FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Animal Farm
Animal Farm
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"It should be on everyone’s reading list. We are living through it now... "Very much so. Find Orwell fascinating | |||
| |||
| |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties?" No. Think you're seeing what you want to see there. Orwell was a socialist. 1984 is about totalitarianism, of any political hue. Animal Farm is kinda based around the Russian revolution but is generally about the futility of revolution and the corrupting effect of power. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties? No. Think you're seeing what you want to see there. Orwell was a socialist. Like many do, socialists being a good example. There’s not been too many totalitarian regimes since 1945 that have not had the tag socialist in their titles and prior to that the NSDAP had that same word in theirs too and look how that turned out for everyone. 1984 is about totalitarianism, of any political hue. Animal Farm is kinda based around the Russian revolution but is generally about the futility of revolution and the corrupting effect of power. " | |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties? No. Think you're seeing what you want to see there. Orwell was a socialist. 1984 is about totalitarianism, of any political hue. Animal Farm is kinda based around the Russian revolution but is generally about the futility of revolution and the corrupting effect of power. " Orwell was a socialist. But he hated socialist parties because these parties use socialist ideas as tools to grab power. Once they grab power, they become totalitarian. That line in Animal farm - "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" exemplifies it. At the beginning of the revolution, they write the rule as "All animals are equal". Once they grab power, they add "Bur some are more equal than others" | |||
| |||
| |||
"I did feel uneasy when I heard on the TV: "We're stopping broadcasting now so that you can go outside and clap for carers". Something definitely rather Orwellian about that, and I never clapped again. The new track and trace app means you could be forcibly imprisoned/quarantined inside your own home simply because someone allegedly said they've been in contact with you, or you have allegedly been in the vicinity of someone reporting they have coronavirus." Now this is a very valid point. There is always a compromise between safety and privacy everywhere. Countries like Singapore err on the side of safety. They have mass surveillance that helps them reduce crime and provide safety for people. Western countries prioritise privacy and liberty. I like for that to stay that way. These trace and track apps are massive opportunities for governments to interfere with people's private lives and I hope there is an alternative to it. | |||
| |||
"I did feel uneasy when I heard on the TV: "We're stopping broadcasting now so that you can go outside and clap for carers". Something definitely rather Orwellian about that, and I never clapped again. The new track and trace app means you could be forcibly imprisoned/quarantined inside your own home simply because someone allegedly said they've been in contact with you, or you have allegedly been in the vicinity of someone reporting they have coronavirus." Yes I must admit I am having second thoughts about the way this is going to go. What seems to be missing here is the right to appeal. Somebody could spuriously include you in their contact list. You get this text and you don't seem to have any recourse to say. Hang on a minute, I only spent 14 minutes with that person and I was wearing a mask all the time. Very unlikely I have caught Covid. | |||
"I personally feel that Cummings should be fired. But comparing the situation with Orwellian society is pure hyperbole. Orwell was a believer in socialism as theory. But he hated socialist parties as he knew their underlying motivations. If we were living in an Orwellian society, you would be arrested for even making a statement against Cummings or BoJo. You wouldn't even be allowed to speak such a thing. Asking r*pe victims to shut up for the sake of diversity. Now that is something closer to an Orwellian society." Who has told them to shut up? | |||
| |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties? No. Think you're seeing what you want to see there. Orwell was a socialist. 1984 is about totalitarianism, of any political hue. Animal Farm is kinda based around the Russian revolution but is generally about the futility of revolution and the corrupting effect of power. Orwell was a socialist. But he hated socialist parties because these parties use socialist ideas as tools to grab power. Once they grab power, they become totalitarian. That line in Animal farm - "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" exemplifies it. At the beginning of the revolution, they write the rule as "All animals are equal". Once they grab power, they add "Bur some are more equal than others"" Do all socialist gmnts become totalitarian? | |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties? No. Think you're seeing what you want to see there. Orwell was a socialist. 1984 is about totalitarianism, of any political hue. Animal Farm is kinda based around the Russian revolution but is generally about the futility of revolution and the corrupting effect of power. Orwell was a socialist. But he hated socialist parties because these parties use socialist ideas as tools to grab power. Once they grab power, they become totalitarian. That line in Animal farm - "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" exemplifies it. At the beginning of the revolution, they write the rule as "All animals are equal". Once they grab power, they add "Bur some are more equal than others"" 'he hated socialist parties' is a massive simplification of his views. | |||
"A timely reminder from Sparknotes. Selected quotes might be more pithy, but that would be dumbing down, which rather defeats the point. alternatively, read the whole book. China has already reached the end of this novel but other countries are working their way through. Turkey Poland Hungary Brazil Trump BoJo/Cummings Spoiler alert: Boxer gets sent to the knackers yard. George Orwell’s Animal Farm examines the insidious ways in which public officials can abuse their power, as it depicts a society in which democracy dissolves into autocracy and finally into totalitarianism. From the Rebellion onward, the pigs of Animal Farm use violence and the threat of violence to control the other animals. However, while the attack dogs keep the other animals in line, physical intimidation doesn’t prevent some of them from quietly questioning Napoleon’s decisions. To check this threat to the pigs’ power, Napoleon relies on rousing slogans, songs, and phrases to instill patriotism and conformity among the animals. On Animal Farm, it quickly becomes clear that language and rhetoric can be much more effective tools of social control than violence. The pigs rely on slogans, poems, and commandments to both inspire the animals and keep them subservient. Crucially, the pigs understand that their songs and sayings must be easy to memorize and repeat if the other animals are to internalize their precepts. When written commandments prove too difficult for many of the animals, the pigs synthesize them into a single, brief catchphrase: “Four legs good, two legs bad.” The slogan inspires the animals to adore their leaders rather than fear them, and by repeating it they deepen their commitment to the pigs. Boxer, the loyal cart-horse, continuously reaffirms his faith in the pigs’ judgment by repeating the slogan “Napoleon is always right” in addition to his usual mantra, “I will work harder.” The animals eventually use the pigs’ slogans to police themselves, such as when several animals protest Napoleon’s decision to begin trading farm products to humans. Though they are initially silenced by “a tremendous growling from the dogs,” the tension isn’t dissolved until the sheep break into a collective recital of “‘Four legs good, two legs bad!’” In this key scene, Orwell explicitly contrasts brute force and the power of language, demonstrating that while the former may be effective in the short term, the latter has deeper, more lasting effects. The central role of rhetoric in the pigs’ administration is illustrated by the power afforded Squealer, the aptly-named spokespig, as well as the presence of a government poet pig, Minimus. In addition to the songs, slogans, poems, and commandments, Napoleon and the pigs also rewrite the oral and written histories of the farm in order to serve their needs and maintain their authority. When Napoleon violently seizes power, he quickly justifies his takeover by falsely denouncing his former ally and fellow revolutionary, Snowball, as a human-sympathizer and enemy of Animalism. In fact, he continuously retells the story of Snowball’s “treachery” until Snowball’s role in the Rebellion and subsequent founding of Animal Farm has been completely effaced. Despite the fact that many of the animals remember Snowball receiving a medal for his bravery in the Battle of the Cowshed, Squealer convinces them that Snowball had actually fought alongside Mr. Jones against the animals. Loyal Boxer, who has trouble believing the official tale, is convinced otherwise when Squealer tells him that Napoleon knows it to be true. “Ah, that is different,” exclaims Boxer. “If Comrade Napoleon says it, it must be right.” Later, as the pigs move into the farmhouse, Squealer makes more revisions to the official doctrine when he secretly amends the commandment “No animal shall sleep in a bed” to “No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets” and revises the rule about drinking to “No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.” The pigs even replace the old mantras with “Four legs good, two legs better,” and ultimately, “All animals are equal, except some are more equal than others.” When the animals actually catch Squealer in the act of rewriting the commandments, they don’t seriously suspect anything, a testament to the power the pigs’ rhetoric and language has over them." A great book it is a warning sbout communism and the left wing and the nature of man,read it a few times. I cannot however stretch it your thinking here,yes for other please read the book if still in print | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm not sure why a lifelong socialst would write about the dangers of left wing politics ." Because he was a true socialist and not a communist in the political sense,true socialism is not left wing.I am a socialist but everyone here thinks I am right wing because I hate the left preached by Corbyn etc. It is not as simple as people try to paint it | |||
"I'm not sure why a lifelong socialst would write about the dangers of left wing politics .Because he was a true socialist and not a communist in the political sense,true socialism is not left wing.I am a socialist but everyone here thinks I am right wing because I hate the left preached by Corbyn etc. It is not as simple as people try to paint it" How is socialism not left wing? | |||
 | |||
"Given that the far right and far left essentially result in the same thing - totalitarianism, Animal Farm is more a reflection on the desire of the few to have power over the many. The mechanism they use to enable and enforce can go via many ‘isms’. Indeed Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin and he had much in common "Hitler was never a socialist. Stalin was just a megalomaniac. | |||
"I personally feel that Cummings should be fired. But comparing the situation with Orwellian society is pure hyperbole. Orwell was a believer in socialism as theory. But he hated socialist parties as he knew their underlying motivations. If we were living in an Orwellian society, you would be arrested for even making a statement against Cummings or BoJo. You wouldn't even be allowed to speak such a thing. Asking r*pe victims to shut up for the sake of diversity. Now that is something closer to an Orwellian society. Who has told them to shut up?" Naz Shah. | |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties? No. Think you're seeing what you want to see there. Orwell was a socialist. 1984 is about totalitarianism, of any political hue. Animal Farm is kinda based around the Russian revolution but is generally about the futility of revolution and the corrupting effect of power. Orwell was a socialist. But he hated socialist parties because these parties use socialist ideas as tools to grab power. Once they grab power, they become totalitarian. That line in Animal farm - "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" exemplifies it. At the beginning of the revolution, they write the rule as "All animals are equal". Once they grab power, they add "Bur some are more equal than others" Do all socialist gmnts become totalitarian?" Socialism is a term that has been used by many people to mean different things. Social democracy which is a government that intervenes in the form of taxation and social welfare is fine. It already exists. If, by socialism, you mean the government ownership of industries, it should either be totalitarian or at least close to it (like what Stalin did) or become a failed nation. Without competition, it is hard to get people to work. Hence, you have to use force. That is exactly what Stalin did. | |||
| |||
"I'm not sure why a lifelong socialst would write about the dangers of left wing politics .Because he was a true socialist and not a communist in the political sense,true socialism is not left wing.I am a socialist but everyone here thinks I am right wing because I hate the left preached by Corbyn etc. It is not as simple as people try to paint it How is socialism not left wing?" Read the book.Here is an example Was Attlee a socialist?Answer is yes. Was Stalin a socialist,he would argue yes as communism is meant to be socialism.Hitler claimed he was a socialist he lead the National socialist party. I would argue that Atlee was not left wing compared to these other guys. Things are not black and white as to many try to make them. People who are a bit right or a bit left of the pendulum are not right or left wing as people try to make out. | |||
"Take back control. Get Bexit done. Stay at home. Stay alert. All nice, easily repeatable, short slogans aren't they? Wonder where they got the idea from?" The answer is Cummings simple messages for the simple masses it works | |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties? No. Think you're seeing what you want to see there. Orwell was a socialist. 1984 is about totalitarianism, of any political hue. Animal Farm is kinda based around the Russian revolution but is generally about the futility of revolution and the corrupting effect of power. Orwell was a socialist. But he hated socialist parties because these parties use socialist ideas as tools to grab power. Once they grab power, they become totalitarian. That line in Animal farm - "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" exemplifies it. At the beginning of the revolution, they write the rule as "All animals are equal". Once they grab power, they add "Bur some are more equal than others" Do all socialist gmnts become totalitarian? Socialism is a term that has been used by many people to mean different things. Social democracy which is a government that intervenes in the form of taxation and social welfare is fine. It already exists. If, by socialism, you mean the government ownership of industries, it should either be totalitarian or at least close to it (like what Stalin did) or become a failed nation. Without competition, it is hard to get people to work. Hence, you have to use force. That is exactly what Stalin did." Couldnt you argue it worked quite well under attlee? Stalin's was a corrupted form of Comminism and is the example everyone uses to point out its failings. Plus you have got outside factors aswell..look at Cuba and America.When you have got such outside aggression the likely outcome is to become a more repressive society. | |||
