its own. I can accept that I may not be fully aware of the challenges which foxes may pose to farmers. However, even if they are a 'pest', there are plenty more humane ways to control any problem. Fox hunting is just an excuse to dress up fancy and take part in animal cruelty IMHO.
As with any topic, I am always willing to listen to counter arguments and reevaluate my position.
Please keep it civil.
Such a broad topic, where to start. Possibly the main headline on the BBC news page...
I had plenty other reasons to not vote for the conservative party but the thought of fox hunting legislation being repealed would have put me off on its own. I can accept that I may not be fully aware of the challenges which foxes may pose to farmers. However, even if they are a 'pest', there are plenty more humane ways to control any problem. Fox hunting is just an excuse to dress up fancy and take part in animal cruelty IMHO.
As with any topic, I am always willing to listen to counter arguments and reevaluate my position.
Comments
For me...
I remember discussing this with a close friend who stated that for him it simply boiled down to which party would mean he paid less tax. So I guess he would vote for a party stating that no tax would be paid. In such circumstances there may be little/no funding for public services and the fabric of society would be in danger of being shredded. I therefore personally view this as short sighted.
Personally I do not vote simply on what feels best for me. It can be hard to know what party is 'right' and which action is the best. I loosely think of John Stuart Mills in such situations and consider what would bring about the greatest amount of 'happiness'.
So basically if a party/policy is going to encourage a narrow amount of people to do well at the expense of large groups of 'others' then I am inclined not to favour that party/policy.
I then listen to what the parties have to say, try and figure out how much I believe them and consider any evidence that is available.
So what shapes your political persuasion?
Re Foxhunting,
It seems to be a cruel and some would say barbaric way to “control a pest”, agree with you that it’s just an excuse to dress up and ride through the countryside to satisfy their blood ****.
Taking this logic to its ultimate conclusion, what next... dressing up in uniform and getting rid of the true homeless in certain parts of the country to accommodate a royal wedding? Surely we haven’t sunk that low yet.
As for which political party to support nowadays, that’s a real tough one for me, on the face of it Labour seemed to be listening to the public pre election and announced policies that would help the majority of the less well off and lessen the massive divide of wealth., however the cynic in me rings alarm bells as isn’t that what the opposition do come every election?
Also some of the people in their top positions wouldn’t be able to run a Proverbial p up in a brewery, and one in particular comes across as a tad racist and can’t add up.
As for Brexit
The huge majority of the electorate hadn’t the faintest idea of the implications of neither in nor out ( myself included) and voted mainly to either halt immigration or slow it somewhat, or “ get our country back” ( I didn’t realise it was missing or lost) or stop the EU dictating our laws, which kinda makes sense really.
In reality hardly anything is going to change for the foreseeable apart from us having no say in EU stuff and paying billions for the privilege.
Tin hat ready 😉
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nhs-funding-pfi-contracts-hospitals-debts-what-is-it-rbs-a7134881.html
Countries that get by without a government
This caught my eye in the news today...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42570823
In a similar vein, I have always wondered why there is a need for political parties.
Could we not just have either (a) elected politicians who have no allegiances to political parties or, better still, (b) the equivalent number of experts from various fields?
This group would then be changed every couple of years. Issues that the country needs to adopt a stance on are then voted on by this group. Said group then do not need to 'tow the party line' but instead are tasked with having 1 thing in mind when they vote... the best interests of the country.
The group would also vote on who fills senior government positions. I just do not see the need for whomever our elected representatives are to be going in to votes with party pressure to vote in a certain way.
It would also arguably be more democratic. If we think about the most democratic style of governance possible then some of the first versions of democracy, such as Athenian democracy, in which 'the people' voted directly on legislation might spring to mind. This had flaws and departed from its idealistic principles in practice but none the less, this vision at least, is more democratic by definition.
It is impractical to have every citizen of the country vote on every piece of legislation and such a set up could pose some problems. For example, would a vote on pay rises ever fail? Having our elected representatives vote on our behalf however, without party lines to tow, would surely be a manageable step towards this 'power to the people' version?
I personally think that party allegiances holds back the progression of this and many other countries. If you think about different institutions such as 'education' or the NHS... Every change of governments sees a new set of priorities and these institutions have to continually bend to the will of the new political party. Such chopping and changing must surely limit the level of service that these institutions can provide.
Anyways that is my morning brain f4rt of the things troubling my mind before 8:am this Monday morning.
Would be nice to hear some opinions if anyone feels like sharing them.
"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in"
When Cameron resigned, there was a vacancy for running the country. Only ONE person applied. I'm not saying Mrs May is the best politician ever, but she WAS the best applicant....
It's like being Manager of the England Football Team, they rarely emerge with a scrap of credit, it's a real poison chalice. *
* The exception, of course, was Lady Thatcher, undoubtedly the best Prime Minister - by a very long way - in my lifetime.
1. Sold off our Council houses without replacing them;
2. Destroyed the Coal Mining industry on a mixture of whim and vendetta;
3. Sold the Family Silver-look at how well the Railways turned out;
4. United a nation-the whole of Scotland-but not in a good way
Truly remarkable
Well yes, I'm aware she was not, shall we say, universally loved up in Scotland.
Small communities WERE destroyed, yes, but not out of spite. The coal mines were running out of coal, what are we supposed to do, keep the industry alive when it has no materials to mine?
Imagine if she had NOT, effectively, closed all the colleries. Now, 30 or 40 years on, would those mines still be even remotely viable? It had to be done, unfortunately, & unlike almost all modern politicians, Lady T was not afraid of making unpopular decisions. She had real backbone - not something we can easily accuse the likes of May or Cameron of.
Sadly, times change, & so does industry. We cant just bury our heads in the sand & say nothing must change.
Unemployment rates are lower now than they were then, too, despite a significant increase in the population thanks to immigration. And thank God we have allowed almost unlimited immigration, without which we'd be in a real pickle.
Think I'm gonna get battered here. Time to retire gracefully from the thread for a while.
The mines had to close and we had to move on to alternatives? - Yes, agreed.
However, for me it was the way it was done. It wasn't just about the jobs, it was the communities that relied upon such industries. It needed to be done more gradually and there needed to be an achievable alternative vision put in place for those communities to aim for. Many of the communities lost their identity, were thrown on the scrap heap and to this day have no identity and as such have a whole host of social problems.
He wanted a fight. He got one.
It is good to have the debate. Would be a boring thread if we all thought exactly the same.
I have to pop out into that cold place beyond the front door though so will need to pick it up later.
Of course the Unions were not blameless-the NUM allowed themselves to be goaded into the fight. My favourite taunt was when the new Head (MacGregor) told mineworkers there had to be closures because American women were faster than them. And don't even start me on the "UDM".
The worst part of the dispute was the change in Social Security law made immediately before the strike. Until 1980, it was only the striker himself that could not claim welfare benefits. This was extended to ensure that their wives and children would receive nothing.
The reason that our coal had become uncompetitive was that Poland (whose coal was naturally more expensive) provided subsidies to undercut ours. And we did absolutely nothing.
Coal mining would not exist in the UK today to any great extent. It SHOULD have had a 20-year gradual reduction. It got nothing. Compare and contrast with UK banks...
PS-all views are welcome. Mrs Thatcher undoubtedly united a Party, and did good things as well as bad. As the great Christy Moore once said, "There were some great songs written during her reign". Try listening to "An Ordinary Man"
PPS-never trust failed lawyers with rich spouses who enter politics. Examples include Thatcher, Blair, Clinton...