"I'm not sure why a lifelong socialst would write about the dangers of left wing politics .Because he was a true socialist and not a communist in the political sense,true socialism is not left wing.I am a socialist but everyone here thinks I am right wing because I hate the left preached by Corbyn etc. It is not as simple as people try to paint it How is socialism not left wing?Read the book.Here is an example Was Attlee a socialist?Answer is yes. Was Stalin a socialist,he would argue yes as communism is meant to be socialism.Hitler claimed he was a socialist he lead the National socialist party. I would argue that Atlee was not left wing compared to these other guys. Things are not black and white as to many try to make them. People who are a bit right or a bit left of the pendulum are not right or left wing as people try to make out." I wouldn't say hitler or stalin were no where near socialist..they were both demagogues. Trotsky was supposed to be next in line after Lenin and if that would have happened..Russian history would have been very different. I still dont understand socialism not being left wing.Its the opposite of capitalism. | |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties?" It doesn't actually matter what it may originally have been written about, although you might wish to consider the context of Orwell fighting against Franco (a right wing dictator) in the Spanish civil war. You are really unable to draw parallels between this summary and what you see today with "populist" dismissal of parliamentary democracy and srutiny with simple phrases without content? "There are none so blind as those who will not see." John Heywood worked that out in 1546, yet here we are... | |||
"I remember when I was about 9 years ago and a animanated film of animal farm was on tv,at the start of the film I was expecting a children's cartoon, but quickly realized it was something else, this,film had a profund effect on my world view that has not changed in 50 years Basically I reasisied we can never have socialism/communism as a political system for one simple reason, we are not all equal, some people are more hardworking, more intelligent, more generous or more selfish, lazy or devious, there will always be a hierarchy in society with the people who have the right conbination of these qualities and vices who will be successful, rise to the top if you like, the methods they employ to retain their power, of course, depends on the society they find themselves in " You didn't have any revelation about how power corrupts if allowed to? | |||
"A timely reminder from Sparknotes. Selected quotes might be more pithy, but that would be dumbing down, which rather defeats the point. alternatively, read the whole book. China has already reached the end of this novel but other countries are working their way through. Turkey Poland Hungary Brazil Trump BoJo/Cummings Spoiler alert: Boxer gets sent to the knackers yard. George Orwell’s Animal Farm examines the insidious ways in which public officials can abuse their power, as it depicts a society in which democracy dissolves into autocracy and finally into totalitarianism. From the Rebellion onward, the pigs of Animal Farm use violence and the threat of violence to control the other animals. However, while the attack dogs keep the other animals in line, physical intimidation doesn’t prevent some of them from quietly questioning Napoleon’s decisions. To check this threat to the pigs’ power, Napoleon relies on rousing slogans, songs, and phrases to instill patriotism and conformity among the animals. On Animal Farm, it quickly becomes clear that language and rhetoric can be much more effective tools of social control than violence. The pigs rely on slogans, poems, and commandments to both inspire the animals and keep them subservient. Crucially, the pigs understand that their songs and sayings must be easy to memorize and repeat if the other animals are to internalize their precepts. When written commandments prove too difficult for many of the animals, the pigs synthesize them into a single, brief catchphrase: “Four legs good, two legs bad.” The slogan inspires the animals to adore their leaders rather than fear them, and by repeating it they deepen their commitment to the pigs. Boxer, the loyal cart-horse, continuously reaffirms his faith in the pigs’ judgment by repeating the slogan “Napoleon is always right” in addition to his usual mantra, “I will work harder.” The animals eventually use the pigs’ slogans to police themselves, such as when several animals protest Napoleon’s decision to begin trading farm products to humans. Though they are initially silenced by “a tremendous growling from the dogs,” the tension isn’t dissolved until the sheep break into a collective recital of “‘Four legs good, two legs bad!’” In this key scene, Orwell explicitly contrasts brute force and the power of language, demonstrating that while the former may be effective in the short term, the latter has deeper, more lasting effects. The central role of rhetoric in the pigs’ administration is illustrated by the power afforded Squealer, the aptly-named spokespig, as well as the presence of a government poet pig, Minimus. In addition to the songs, slogans, poems, and commandments, Napoleon and the pigs also rewrite the oral and written histories of the farm in order to serve their needs and maintain their authority. When Napoleon violently seizes power, he quickly justifies his takeover by falsely denouncing his former ally and fellow revolutionary, Snowball, as a human-sympathizer and enemy of Animalism. In fact, he continuously retells the story of Snowball’s “treachery” until Snowball’s role in the Rebellion and subsequent founding of Animal Farm has been completely effaced. Despite the fact that many of the animals remember Snowball receiving a medal for his bravery in the Battle of the Cowshed, Squealer convinces them that Snowball had actually fought alongside Mr. Jones against the animals. Loyal Boxer, who has trouble believing the official tale, is convinced otherwise when Squealer tells him that Napoleon knows it to be true. “Ah, that is different,” exclaims Boxer. “If Comrade Napoleon says it, it must be right.” Later, as the pigs move into the farmhouse, Squealer makes more revisions to the official doctrine when he secretly amends the commandment “No animal shall sleep in a bed” to “No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets” and revises the rule about drinking to “No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.” The pigs even replace the old mantras with “Four legs good, two legs better,” and ultimately, “All animals are equal, except some are more equal than others.” When the animals actually catch Squealer in the act of rewriting the commandments, they don’t seriously suspect anything, a testament to the power the pigs’ rhetoric and language has over them. A great book it is a warning sbout communism and the left wing and the nature of man,read it a few times. I cannot however stretch it your thinking here,yes for other please read the book if still in print" You are genuinely unable to see how this applies to any of the other countries that I noted? | |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties? No. Think you're seeing what you want to see there. Orwell was a socialist. 1984 is about totalitarianism, of any political hue. Animal Farm is kinda based around the Russian revolution but is generally about the futility of revolution and the corrupting effect of power. Orwell was a socialist. But he hated socialist parties because these parties use socialist ideas as tools to grab power. Once they grab power, they become totalitarian. That line in Animal farm - "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" exemplifies it. At the beginning of the revolution, they write the rule as "All animals are equal". Once they grab power, they add "Bur some are more equal than others" Do all socialist gmnts become totalitarian? Socialism is a term that has been used by many people to mean different things. Social democracy which is a government that intervenes in the form of taxation and social welfare is fine. It already exists. If, by socialism, you mean the government ownership of industries, it should either be totalitarian or at least close to it (like what Stalin did) or become a failed nation. Without competition, it is hard to get people to work. Hence, you have to use force. That is exactly what Stalin did. Couldnt you argue it worked quite well under attlee? Stalin's was a corrupted form of Comminism and is the example everyone uses to point out its failings. Plus you have got outside factors aswell..look at Cuba and America.When you have got such outside aggression the likely outcome is to become a more repressive society." Haven't read much about the impact of nationalisation under Attlee. What makes you say that Stalin's was corrupted form of communism? Even the communist manifesto says that, in order to achieve communism, we first need a socialist government which is essentially achieved by grabbing power and establishing a "dictatorship of proletariat". The power was grabbed by Bolsheviks. Stalin continued the process. | |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties? It doesn't actually matter what it may originally have been written about, although you might wish to consider the context of Orwell fighting against Franco (a right wing dictator) in the Spanish civil war. You are really unable to draw parallels between this summary and what you see today with "populist" dismissal of parliamentary democracy and srutiny with simple phrases without content? "There are none so blind as those who will not see." John Heywood worked that out in 1546, yet here we are..." I understand the situation in Poland, Hungary, Turkey and Brazil. I just don't understand how BoJo/Cummings situation made into that list. | |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties? No. Think you're seeing what you want to see there. Orwell was a socialist. 1984 is about totalitarianism, of any political hue. Animal Farm is kinda based around the Russian revolution but is generally about the futility of revolution and the corrupting effect of power. Orwell was a socialist. But he hated socialist parties because these parties use socialist ideas as tools to grab power. Once they grab power, they become totalitarian. That line in Animal farm - "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" exemplifies it. At the beginning of the revolution, they write the rule as "All animals are equal". Once they grab power, they add "Bur some are more equal than others" Do all socialist gmnts become totalitarian? Socialism is a term that has been used by many people to mean different things. Social democracy which is a government that intervenes in the form of taxation and social welfare is fine. It already exists. If, by socialism, you mean the government ownership of industries, it should either be totalitarian or at least close to it (like what Stalin did) or become a failed nation. Without competition, it is hard to get people to work. Hence, you have to use force. That is exactly what Stalin did. Couldnt you argue it worked quite well under attlee? Stalin's was a corrupted form of Comminism and is the example everyone uses to point out its failings. Plus you have got outside factors aswell..look at Cuba and America.When you have got such outside aggression the likely outcome is to become a more repressive society. Haven't read much about the impact of nationalisation under Attlee. What makes you say that Stalin's was corrupted form of communism? Even the communist manifesto says that, in order to achieve communism, we first need a socialist government which is essentially achieved by grabbing power and establishing a "dictatorship of proletariat". The power was grabbed by Bolsheviks. Stalin continued the process." The meglomanua,the show trials,the forced famine,the purges,the corruption..surely that isnt what lenin wanted the revolution to become.And he feared stalin taking over didnt he? | |||
| |||
"Given that the far right and far left essentially result in the same thing - totalitarianism, Animal Farm is more a reflection on the desire of the few to have power over the many. The mechanism they use to enable and enforce can go via many ‘isms’. Indeed Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin and he had much in common
Hitler was never a socialist.
Stalin was just a megalomaniac."My point was that Nazism was also called National Socialism, in Russia is was Communism/Stalinism with Stalin. The outcome for both their people’s was a bit shit - so the far right and the far left were essentially the same. The titles they give themselves is basically irrelevant. It is a bit like the Life of Brian sketch about the People Front for Judea vs the People Popular Front, etc - they are only vehicles for megalomaniac’s to take absolute power. | |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties? No. Think you're seeing what you want to see there. Orwell was a socialist. 1984 is about totalitarianism, of any political hue. Animal Farm is kinda based around the Russian revolution but is generally about the futility of revolution and the corrupting effect of power. Orwell was a socialist. But he hated socialist parties because these parties use socialist ideas as tools to grab power. Once they grab power, they become totalitarian. That line in Animal farm - "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" exemplifies it. At the beginning of the revolution, they write the rule as "All animals are equal". Once they grab power, they add "Bur some are more equal than others" Do all socialist gmnts become totalitarian? Socialism is a term that has been used by many people to mean different things. Social democracy which is a government that intervenes in the form of taxation and social welfare is fine. It already exists. If, by socialism, you mean the government ownership of industries, it should either be totalitarian or at least close to it (like what Stalin did) or become a failed nation. Without competition, it is hard to get people to work. Hence, you have to use force. That is exactly what Stalin did. Couldnt you argue it worked quite well under attlee? Stalin's was a corrupted form of Comminism and is the example everyone uses to point out its failings. Plus you have got outside factors aswell..look at Cuba and America.When you have got such outside aggression the likely outcome is to become a more repressive society. Haven't read much about the impact of nationalisation under Attlee. What makes you say that Stalin's was corrupted form of communism? Even the communist manifesto says that, in order to achieve communism, we first need a socialist government which is essentially achieved by grabbing power and establishing a "dictatorship of proletariat". The power was grabbed by Bolsheviks. Stalin continued the process. The meglomanua,the show trials,the forced famine,the purges,the corruption..surely that isnt what lenin wanted the revolution to become.And he feared stalin taking over didnt he?" Food dictatorship was something which even Lenin talked about. If you want socialism, the government has to own the entire industry. If the government wants to take the food industry, they have to take away land from peasants and that is what happened with the famine. Obviously the peasants will not give up their land or food to the government and Stalin used this method. The method is morally wrong. But you can't say you want socialism, you want everything to be nationalised and then criticise Stalin for what he did. Stalin just went by the playbook. People think that achieving a socialist society is a simple and smooth process and Stalin made it unnecessarily violent. Stalin did it the only way that is possible. It is not like Lenin was less violent anyway. | |||
"Given that the far right and far left essentially result in the same thing - totalitarianism, Animal Farm is more a reflection on the desire of the few to have power over the many. The mechanism they use to enable and enforce can go via many ‘isms’. Indeed Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin and he had much in common
Hitler was never a socialist.
Stalin was just a megalomaniac.
My point was that Nazism was also called National Socialism, in Russia is was Communism/Stalinism with Stalin. The outcome for both their people’s was a bit shit - so the far right and the far left were essentially the same. The titles they give themselves is basically irrelevant. It is a bit like the Life of Brian sketch about the People Front for Judea vs the People Popular Front, etc - they are only vehicles for megalomaniac’s to take absolute power."I think history had taught us that any extreme ideology doesnt end well. I made the point however in another thread that we have moved that far right in this country than someone like corbyn can be portrayed as some sort of dangerous radical when his policies were nothing of the sort. I do actually think the central tenet of socialism is noble and something to strive for,however I also think its very idealistic and very unlikely in our culture. I think that life of Brian sketch was a skit on the left | |||
"Given that the far right and far left essentially result in the same thing - totalitarianism, Animal Farm is more a reflection on the desire of the few to have power over the many. The mechanism they use to enable and enforce can go via many ‘isms’. Indeed Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin and he had much in common
Hitler was never a socialist.
Stalin was just a megalomaniac.
My point was that Nazism was also called National Socialism, in Russia is was Communism/Stalinism with Stalin. The outcome for both their people’s was a bit shit - so the far right and the far left were essentially the same. The titles they give themselves is basically irrelevant. It is a bit like the Life of Brian sketch about the People Front for Judea vs the People Popular Front, etc - they are only vehicles for megalomaniac’s to take absolute power."Exactly. Politicians, both left and right, never cared about their philosophies or what is good and what is bad. They just want to grab power. They use left wing and right wing philosophies to build up their vote banks. A totalitarian government is a dream come true for all the politicians. Both far left and far right can eventually lead to totalitarianism and people should be vary of it. They are just different ways to achieve the same objective - an authoritative/totalitarian government. | |||
"Given that the far right and far left essentially result in the same thing - totalitarianism, Animal Farm is more a reflection on the desire of the few to have power over the many. The mechanism they use to enable and enforce can go via many ‘isms’. Indeed Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin and he had much in common
Hitler was never a socialist.
Stalin was just a megalomaniac.
My point was that Nazism was also called National Socialism, in Russia is was Communism/Stalinism with Stalin. The outcome for both their people’s was a bit shit - so the far right and the far left were essentially the same. The titles they give themselves is basically irrelevant. It is a bit like the Life of Brian sketch about the People Front for Judea vs the People Popular Front, etc - they are only vehicles for megalomaniac’s to take absolute power.
I think history had taught us that any extreme ideology doesnt end well.
I made the point however in another thread that we have moved that far right in this country than someone like corbyn can be portrayed as some sort of dangerous radical when his policies were nothing of the sort.
I do actually think the central tenet of socialism is noble and something to strive for,however I also think its very idealistic and very unlikely in our culture.
I think that life of Brian sketch was a skit on the left "Why do you think UK moved to far right? US is the bench mark of far right. | |||
"Given that the far right and far left essentially result in the same thing - totalitarianism, Animal Farm is more a reflection on the desire of the few to have power over the many. The mechanism they use to enable and enforce can go via many ‘isms’. Indeed Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin and he had much in common
Hitler was never a socialist.
Stalin was just a megalomaniac.
My point was that Nazism was also called National Socialism, in Russia is was Communism/Stalinism with Stalin. The outcome for both their people’s was a bit shit - so the far right and the far left were essentially the same. The titles they give themselves is basically irrelevant. It is a bit like the Life of Brian sketch about the People Front for Judea vs the People Popular Front, etc - they are only vehicles for megalomaniac’s to take absolute power.
Exactly. Politicians, both left and right, never cared about their philosophies or what is good and what is bad. They just want to grab power. They use left wing and right wing philosophies to build up their vote banks. A totalitarian government is a dream come true for all the politicians. Both far left and far right can eventually lead to totalitarianism and people should be vary of it. They are just different ways to achieve the same objective - an authoritative/totalitarian government."The argument that every single politician simply wants to grab power is simplistic. Plus far right gmnts are a lot more 'acceptable'in Britain and america than even remotely left wing ones. History is littered with examples of that . | |||
"Given that the far right and far left essentially result in the same thing - totalitarianism, Animal Farm is more a reflection on the desire of the few to have power over the many. The mechanism they use to enable and enforce can go via many ‘isms’. Indeed Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin and he had much in common
Hitler was never a socialist.
Stalin was just a megalomaniac.
My point was that Nazism was also called National Socialism, in Russia is was Communism/Stalinism with Stalin. The outcome for both their people’s was a bit shit - so the far right and the far left were essentially the same. The titles they give themselves is basically irrelevant. It is a bit like the Life of Brian sketch about the People Front for Judea vs the People Popular Front, etc - they are only vehicles for megalomaniac’s to take absolute power.
I think history had taught us that any extreme ideology doesnt end well.
I made the point however in another thread that we have moved that far right in this country than someone like corbyn can be portrayed as some sort of dangerous radical when his policies were nothing of the sort.
I do actually think the central tenet of socialism is noble and something to strive for,however I also think its very idealistic and very unlikely in our culture.
I think that life of Brian sketch was a skit on the left
Why do you think UK moved to far right? US is the bench mark of far right."A variety of reasons.New labour disenfranchised big chunks of the north so as a protest they,in their wisdom,decided to vote for a far right party as opposed to a genuine left wing alternative. Years of anti European feeling coming to the fore. People believe the lies about brexit. People falling for farages anti immigrant stance. The crackpots in the tory party getting a foothold. Johnson appealing to nationalist sentiment. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Given that the far right and far left essentially result in the same thing - totalitarianism, Animal Farm is more a reflection on the desire of the few to have power over the many. The mechanism they use to enable and enforce can go via many ‘isms’. Indeed Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin and he had much in common
Hitler was never a socialist.
Stalin was just a megalomaniac.
My point was that Nazism was also called National Socialism, in Russia is was Communism/Stalinism with Stalin. The outcome for both their people’s was a bit shit - so the far right and the far left were essentially the same. The titles they give themselves is basically irrelevant. It is a bit like the Life of Brian sketch about the People Front for Judea vs the People Popular Front, etc - they are only vehicles for megalomaniac’s to take absolute power.
I think history had taught us that any extreme ideology doesnt end well.
I made the point however in another thread that we have moved that far right in this country than someone like corbyn can be portrayed as some sort of dangerous radical when his policies were nothing of the sort.
I do actually think the central tenet of socialism is noble and something to strive for,however I also think its very idealistic and very unlikely in our culture.
I think that life of Brian sketch was a skit on the left
Why do you think UK moved to far right? US is the bench mark of far right.
A variety of reasons.New labour disenfranchised big chunks of the north so as a protest they,in their wisdom,decided to vote for a far right party as opposed to a genuine left wing alternative.
Years of anti European feeling coming to the fore.
People believe the lies about brexit.
People falling for farages anti immigrant stance.
The crackpots in the tory party getting a foothold.
Johnson appealing to nationalist sentiment."UK conservative party is nor far right. If someone voted for Brexit, it doesn't mean they are far right. If people fell for Farage's stance, his party would have won at many places. But he didn't win a single one. | |||
"Given that the far right and far left essentially result in the same thing - totalitarianism, Animal Farm is more a reflection on the desire of the few to have power over the many. The mechanism they use to enable and enforce can go via many ‘isms’. Indeed Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin and he had much in common
Hitler was never a socialist.
Stalin was just a megalomaniac.
My point was that Nazism was also called National Socialism, in Russia is was Communism/Stalinism with Stalin. The outcome for both their people’s was a bit shit - so the far right and the far left were essentially the same. The titles they give themselves is basically irrelevant. It is a bit like the Life of Brian sketch about the People Front for Judea vs the People Popular Front, etc - they are only vehicles for megalomaniac’s to take absolute power.
I think history had taught us that any extreme ideology doesnt end well.
I made the point however in another thread that we have moved that far right in this country than someone like corbyn can be portrayed as some sort of dangerous radical when his policies were nothing of the sort.
I do actually think the central tenet of socialism is noble and something to strive for,however I also think its very idealistic and very unlikely in our culture.
I think that life of Brian sketch was a skit on the left
Why do you think UK moved to far right? US is the bench mark of far right.
A variety of reasons.New labour disenfranchised big chunks of the north so as a protest they,in their wisdom,decided to vote for a far right party as opposed to a genuine left wing alternative.
Years of anti European feeling coming to the fore.
People believe the lies about brexit.
People falling for farages anti immigrant stance.
The crackpots in the tory party getting a foothold.
Johnson appealing to nationalist sentiment.
UK conservative party is nor far right. If someone voted for Brexit, it doesn't mean they are far right. If people fell for Farage's stance, his party would have won at many places. But he didn't win a single one."I'm not sure how much further right wing you can get then the likes of that erg. I think a lot of people,not all,voted for brexit to limit immigration. I think farage tapped into a particular demographic. | |||
"Given that the far right and far left essentially result in the same thing - totalitarianism, Animal Farm is more a reflection on the desire of the few to have power over the many. The mechanism they use to enable and enforce can go via many ‘isms’. Indeed Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin and he had much in common
Hitler was never a socialist.
Stalin was just a megalomaniac.
My point was that Nazism was also called National Socialism, in Russia is was Communism/Stalinism with Stalin. The outcome for both their people’s was a bit shit - so the far right and the far left were essentially the same. The titles they give themselves is basically irrelevant. It is a bit like the Life of Brian sketch about the People Front for Judea vs the People Popular Front, etc - they are only vehicles for megalomaniac’s to take absolute power.
Exactly. Politicians, both left and right, never cared about their philosophies or what is good and what is bad. They just want to grab power. They use left wing and right wing philosophies to build up their vote banks. A totalitarian government is a dream come true for all the politicians. Both far left and far right can eventually lead to totalitarianism and people should be vary of it. They are just different ways to achieve the same objective - an authoritative/totalitarian government.
The argument that every single politician simply wants to grab power is simplistic.
Plus far right gmnts are a lot more 'acceptable'in Britain and america than even remotely left wing ones.
History is littered with examples of that ."Why else do you think people enter politics? One's life is turned upside down once you enter politics. Every word you say is being scrutinised and you are watched all the time. It is mostly the power hungry ones who would make it to the top brass of parties. The conservative party was split on Brexit during the referendum. In the 2019 election, they all jumped on the Brexit bandwagon because they knew that will get them the votes. The labour party is similar too. They could never take a clear stand on Brexit because a big part of their own vote bank voted leave while another big part was seriously fighting to stay. As always, like any other left wing party, they tried to appease everyone by making some complex promise and failed to impress both the vote banks. It was never about good vs bad. It was always about one vote bank vs another vote bank. Unfortunately people all falling for traps set by politicians and fighting among themselves. | |||
"UK conservative party is not far right. If someone voted for Brexit, it doesn't mean they are far right. If people fell for Farage's stance, his party would have won at many places. But he didn't win a single one." That's because the Tory Party were so shit-scared of the far right that they caved into them and gave them everything they - and their supporters - wanted. So, they didn't need Farage anymore; Boris and his friends were already singing from their hymn book. And if you don't think Patel, Raab, Williamson and their ilk are far right, they've got you fooled. Don't feel bad about it. You're not alone. | |||
"UK conservative party is not far right. If someone voted for Brexit, it doesn't mean they are far right. If people fell for Farage's stance, his party would have won at many places. But he didn't win a single one. That's because the Tory Party were so shit-scared of the far right that they caved into them and gave them everything they - and their supporters - wanted. So, they didn't need Farage anymore; Boris and his friends were already singing from their hymn book. And if you don't think Patel, Raab, Williamson and their ilk are far right, they've got you fooled. Don't feel bad about it. You're not alone." You do not know hat far right is that is your problem | |||
"Given that the far right and far left essentially result in the same thing - totalitarianism, Animal Farm is more a reflection on the desire of the few to have power over the many. The mechanism they use to enable and enforce can go via many ‘isms’. Indeed Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin and he had much in common
Hitler was never a socialist.
Stalin was just a megalomaniac.
My point was that Nazism was also called National Socialism, in Russia is was Communism/Stalinism with Stalin. The outcome for both their people’s was a bit shit - so the far right and the far left were essentially the same. The titles they give themselves is basically irrelevant. It is a bit like the Life of Brian sketch about the People Front for Judea vs the People Popular Front, etc - they are only vehicles for megalomaniac’s to take absolute power.
I think history had taught us that any extreme ideology doesnt end well.
I made the point however in another thread that we have moved that far right in this country than someone like corbyn can be portrayed as some sort of dangerous radical when his policies were nothing of the sort.
I do actually think the central tenet of socialism is noble and something to strive for,however I also think its very idealistic and very unlikely in our culture.
I think that life of Brian sketch was a skit on the left
Why do you think UK moved to far right? US is the bench mark of far right.
A variety of reasons.New labour disenfranchised big chunks of the north so as a protest they,in their wisdom,decided to vote for a far right party as opposed to a genuine left wing alternative.
Years of anti European feeling coming to the fore.
People believe the lies about brexit.
People falling for farages anti immigrant stance.
The crackpots in the tory party getting a foothold.
Johnson appealing to nationalist sentiment.
UK conservative party is nor far right. If someone voted for Brexit, it doesn't mean they are far right. If people fell for Farage's stance, his party would have won at many places. But he didn't win a single one.
I'm not sure how much further right wing you can get then the likes of that erg.
I think a lot of people,not all,voted for brexit to limit immigration.
I think farage tapped into a particular demographic."You keep saying that you cannot get any further right, without telling why. Did conservatives cancel healthcare? Did they ban gay marriages? Their cabinet is one of the most diverse cabinets ever. And btw, this is how you promote diversity. Not by asking r*pe victims to shut up for the sake of diversity. And Brexit's relationship with immigration is still unproven. Most probably no one will ever know that. Of course if you read left wing papers like the guardian, they will claim otherwise. | |||
"UK conservative party is not far right. If someone voted for Brexit, it doesn't mean they are far right. If people fell for Farage's stance, his party would have won at many places. But he didn't win a single one. That's because the Tory Party were so shit-scared of the far right that they caved into them and gave them everything they - and their supporters - wanted. So, they didn't need Farage anymore; Boris and his friends were already singing from their hymn book. And if you don't think Patel, Raab, Williamson and their ilk are far right, they've got you fooled. Don't feel bad about it. You're not alone." Can you tell me your definition of far right? | |||
"Given that the far right and far left essentially result in the same thing - totalitarianism, Animal Farm is more a reflection on the desire of the few to have power over the many. The mechanism they use to enable and enforce can go via many ‘isms’. Indeed Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin and he had much in common
Hitler was never a socialist.
Stalin was just a megalomaniac.
My point was that Nazism was also called National Socialism, in Russia is was Communism/Stalinism with Stalin. The outcome for both their people’s was a bit shit - so the far right and the far left were essentially the same. The titles they give themselves is basically irrelevant. It is a bit like the Life of Brian sketch about the People Front for Judea vs the People Popular Front, etc - they are only vehicles for megalomaniac’s to take absolute power.
I think history had taught us that any extreme ideology doesnt end well.
I made the point however in another thread that we have moved that far right in this country than someone like corbyn can be portrayed as some sort of dangerous radical when his policies were nothing of the sort.
I do actually think the central tenet of socialism is noble and something to strive for,however I also think its very idealistic and very unlikely in our culture.
I think that life of Brian sketch was a skit on the left
Why do you think UK moved to far right? US is the bench mark of far right.
A variety of reasons.New labour disenfranchised big chunks of the north so as a protest they,in their wisdom,decided to vote for a far right party as opposed to a genuine left wing alternative.
Years of anti European feeling coming to the fore.
People believe the lies about brexit.
People falling for farages anti immigrant stance.
The crackpots in the tory party getting a foothold.
Johnson appealing to nationalist sentiment.
UK conservative party is nor far right. If someone voted for Brexit, it doesn't mean they are far right. If people fell for Farage's stance, his party would have won at many places. But he didn't win a single one.
I'm not sure how much further right wing you can get then the likes of that erg.
I think a lot of people,not all,voted for brexit to limit immigration.
I think farage tapped into a particular demographic.
You keep saying that you cannot get any further right, without telling why. Did conservatives cancel healthcare? Did they ban gay marriages? Their cabinet is one of the most diverse cabinets ever. And btw, this is how you promote diversity. Not by asking r*pe victims to shut up for the sake of diversity.
And Brexit's relationship with immigration is still unproven. Most probably no one will ever know that. Of course if you read left wing papers like the guardian, they will claim otherwise."Their entire brexit policy was built around immigration..'taking back control. If you dont consider the likes of Rees mogg,mcvey,ids etc right wing I'm not sure who is. Comparing 1 idiotic tweet compared to what many in the conservative party stand for is hardly a balanced comparison. When you say diverse..priti patel comes from a non white background but I certainly wouldnt describe her as progressive. | |||
"UK conservative party is not far right. If someone voted for Brexit, it doesn't mean they are far right. If people fell for Farage's stance, his party would have won at many places. But he didn't win a single one. That's because the Tory Party were so shit-scared of the far right that they caved into them and gave them everything they - and their supporters - wanted. So, they didn't need Farage anymore; Boris and his friends were already singing from their hymn book. And if you don't think Patel, Raab, Williamson and their ilk are far right, they've got you fooled. Don't feel bad about it. You're not alone. Can you tell me your definition of far right?" Cummings hired an advisor to the gmnt who believed the poor should be sterilised. When his ramblings go.out he was let go. Personally I'd say that was an example of far right. | |||
"Given that the far right and far left essentially result in the same thing - totalitarianism, Animal Farm is more a reflection on the desire of the few to have power over the many. The mechanism they use to enable and enforce can go via many ‘isms’. Indeed Hitler was a National Socialist, Stalin and he had much in common
Hitler was never a socialist.
Stalin was just a megalomaniac.
My point was that Nazism was also called National Socialism, in Russia is was Communism/Stalinism with Stalin. The outcome for both their people’s was a bit shit - so the far right and the far left were essentially the same. The titles they give themselves is basically irrelevant. It is a bit like the Life of Brian sketch about the People Front for Judea vs the People Popular Front, etc - they are only vehicles for megalomaniac’s to take absolute power.
Exactly. Politicians, both left and right, never cared about their philosophies or what is good and what is bad. They just want to grab power. They use left wing and right wing philosophies to build up their vote banks. A totalitarian government is a dream come true for all the politicians. Both far left and far right can eventually lead to totalitarianism and people should be vary of it. They are just different ways to achieve the same objective - an authoritative/totalitarian government.
The argument that every single politician simply wants to grab power is simplistic.
Plus far right gmnts are a lot more 'acceptable'in Britain and america than even remotely left wing ones.
History is littered with examples of that .
Why else do you think people enter politics? One's life is turned upside down once you enter politics. Every word you say is being scrutinised and you are watched all the time. It is mostly the power hungry ones who would make it to the top brass of parties.
The conservative party was split on Brexit during the referendum. In the 2019 election, they all jumped on the Brexit bandwagon because they knew that will get them the votes.
The labour party is similar too. They could never take a clear stand on Brexit because a big part of their own vote bank voted leave while another big part was seriously fighting to stay. As always, like any other left wing party, they tried to appease everyone by making some complex promise and failed to impress both the vote banks.
It was never about good vs bad. It was always about one vote bank vs another vote bank. Unfortunately people all falling for traps set by politicians and fighting among themselves."Labour were largely in favour of a 2nd referendum which imho was the most sensible option of the 3 available. | |||
" Their entire brexit policy was built around immigration..'taking back control. If you dont consider the likes of Rees mogg,mcvey,ids etc right wing I'm not sure who is. Comparing 1 idiotic tweet compared to what many in the conservative party stand for is hardly a balanced comparison. When you say diverse..priti patel comes from a non white background but I certainly wouldnt describe her as progressive." How is "taking back control" related to immigration? Cummings intentionally wanted the campaign to stay away from immigration. He was clever and he knew that the moment you talk about immigration, this would be branded a racist campaign. Taking back control was supposed to mean that UK should not be controlled by regulatory laws set up by the EU. That idiotic tweet alone is not the matter. Two labour party members were suspended because they pointed out the religion of those criminals. And here is a lady who asked the r*pe victims to shut up. But the party did nothing about it. And why is that? It is because of vote bank politics again. The labour party cannot afford to lose the Muslim votes. They would go as far as silencing r*pe victims just for the sake of some votes. Any self respecting feminist should think twice before voting for that wretched party. Priti Patel is not the only non-white minister there. What about Rishi? How about Kwasi? And Alok Sharma? They don't count because they are not part of the political party you support? | |||
" Labour were largely in favour of a 2nd referendum which imho was the most sensible option of the 3 available." People told what they wanted. Second referendum was a stupid option and people voted the second time to show how stupid the idea was. And the labour never cared about which option was sensible. They could not take a stance because their vote bank was split. Just like how they tried to take a central stand on Kashmir issue because they didn't want to lose both Hindu and Muslim votes. They just managed to piss off both the groups. | |||
" Labour were largely in favour of a 2nd referendum which imho was the most sensible option of the 3 available. People told what they wanted. Second referendum was a stupid option and people voted the second time to show how stupid the idea was. And the labour never cared about which option was sensible. They could not take a stance because their vote bank was split. Just like how they tried to take a central stand on Kashmir issue because they didn't want to lose both Hindu and Muslim votes. They just managed to piss off both the groups. " Sounds like the old saying If you stand in middle of the road you get hit by both sides | |||
" Labour were largely in favour of a 2nd referendum which imho was the most sensible option of the 3 available. People told what they wanted. Second referendum was a stupid option and people voted the second time to show how stupid the idea was. And the labour never cared about which option was sensible. They could not take a stance because their vote bank was split. Just like how they tried to take a central stand on Kashmir issue because they didn't want to lose both Hindu and Muslim votes. They just managed to piss off both the groups. Sounds like the old saying If you stand in middle of the road you get hit by both sides" & my point earlier was that if you go left or right you end at the same outcome. Far Right & Far Left deliver the same Totalitarian outcome. At least in the middle you can allow people some choice. Being in the middle isn’t all bad! | |||
" Labour were largely in favour of a 2nd referendum which imho was the most sensible option of the 3 available. People told what they wanted. Second referendum was a stupid option and people voted the second time to show how stupid the idea was. And the labour never cared about which option was sensible. They could not take a stance because their vote bank was split. Just like how they tried to take a central stand on Kashmir issue because they didn't want to lose both Hindu and Muslim votes. They just managed to piss off both the groups. Sounds like the old saying If you stand in middle of the road you get hit by both sides & my point earlier was that if you go left or right you end at the same outcome. Far Right & Far Left deliver the same Totalitarian outcome. At least in the middle you can allow people some choice. Being in the middle isn’t all bad! "Problem is often you upset everyone and as Labour found out loose another election. | |||
| |||
" Labour were largely in favour of a 2nd referendum which imho was the most sensible option of the 3 available. People told what they wanted. Second referendum was a stupid option and people voted the second time to show how stupid the idea was. And the labour never cared about which option was sensible. They could not take a stance because their vote bank was split. Just like how they tried to take a central stand on Kashmir issue because they didn't want to lose both Hindu and Muslim votes. They just managed to piss off both the groups. Sounds like the old saying If you stand in middle of the road you get hit by both sides & my point earlier was that if you go left or right you end at the same outcome. Far Right & Far Left deliver the same Totalitarian outcome. At least in the middle you can allow people some choice. Being in the middle isn’t all bad!
Problem is often you upset everyone and as Labour found out loose another election."You can take a stand on individual matters without going far left or far right. Not just Labour, many left wing parties are in a precarious situation. Their vote bank is too diverse for their own good. Each group in their vote bank has different priorities. It is hard for these parties to take a stand on anything without pissing off at least a part of their vote bank. | |||
" Their entire brexit policy was built around immigration..'taking back control. If you dont consider the likes of Rees mogg,mcvey,ids etc right wing I'm not sure who is. Comparing 1 idiotic tweet compared to what many in the conservative party stand for is hardly a balanced comparison. When you say diverse..priti patel comes from a non white background but I certainly wouldnt describe her as progressive. How is "taking back control" related to immigration? Cummings intentionally wanted the campaign to stay away from immigration. He was clever and he knew that the moment you talk about immigration, this would be branded a racist campaign. Taking back control was supposed to mean that UK should not be controlled by regulatory laws set up by the EU. That idiotic tweet alone is not the matter. Two labour party members were suspended because they pointed out the religion of those criminals. And here is a lady who asked the r*pe victims to shut up. But the party did nothing about it. And why is that? It is because of vote bank politics again. The labour party cannot afford to lose the Muslim votes. They would go as far as silencing r*pe victims just for the sake of some votes. Any self respecting feminist should think twice before voting for that wretched party. Priti Patel is not the only non-white minister there. What about Rishi? How about Kwasi? And Alok Sharma? They don't count because they are not part of the political party you support?" Taking back control of our borders? One of their main policies was to introduce a points based system based on limiting immigration. Wasnt there a report into Islamophobia in the tory party? Rishi seems a very rare breed..a human tory. | |||
" Labour were largely in favour of a 2nd referendum which imho was the most sensible option of the 3 available. People told what they wanted. Second referendum was a stupid option and people voted the second time to show how stupid the idea was. And the labour never cared about which option was sensible. They could not take a stance because their vote bank was split. Just like how they tried to take a central stand on Kashmir issue because they didn't want to lose both Hindu and Muslim votes. They just managed to piss off both the groups. " Personally I'd say given people a say on a crucial issue when they have a lot more information is far from a stupid idea. | |||
" Labour were largely in favour of a 2nd referendum which imho was the most sensible option of the 3 available. People told what they wanted. Second referendum was a stupid option and people voted the second time to show how stupid the idea was. And the labour never cared about which option was sensible. They could not take a stance because their vote bank was split. Just like how they tried to take a central stand on Kashmir issue because they didn't want to lose both Hindu and Muslim votes. They just managed to piss off both the groups. Sounds like the old saying If you stand in middle of the road you get hit by both sides & my point earlier was that if you go left or right you end at the same outcome. Far Right & Far Left deliver the same Totalitarian outcome. At least in the middle you can allow people some choice. Being in the middle isn’t all bad!
Problem is often you upset everyone and as Labour found out loose another election."Said it before and I'll say it again..labour were in a no win situation. | |||
" Labour were largely in favour of a 2nd referendum which imho was the most sensible option of the 3 available. People told what they wanted. Second referendum was a stupid option and people voted the second time to show how stupid the idea was. And the labour never cared about which option was sensible. They could not take a stance because their vote bank was split. Just like how they tried to take a central stand on Kashmir issue because they didn't want to lose both Hindu and Muslim votes. They just managed to piss off both the groups. Sounds like the old saying If you stand in middle of the road you get hit by both sides & my point earlier was that if you go left or right you end at the same outcome. Far Right & Far Left deliver the same Totalitarian outcome. At least in the middle you can allow people some choice. Being in the middle isn’t all bad!
Problem is often you upset everyone and as Labour found out loose another election.
You can take a stand on individual matters without going far left or far right. Not just Labour, many left wing parties are in a precarious situation. Their vote bank is too diverse for their own good. Each group in their vote bank has different priorities. It is hard for these parties to take a stand on anything without pissing off at least a part of their vote bank."You're saying that it is bad to try to represent too many people? In a democracy. You cannot provide a simple message that encapsulates some simple solution to some complicated issue. Back to the book. You have to empathise and make compromises. Alternatively you take the new Dominic Cummings route where you micro-target individuals on Facebook and tell them exactly what they want to hear. Incorporating the Trump route of maximising anger as motivation. However, no underlying motivation to to anything except do what you want once you have power. | |||
" Labour were largely in favour of a 2nd referendum which imho was the most sensible option of the 3 available. People told what they wanted. Second referendum was a stupid option and people voted the second time to show how stupid the idea was. And the labour never cared about which option was sensible. They could not take a stance because their vote bank was split. Just like how they tried to take a central stand on Kashmir issue because they didn't want to lose both Hindu and Muslim votes. They just managed to piss off both the groups. Sounds like the old saying If you stand in middle of the road you get hit by both sides & my point earlier was that if you go left or right you end at the same outcome. Far Right & Far Left deliver the same Totalitarian outcome. At least in the middle you can allow people some choice. Being in the middle isn’t all bad!
Problem is often you upset everyone and as Labour found out loose another election.
You can take a stand on individual matters without going far left or far right. Not just Labour, many left wing parties are in a precarious situation. Their vote bank is too diverse for their own good. Each group in their vote bank has different priorities. It is hard for these parties to take a stand on anything without pissing off at least a part of their vote bank."Agree with you there..labour are more diverse than than the tories | |||
" Their entire brexit policy was built around immigration..'taking back control. If you dont consider the likes of Rees mogg,mcvey,ids etc right wing I'm not sure who is. Comparing 1 idiotic tweet compared to what many in the conservative party stand for is hardly a balanced comparison. When you say diverse..priti patel comes from a non white background but I certainly wouldnt describe her as progressive. How is "taking back control" related to immigration? Cummings intentionally wanted the campaign to stay away from immigration. He was clever and he knew that the moment you talk about immigration, this would be branded a racist campaign. Taking back control was supposed to mean that UK should not be controlled by regulatory laws set up by the EU. That idiotic tweet alone is not the matter. Two labour party members were suspended because they pointed out the religion of those criminals. And here is a lady who asked the r*pe victims to shut up. But the party did nothing about it. And why is that? It is because of vote bank politics again. The labour party cannot afford to lose the Muslim votes. They would go as far as silencing r*pe victims just for the sake of some votes. Any self respecting feminist should think twice before voting for that wretched party. Priti Patel is not the only non-white minister there. What about Rishi? How about Kwasi? And Alok Sharma? They don't count because they are not part of the political party you support? Taking back control of our borders? One of their main policies was to introduce a points based system based on limiting immigration. Wasnt there a report into Islamophobia in the tory party? Rishi seems a very rare breed..a human tory. " Are you saying points based immigration system is a right wing ideology? Canada, the darling of left wing media also uses points based immigration. Are you saying they are also right wing? And what Islamophobia report are you talking about? | |||
" Their entire brexit policy was built around immigration..'taking back control. If you dont consider the likes of Rees mogg,mcvey,ids etc right wing I'm not sure who is. Comparing 1 idiotic tweet compared to what many in the conservative party stand for is hardly a balanced comparison. When you say diverse..priti patel comes from a non white background but I certainly wouldnt describe her as progressive. How is "taking back control" related to immigration? Cummings intentionally wanted the campaign to stay away from immigration. He was clever and he knew that the moment you talk about immigration, this would be branded a racist campaign. Taking back control was supposed to mean that UK should not be controlled by regulatory laws set up by the EU. That idiotic tweet alone is not the matter. Two labour party members were suspended because they pointed out the religion of those criminals. And here is a lady who asked the r*pe victims to shut up. But the party did nothing about it. And why is that? It is because of vote bank politics again. The labour party cannot afford to lose the Muslim votes. They would go as far as silencing r*pe victims just for the sake of some votes. Any self respecting feminist should think twice before voting for that wretched party. Priti Patel is not the only non-white minister there. What about Rishi? How about Kwasi? And Alok Sharma? They don't count because they are not part of the political party you support? Taking back control of our borders? One of their main policies was to introduce a points based system based on limiting immigration. Wasnt there a report into Islamophobia in the tory party? Rishi seems a very rare breed..a human tory. Are you saying points based immigration system is a right wing ideology? Canada, the darling of left wing media also uses points based immigration. Are you saying they are also right wing? And what Islamophobia report are you talking about?" I'm really not sure how anyone can argue that the tory stance on immigration is anything but right wing. Didnt they drive a van around london a few years ago saying virtually "immigrants go home' There was a investigation into alleged Islamophobia into the conservative party. | |||
" Labour were largely in favour of a 2nd referendum which imho was the most sensible option of the 3 available. People told what they wanted. Second referendum was a stupid option and people voted the second time to show how stupid the idea was. And the labour never cared about which option was sensible. They could not take a stance because their vote bank was split. Just like how they tried to take a central stand on Kashmir issue because they didn't want to lose both Hindu and Muslim votes. They just managed to piss off both the groups. Sounds like the old saying If you stand in middle of the road you get hit by both sides & my point earlier was that if you go left or right you end at the same outcome. Far Right & Far Left deliver the same Totalitarian outcome. At least in the middle you can allow people some choice. Being in the middle isn’t all bad!
Problem is often you upset everyone and as Labour found out loose another election.
You can take a stand on individual matters without going far left or far right. Not just Labour, many left wing parties are in a precarious situation. Their vote bank is too diverse for their own good. Each group in their vote bank has different priorities. It is hard for these parties to take a stand on anything without pissing off at least a part of their vote bank.
You're saying that it is bad to try to represent too many people?
In a democracy.
You cannot provide a simple message that encapsulates some simple solution to some complicated issue.
Back to the book.
You have to empathise and make compromises.
Alternatively you take the new Dominic Cummings route where you micro-target individuals on Facebook and tell them exactly what they want to hear.
Incorporating the Trump route of maximising anger as motivation.
However, no underlying motivation to to anything except do what you want once you have power."I am not taking a moral standpoint here trying to say what is good and what is bad. I am saying that politicians are not taking a moral standpoint either. For the left wing parties, immigrants are just a vote bank who should not be messed up with. Earlier, left wing parties were pro-working class. Their job was simple then. With the rise of immigration, once immigrants started making up a decent chunk of votes, left wing parties thought it was a good strategy to expand their vote bank to include immigrants too. Though it looked like a great idea on paper, it turned out to be not so simple in reality. You support Israel, Muslims will be pissed off. You support the other side, Jews will be pissed off. Similarly with the Kashmiri issue. While the left wing parties were busy appeasing the immigrant vote bank, right wing parties cleverly made inroads and took away a sizeable chunk of working class vote bank which traditionally belonged to left wing parties. Mostly using immigration and nationalism rhetoric. It was never about what is morally good and morally bad. It is just a matter of a failed left wing strategy that was exploited by the right wing. Why do you think there is so much of split within the labour party? Again, a clash of too many ideologies. Micro-targeting played a much smaller role in elections than the media makes it look like. Every voter can see the manifesto. When you look at the conservative manifesto, you see clarity in what they promise. There are no ifs and buts. That's because they managed to collect a vote bank that has almost similar needs. Appeasing everyone in the vote bank is easy. You only see confusion in the labour manifesto due to the reasons I pointed above. Cummings is a clever bastard who understands this very well. There is a reason why BoJo would not speak against him. Labour party must first stick to an ideology and develop some willingness to sacrifice votes instead of trying to cover everyone by making vague statements. Above all, they must get everyone in their own party to believe in that ideology. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon though. | |||
" Labour were largely in favour of a 2nd referendum which imho was the most sensible option of the 3 available. People told what they wanted. Second referendum was a stupid option and people voted the second time to show how stupid the idea was. And the labour never cared about which option was sensible. They could not take a stance because their vote bank was split. Just like how they tried to take a central stand on Kashmir issue because they didn't want to lose both Hindu and Muslim votes. They just managed to piss off both the groups. Sounds like the old saying If you stand in middle of the road you get hit by both sides & my point earlier was that if you go left or right you end at the same outcome. Far Right & Far Left deliver the same Totalitarian outcome. At least in the middle you can allow people some choice. Being in the middle isn’t all bad!
Problem is often you upset everyone and as Labour found out loose another election.
You can take a stand on individual matters without going far left or far right. Not just Labour, many left wing parties are in a precarious situation. Their vote bank is too diverse for their own good. Each group in their vote bank has different priorities. It is hard for these parties to take a stand on anything without pissing off at least a part of their vote bank.
You're saying that it is bad to try to represent too many people?
In a democracy.
You cannot provide a simple message that encapsulates some simple solution to some complicated issue.
Back to the book.
You have to empathise and make compromises.
Alternatively you take the new Dominic Cummings route where you micro-target individuals on Facebook and tell them exactly what they want to hear.
Incorporating the Trump route of maximising anger as motivation.
However, no underlying motivation to to anything except do what you want once you have power.
I am not taking a moral standpoint here trying to say what is good and what is bad. I am saying that politicians are not taking a moral standpoint either. For the left wing parties, immigrants are just a vote bank who should not be messed up with.
Earlier, left wing parties were pro-working class. Their job was simple then. With the rise of immigration, once immigrants started making up a decent chunk of votes, left wing parties thought it was a good strategy to expand their vote bank to include immigrants too. Though it looked like a great idea on paper, it turned out to be not so simple in reality. You support Israel, Muslims will be pissed off. You support the other side, Jews will be pissed off. Similarly with the Kashmiri issue. While the left wing parties were busy appeasing the immigrant vote bank, right wing parties cleverly made inroads and took away a sizeable chunk of working class vote bank which traditionally belonged to left wing parties. Mostly using immigration and nationalism rhetoric.
It was never about what is morally good and morally bad. It is just a matter of a failed left wing strategy that was exploited by the right wing.
Why do you think there is so much of split within the labour party? Again, a clash of too many ideologies.
Micro-targeting played a much smaller role in elections than the media makes it look like. Every voter can see the manifesto. When you look at the conservative manifesto, you see clarity in what they promise. There are no ifs and buts. That's because they managed to collect a vote bank that has almost similar needs. Appeasing everyone in the vote bank is easy. You only see confusion in the labour manifesto due to the reasons I pointed above.
Cummings is a clever bastard who understands this very well. There is a reason why BoJo would not speak against him.
Labour party must first stick to an ideology and develop some willingness to sacrifice votes instead of trying to cover everyone by making vague statements. Above all, they must get everyone in their own party to believe in that ideology. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon though."You seem to be assuming that immigrants on the whole vote for left wing parties? | |||
" Priti Patel is not the only non-white minister there. What about Rishi? How about Kwasi? And Alok Sharma? They don't count because they are not part of the political party you support? Taking back control of our borders? One of their main policies was to introduce a points based system based on limiting immigration. Wasnt there a report into Islamophobia in the tory party? Rishi seems a very rare breed..a human tory. Are you saying points based immigration system is a right wing ideology? Canada, the darling of left wing media also uses points based immigration. Are you saying they are also right wing? And what Islamophobia report are you talking about? I'm really not sure how anyone can argue that the tory stance on immigration is anything but right wing. Didnt they drive a van around london a few years ago saying virtually "immigrants go home' There was a investigation into alleged Islamophobia into the conservative party. " Tories are working on points based immigration system which helps UK get immigrants based on the jobs they need. This system already exists in many other countries. Some of them are being used as examples of successful left wing countries. Then how is this move far right? Even the labour party has plenty of anti-semitism investigations going on. So they are far right too? | |||
| |||
" I am not taking a moral standpoint here trying to say what is good and what is bad. I am saying that politicians are not taking a moral standpoint either. For the left wing parties, immigrants are just a vote bank who should not be messed up with. Earlier, left wing parties were pro-working class. Their job was simple then. With the rise of immigration, once immigrants started making up a decent chunk of votes, left wing parties thought it was a good strategy to expand their vote bank to include immigrants too. Though it looked like a great idea on paper, it turned out to be not so simple in reality. You support Israel, Muslims will be pissed off. You support the other side, Jews will be pissed off. Similarly with the Kashmiri issue. While the left wing parties were busy appeasing the immigrant vote bank, right wing parties cleverly made inroads and took away a sizeable chunk of working class vote bank which traditionally belonged to left wing parties. Mostly using immigration and nationalism rhetoric. It was never about what is morally good and morally bad. It is just a matter of a failed left wing strategy that was exploited by the right wing. Why do you think there is so much of split within the labour party? Again, a clash of too many ideologies. Micro-targeting played a much smaller role in elections than the media makes it look like. Every voter can see the manifesto. When you look at the conservative manifesto, you see clarity in what they promise. There are no ifs and buts. That's because they managed to collect a vote bank that has almost similar needs. Appeasing everyone in the vote bank is easy. You only see confusion in the labour manifesto due to the reasons I pointed above. Cummings is a clever bastard who understands this very well. There is a reason why BoJo would not speak against him. Labour party must first stick to an ideology and develop some willingness to sacrifice votes instead of trying to cover everyone by making vague statements. Above all, they must get everyone in their own party to believe in that ideology. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon though. You seem to be assuming that immigrants on the whole vote for left wing parties? " Not all. Majority of them do. But recently they have started losing some votes because of the above mentioned reasons. | |||
" Priti Patel is not the only non-white minister there. What about Rishi? How about Kwasi? And Alok Sharma? They don't count because they are not part of the political party you support? Taking back control of our borders? One of their main policies was to introduce a points based system based on limiting immigration. Wasnt there a report into Islamophobia in the tory party? Rishi seems a very rare breed..a human tory. Are you saying points based immigration system is a right wing ideology? Canada, the darling of left wing media also uses points based immigration. Are you saying they are also right wing? And what Islamophobia report are you talking about? I'm really not sure how anyone can argue that the tory stance on immigration is anything but right wing. Didnt they drive a van around london a few years ago saying virtually "immigrants go home' There was a investigation into alleged Islamophobia into the conservative party. Tories are working on points based immigration system which helps UK get immigrants based on the jobs they need. This system already exists in many other countries. Some of them are being used as examples of successful left wing countries. Then how is this move far right? Even the labour party has plenty of anti-semitism investigations going on. So they are far right too?" There is a current investigation into anti semitism but its more to do with anti Israeli criticism which is more left than right wing. | |||
" Labour were largely in favour of a 2nd referendum which imho was the most sensible option of the 3 available. People told what they wanted. Second referendum was a stupid option and people voted the second time to show how stupid the idea was. And the labour never cared about which option was sensible. They could not take a stance because their vote bank was split. Just like how they tried to take a central stand on Kashmir issue because they didn't want to lose both Hindu and Muslim votes. They just managed to piss off both the groups. Sounds like the old saying If you stand in middle of the road you get hit by both sides & my point earlier was that if you go left or right you end at the same outcome. Far Right & Far Left deliver the same Totalitarian outcome. At least in the middle you can allow people some choice. Being in the middle isn’t all bad!
Problem is often you upset everyone and as Labour found out loose another election.
You can take a stand on individual matters without going far left or far right. Not just Labour, many left wing parties are in a precarious situation. Their vote bank is too diverse for their own good. Each group in their vote bank has different priorities. It is hard for these parties to take a stand on anything without pissing off at least a part of their vote bank.
You're saying that it is bad to try to represent too many people?
In a democracy.
You cannot provide a simple message that encapsulates some simple solution to some complicated issue.
Back to the book.
You have to empathise and make compromises.
Alternatively you take the new Dominic Cummings route where you micro-target individuals on Facebook and tell them exactly what they want to hear.
Incorporating the Trump route of maximising anger as motivation.
However, no underlying motivation to to anything except do what you want once you have power.
I am not taking a moral standpoint here trying to say what is good and what is bad. I am saying that politicians are not taking a moral standpoint either. For the left wing parties, immigrants are just a vote bank who should not be messed up with.
Earlier, left wing parties were pro-working class. Their job was simple then. With the rise of immigration, once immigrants started making up a decent chunk of votes, left wing parties thought it was a good strategy to expand their vote bank to include immigrants too. Though it looked like a great idea on paper, it turned out to be not so simple in reality. You support Israel, Muslims will be pissed off. You support the other side, Jews will be pissed off. Similarly with the Kashmiri issue. While the left wing parties were busy appeasing the immigrant vote bank, right wing parties cleverly made inroads and took away a sizeable chunk of working class vote bank which traditionally belonged to left wing parties. Mostly using immigration and nationalism rhetoric.
It was never about what is morally good and morally bad. It is just a matter of a failed left wing strategy that was exploited by the right wing.
Why do you think there is so much of split within the labour party? Again, a clash of too many ideologies.
Micro-targeting played a much smaller role in elections than the media makes it look like. Every voter can see the manifesto. When you look at the conservative manifesto, you see clarity in what they promise. There are no ifs and buts. That's because they managed to collect a vote bank that has almost similar needs. Appeasing everyone in the vote bank is easy. You only see confusion in the labour manifesto due to the reasons I pointed above.
Cummings is a clever bastard who understands this very well. There is a reason why BoJo would not speak against him.
Labour party must first stick to an ideology and develop some willingness to sacrifice votes instead of trying to cover everyone by making vague statements. Above all, they must get everyone in their own party to believe in that ideology. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon though."You always state things with certainty. That almost certainly means that you are wrong 
Government of a nation is all about moral judgements. If you think otherwise then the country is screwed.
Multiple and contradictory simple messages with no intention or ability to deliver.
Regardless, using language to make promises that you have no intention of keeping and morph into something else is exactly what Orwell was talking about. Right or left, and that is what is happening now.
You think that millions were spent on micro-targeting to no purpose?
The Tory manifesto used anger and there were no policies. That's why there were no interviews to the point where BoJo hid in a fridge.
What is the ideology and the manifesto? It was a pamphlet with vague promises.
Explain it to me? Money to everyone and no immigrants.
Easy to say.
The Emperor has no clothes.
That's why BoJo is terrified to lose Cummings because everyone of any capability or intelligence has been purged from the party.
It's only the blaggers left.
Power is centralised and everything goes through Cummings not the Prime Minister.
Power has been centralised without democratic oversight. You've just seen the Prime Minister sacrifice he and his parties standing to protect a political advisor. You do not need more of a demonstration.
Here's the little immigration sideshow:
Controlling immigration was sold as stopping Muslims more than EU citizens in the referendum.
Stoked by claiming both a terrorist threat and "taking our jobs".
The jobs like fruit picking and care work that nobody wants even now when there is no work.
"Low skilled" jobs like nursing and medicine and engineering. In fact, even blaming NHS shortages and school underfunding on immigrants when we have never counted them in or out.
People in the US on work visas without a green card and even here have three months to find a job before having to leave the country. Would you feel able to turn down unreasonable demands of that were the case.
More workers with fewer rights is perfect.
We have had more non EU immigrants than EU ones yet a large number are in low skill, low wage jobs that we apparently "need". Decades to stop that or introduce a points based system.
We're about to give 3 million Hong Kong citizens "a path to UK citizenship". Laughable sound bite. We'll take the ones with money and increase the wealth gap in the UK further | |||
" Priti Patel is not the only non-white minister there. What about Rishi? How about Kwasi? And Alok Sharma? They don't count because they are not part of the political party you support? Taking back control of our borders? One of their main policies was to introduce a points based system based on limiting immigration. Wasnt there a report into Islamophobia in the tory party? Rishi seems a very rare breed..a human tory. Are you saying points based immigration system is a right wing ideology? Canada, the darling of left wing media also uses points based immigration. Are you saying they are also right wing? And what Islamophobia report are you talking about? I'm really not sure how anyone can argue that the tory stance on immigration is anything but right wing. Didnt they drive a van around london a few years ago saying virtually "immigrants go home' There was a investigation into alleged Islamophobia into the conservative party. Tories are working on points based immigration system which helps UK get immigrants based on the jobs they need. This system already exists in many other countries. Some of them are being used as examples of successful left wing countries. Then how is this move far right? Even the labour party has plenty of anti-semitism investigations going on. So they are far right too? There is a current investigation into anti semitism but its more to do with anti Israeli criticism which is more left than right wing." There were more than 800 anti semantic allegations within the party. Some of them included "Heil Hitler" slogans and "jews are the problem" statements. And anti-israeli criticism doesn't make you far left are far right. Disputed territory problems exist all around the world. There is no left/right wing ideology to associate here. | |||
" Priti Patel is not the only non-white minister there. What about Rishi? How about Kwasi? And Alok Sharma? They don't count because they are not part of the political party you support? Taking back control of our borders? One of their main policies was to introduce a points based system based on limiting immigration. Wasnt there a report into Islamophobia in the tory party? Rishi seems a very rare breed..a human tory. Are you saying points based immigration system is a right wing ideology? Canada, the darling of left wing media also uses points based immigration. Are you saying they are also right wing? And what Islamophobia report are you talking about? I'm really not sure how anyone can argue that the tory stance on immigration is anything but right wing. Didnt they drive a van around london a few years ago saying virtually "immigrants go home' There was a investigation into alleged Islamophobia into the conservative party. Tories are working on points based immigration system which helps UK get immigrants based on the jobs they need. This system already exists in many other countries. Some of them are being used as examples of successful left wing countries. Then how is this move far right? Even the labour party has plenty of anti-semitism investigations going on. So they are far right too? There is a current investigation into anti semitism but its more to do with anti Israeli criticism which is more left than right wing. There were more than 800 anti semantic allegations within the party. Some of them included "Heil Hitler" slogans and "jews are the problem" statements. And anti-israeli criticism doesn't make you far left are far right. Disputed territory problems exist all around the world. There is no left/right wing ideology to associate here. " Can you provide a link where any labour party member has praised Hitler? | |||
"We're about to give 3 million Hong Kong citizens "a path to UK citizenship". Laughable sound bite. We'll take the ones with money and increase the wealth gap in the UK further "We'll take the ones the Chinese allow to leave. If anyone thinks they're beyond detaining whoever they like, think again. Plus, which UK company is going to employ some financial whizz-kid on China's shit-list? It's bad for business. Right? | |||
" I am not taking a moral standpoint here trying to say what is good and what is bad. I am saying that politicians are not taking a moral standpoint either. For the left wing parties, immigrants are just a vote bank who should not be messed up with. Earlier, left wing parties were pro-working class. Their job was simple then. With the rise of immigration, once immigrants started making up a decent chunk of votes, left wing parties thought it was a good strategy to expand their vote bank to include immigrants too. Though it looked like a great idea on paper, it turned out to be not so simple in reality. You support Israel, Muslims will be pissed off. You support the other side, Jews will be pissed off. Similarly with the Kashmiri issue. While the left wing parties were busy appeasing the immigrant vote bank, right wing parties cleverly made inroads and took away a sizeable chunk of working class vote bank which traditionally belonged to left wing parties. Mostly using immigration and nationalism rhetoric. It was never about what is morally good and morally bad. It is just a matter of a failed left wing strategy that was exploited by the right wing. Why do you think there is so much of split within the labour party? Again, a clash of too many ideologies. Micro-targeting played a much smaller role in elections than the media makes it look like. Every voter can see the manifesto. When you look at the conservative manifesto, you see clarity in what they promise. There are no ifs and buts. That's because they managed to collect a vote bank that has almost similar needs. Appeasing everyone in the vote bank is easy. You only see confusion in the labour manifesto due to the reasons I pointed above. Cummings is a clever bastard who understands this very well. There is a reason why BoJo would not speak against him. Labour party must first stick to an ideology and develop some willingness to sacrifice votes instead of trying to cover everyone by making vague statements. Above all, they must get everyone in their own party to believe in that ideology. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon though. You always state things with certainty. That almost certainly means that you are wrong
Government of a nation is all about moral judgements. If you think otherwise then the country is screwed.
Multiple and contradictory simple messages with no intention or ability to deliver.
Regardless, using language to make promises that you have no intention of keeping and morph into something else is exactly what Orwell was talking about. Right or left, and that is what is happening now.
You think that millions were spent on micro-targeting to no purpose?
The Tory manifesto used anger and there were no policies. That's why there were no interviews to the point where BoJo hid in a fridge.
What is the ideology and the manifesto? It was a pamphlet with vague promises.
Explain it to me? Money to everyone and no immigrants.
Easy to say.
The Emperor has no clothes.
That's why BoJo is terrified to lose Cummings because everyone of any capability or intelligence has been purged from the party.
It's only the blaggers left.
Power is centralised and everything goes through Cummings not the Prime Minister.
Power has been centralised without democratic oversight. You've just seen the Prime Minister sacrifice he and his parties standing to protect a political advisor. You do not need more of a demonstration.
Here's the little immigration sideshow:
Controlling immigration was sold as stopping Muslims more than EU citizens in the referendum.
Stoked by claiming both a terrorist threat and "taking our jobs".
The jobs like fruit picking and care work that nobody wants even now when there is no work.
"Low skilled" jobs like nursing and medicine and engineering. In fact, even blaming NHS shortages and school underfunding on immigrants when we have never counted them in or out.
People in the US on work visas without a green card and even here have three months to find a job before having to leave the country. Would you feel able to turn down unreasonable demands of that were the case.
More workers with fewer rights is perfect.
We have had more non EU immigrants than EU ones yet a large number are in low skill, low wage jobs that we apparently "need". Decades to stop that or introduce a points based system.
We're about to give 3 million Hong Kong citizens "a path to UK citizenship". Laughable sound bite. We'll take the ones with money and increase the wealth gap in the UK further "I have seen enough of both left and right wing parties to claim certain things with certainty. And I always backed my claims with examples of their behaviour. Of course, if it doesn't confirm with your opinions, it is easy to just say it is all wrong. It is not the duty of a government to control morality of people. If you let the government take that level of control, that will only lead to an Orwellian society. The duty of a government is administration, economic policies and safety of its people. Government has no business forcing their own moral ideals on people. If you let that happen, it is dangerous and that is what screws up a country. Not the other way around  It is the governments with a strict moral standpoint that have death penalty for gays because they feel that it is immoral to be gay.
Millions were spent on micro targeting because people were not using traditional media anymore. Not many people watch television continuously along with ads. It makes more sense to redirect that money to social media. If they told different things to different people that were not compatible with each other, they would not have a proper manifesto.
Vague promises? They told they will get Brexit done. Unlike the labour who had to write an essay to explain their brexit stance.
Where in the manifesto did they claim "no immigration"? It was always about immigration based on country's needs.
The rest of your post about the referendum message on stopping Muslims from entering Europe was entirely done by Farage and not by Tories. It was Cummings idea to stay away from that kind of message because he knew that Farage would do that dirty work. But the Tories manifesto never claimed anything about controlling Muslims immigration.
Whether you like it or not, skill based immigration is the way to go forward. All countries will eventually move towards it. Canada and Australia are already doing it and they have been doing well. If you want to make the best out of immigration, you need a system like that. The initial version will obviously be imperfect. You have to let it take its course over time before judging it.
And which economic school taught you that bringing in rich people will create wealth disparity?
Unless you are running a socialist state, getting rich people to spend money in your country is only good for the country. They will obviously pay more taxes which will help funding social welfare that helps the poor. | |||
" Priti Patel is not the only non-white minister there. What about Rishi? How about Kwasi? And Alok Sharma? They don't count because they are not part of the political party you support? Taking back control of our borders? One of their main policies was to introduce a points based system based on limiting immigration. Wasnt there a report into Islamophobia in the tory party? Rishi seems a very rare breed..a human tory. Are you saying points based immigration system is a right wing ideology? Canada, the darling of left wing media also uses points based immigration. Are you saying they are also right wing? And what Islamophobia report are you talking about? I'm really not sure how anyone can argue that the tory stance on immigration is anything but right wing. Didnt they drive a van around london a few years ago saying virtually "immigrants go home' There was a investigation into alleged Islamophobia into the conservative party. Tories are working on points based immigration system which helps UK get immigrants based on the jobs they need. This system already exists in many other countries. Some of them are being used as examples of successful left wing countries. Then how is this move far right? Even the labour party has plenty of anti-semitism investigations going on. So they are far right too? There is a current investigation into anti semitism but its more to do with anti Israeli criticism which is more left than right wing. There were more than 800 anti semantic allegations within the party. Some of them included "Heil Hitler" slogans and "jews are the problem" statements. And anti-israeli criticism doesn't make you far left are far right. Disputed territory problems exist all around the world. There is no left/right wing ideology to associate here. Can you provide a link where any labour party member has praised Hitler?" https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/labour-failing-to-get-to-grips-with-antisemitism-leaked-emails-show https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45030552 | |||
" I am not taking a moral standpoint here trying to say what is good and what is bad. I am saying that politicians are not taking a moral standpoint either. For the left wing parties, immigrants are just a vote bank who should not be messed up with. Earlier, left wing parties were pro-working class. Their job was simple then. With the rise of immigration, once immigrants started making up a decent chunk of votes, left wing parties thought it was a good strategy to expand their vote bank to include immigrants too. Though it looked like a great idea on paper, it turned out to be not so simple in reality. You support Israel, Muslims will be pissed off. You support the other side, Jews will be pissed off. Similarly with the Kashmiri issue. While the left wing parties were busy appeasing the immigrant vote bank, right wing parties cleverly made inroads and took away a sizeable chunk of working class vote bank which traditionally belonged to left wing parties. Mostly using immigration and nationalism rhetoric. It was never about what is morally good and morally bad. It is just a matter of a failed left wing strategy that was exploited by the right wing. Why do you think there is so much of split within the labour party? Again, a clash of too many ideologies. Micro-targeting played a much smaller role in elections than the media makes it look like. Every voter can see the manifesto. When you look at the conservative manifesto, you see clarity in what they promise. There are no ifs and buts. That's because they managed to collect a vote bank that has almost similar needs. Appeasing everyone in the vote bank is easy. You only see confusion in the labour manifesto due to the reasons I pointed above. Cummings is a clever bastard who understands this very well. There is a reason why BoJo would not speak against him. Labour party must first stick to an ideology and develop some willingness to sacrifice votes instead of trying to cover everyone by making vague statements. Above all, they must get everyone in their own party to believe in that ideology. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon though. You always state things with certainty. That almost certainly means that you are wrong
Government of a nation is all about moral judgements. If you think otherwise then the country is screwed.
Multiple and contradictory simple messages with no intention or ability to deliver.
Regardless, using language to make promises that you have no intention of keeping and morph into something else is exactly what Orwell was talking about. Right or left, and that is what is happening now.
You think that millions were spent on micro-targeting to no purpose?
The Tory manifesto used anger and there were no policies. That's why there were no interviews to the point where BoJo hid in a fridge.
What is the ideology and the manifesto? It was a pamphlet with vague promises.
Explain it to me? Money to everyone and no immigrants.
Easy to say.
The Emperor has no clothes.
That's why BoJo is terrified to lose Cummings because everyone of any capability or intelligence has been purged from the party.
It's only the blaggers left.
Power is centralised and everything goes through Cummings not the Prime Minister.
Power has been centralised without democratic oversight. You've just seen the Prime Minister sacrifice he and his parties standing to protect a political advisor. You do not need more of a demonstration.
Here's the little immigration sideshow:
Controlling immigration was sold as stopping Muslims more than EU citizens in the referendum.
Stoked by claiming both a terrorist threat and "taking our jobs".
The jobs like fruit picking and care work that nobody wants even now when there is no work.
"Low skilled" jobs like nursing and medicine and engineering. In fact, even blaming NHS shortages and school underfunding on immigrants when we have never counted them in or out.
People in the US on work visas without a green card and even here have three months to find a job before having to leave the country. Would you feel able to turn down unreasonable demands of that were the case.
More workers with fewer rights is perfect.
We have had more non EU immigrants than EU ones yet a large number are in low skill, low wage jobs that we apparently "need". Decades to stop that or introduce a points based system.
We're about to give 3 million Hong Kong citizens "a path to UK citizenship". Laughable sound bite. We'll take the ones with money and increase the wealth gap in the UK further
I have seen enough of both left and right wing parties to claim certain things with certainty. And I always backed my claims with examples of their behaviour. Of course, if it doesn't confirm with your opinions, it is easy to just say it is all wrong.
It is not the duty of a government to control morality of people. If you let the government take that level of control, that will only lead to an Orwellian society. The duty of a government is administration, economic policies and safety of its people. Government has no business forcing their own moral ideals on people. If you let that happen, it is dangerous and that is what screws up a country. Not the other way around It is the governments with a strict moral standpoint that have death penalty for gays because they feel that it is immoral to be gay.
Millions were spent on micro targeting because people were not using traditional media anymore. Not many people watch television continuously along with ads. It makes more sense to redirect that money to social media. If they told different things to different people that were not compatible with each other, they would not have a proper manifesto.
Vague promises? They told they will get Brexit done. Unlike the labour who had to write an essay to explain their brexit stance.
Where in the manifesto did they claim "no immigration"? It was always about immigration based on country's needs.
The rest of your post about the referendum message on stopping Muslims from entering Europe was entirely done by Farage and not by Tories. It was Cummings idea to stay away from that kind of message because he knew that Farage would do that dirty work. But the Tories manifesto never claimed anything about controlling Muslims immigration.
Whether you like it or not, skill based immigration is the way to go forward. All countries will eventually move towards it. Canada and Australia are already doing it and they have been doing well. If you want to make the best out of immigration, you need a system like that. The initial version will obviously be imperfect. You have to let it take its course over time before judging it.
And which economic school taught you that bringing in rich people will create wealth disparity?
Unless you are running a socialist state, getting rich people to spend money in your country is only good for the country. They will obviously pay more taxes which will help funding social welfare that helps the poor."Not politics imposing morality
"I am not taking a moral standpoint here trying to say what is good and what is bad. I am saying that politicians are not taking a moral standpoint either."
Take a moral standpoint. Politics free from a sense of right and wrong and fairness and compassioncompassion is one that does not care about the consequences to human beings.
Even the truth can be rewritten as Trump has done and BoJo/Cummings are trying to do.
Animal Farm again.
You don't need to micro-target on social media. You could send the same message. The laughable Tory manifesto pamphlet full of short, empty catchphrases.
Micro-targeting is giving different people different messages which cannot be contradicted or fact checked.
They get their own, individual, unverifiable, promise.
"Getting Brexit done" means what? Not just leaving the EU. Some unspecified "better" life afterwards.
Pretending that what they said has any relevance to what was communicated and conveniently mixed with any number of other messages is duplicitous at best.
The Tory election and what people chose to believe about Brexit are the same.
Once again, it's providing a number of simultaneous options and people deciding on which to believe is meant.
Don't pretend that there was one simple Tory and Brexit. message.
There was deliberately a plethora of messaging.
We still haven't established this one thing yet.
Do you think that the behaviour described by George Orwell in Animal Farm is equally applicable to the growth of right wing as much as left wing totalitarian regimes? | |||
" I have seen enough of both left and right wing parties to claim certain things with certainty. And I always backed my claims with examples of their behaviour. Of course, if it doesn't confirm with your opinions, it is easy to just say it is all wrong. It is not the duty of a government to control morality of people. If you let the government take that level of control, that will only lead to an Orwellian society. The duty of a government is administration, economic policies and safety of its people. Government has no business forcing their own moral ideals on people. If you let that happen, it is dangerous and that is what screws up a country. Not the other way around It is the governments with a strict moral standpoint that have death penalty for gays because they feel that it is immoral to be gay.
Millions were spent on micro targeting because people were not using traditional media anymore. Not many people watch television continuously along with ads. It makes more sense to redirect that money to social media. If they told different things to different people that were not compatible with each other, they would not have a proper manifesto.
Vague promises? They told they will get Brexit done. Unlike the labour who had to write an essay to explain their brexit stance.
Where in the manifesto did they claim "no immigration"? It was always about immigration based on country's needs.
The rest of your post about the referendum message on stopping Muslims from entering Europe was entirely done by Farage and not by Tories. It was Cummings idea to stay away from that kind of message because he knew that Farage would do that dirty work. But the Tories manifesto never claimed anything about controlling Muslims immigration.
Whether you like it or not, skill based immigration is the way to go forward. All countries will eventually move towards it. Canada and Australia are already doing it and they have been doing well. If you want to make the best out of immigration, you need a system like that. The initial version will obviously be imperfect. You have to let it take its course over time before judging it.
And which economic school taught you that bringing in rich people will create wealth disparity?
Unless you are running a socialist state, getting rich people to spend money in your country is only good for the country. They will obviously pay more taxes which will help funding social welfare that helps the poor.
Not politics imposing morality
"I am not taking a moral standpoint here trying to say what is good and what is bad. I am saying that politicians are not taking a moral standpoint either."
Take a moral standpoint. Politics free from a sense of right and wrong and fairness and compassioncompassion is one that does not care about the consequences to human beings.
Even the truth can be rewritten as Trump has done and BoJo/Cummings are trying to do.
Animal Farm again.
You don't need to micro-target on social media. You could send the same message. The laughable Tory manifesto pamphlet full of short, empty catchphrases.
Micro-targeting is giving different people different messages which cannot be contradicted or fact checked.
They get their own, individual, unverifiable, promise.
"Getting Brexit done" means what? Not just leaving the EU. Some unspecified "better" life afterwards.
Pretending that what they said has any relevance to what was communicated and conveniently mixed with any number of other messages is duplicitous at best.
The Tory election and what people chose to believe about Brexit are the same.
Once again, it's providing a number of simultaneous options and people deciding on which to believe is meant.
Don't pretend that there was one simple Tory and Brexit. message.
There was deliberately a plethora of messaging.
We still haven't established this one thing yet.
Do you think that the behaviour described by George Orwell in Animal Farm is equally applicable to the growth of right wing as much as left wing totalitarian regimes?"In my moral standpoint, I value freedom more than anything else. I value women's rights and LGBT rights. You are right that both right and left wing can lead to totalitarianism. So where do we draw the line? The first sign that a government is moving towards totalitarianism is when your freedom is taken away in one form or another. Right to speak, right to vote, right to consume information etc. Any kind of censorship, any attempt to legally shut down voices. This is the basis in Orwell's books as well. With BoJo Cummings problem, I personally feel that Cummings should be fired. No questions. But you still have the right to speak about this. You still have the right to protest about it. You still have the right to vote against it. Favouritism has been a problem with almost all the governments. Though it is bad, I don't think it is in a level where you can compare that to Orwell's societies. Did you even read the manifesto? If not, here it is. Getting Brexit done is not a vague statement at all and they are getting it done. All the other points below are to the point. Will they be able to achieve them all? We have to wait and see for ourselves. * We will get Brexit done in January and unleash the potential of our whole country. * Extra funding for the NHS, with 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more GP surgery appointments a year. * 20,000 more police and tougher sentencing for criminals. * An Australian-style points-based system to control immigration. * Millions more invested every week in science, schools, apprenticeships and infrastructure while controlling debt. * Reaching Net Zero by 2050 with investment in clean energy solutions and green infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions and pollution. * We will not raise the rate of income tax, VAT or National Insurance. | |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties? No. Think you're seeing what you want to see there. Orwell was a socialist. 1984 is about totalitarianism, of any political hue. Animal Farm is kinda based around the Russian revolution but is generally about the futility of revolution and the corrupting effect of power. " So it wasn't about socialism and communism... And yet Animal Farm was about, er, The Russian Revolution.... | |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties? No. Think you're seeing what you want to see there. Orwell was a socialist. 1984 is about totalitarianism, of any political hue. Animal Farm is kinda based around the Russian revolution but is generally about the futility of revolution and the corrupting effect of power. So it wasn't about socialism and communism... And yet Animal Farm was about, er, The Russian Revolution...." It doesn't matter what it was written about specifically. It is what you can learn from it. Are you telling me that you do not learn about totalitarianism of any political colour? The only difference is that Communism starts with the intent of introducing some sort of equality for all whereas right wing ideology only promises it for the select few. | |||
"A timely reminder from Sparknotes. Selected quotes might be more pithy, but that would be dumbing down, which rather defeats the point. alternatively, read the whole book. China has already reached the end of this novel but other countries are working their way through. Turkey Poland Hungary Brazil Trump BoJo/Cummings Spoiler alert: Boxer gets sent to the knackers yard. George Orwell’s Animal Farm examines the insidious ways in which public officials can abuse their power, as it depicts a society in which democracy dissolves into autocracy and finally into totalitarianism. From the Rebellion onward, the pigs of Animal Farm use violence and the threat of violence to control the other animals. However, while the attack dogs keep the other animals in line, physical intimidation doesn’t prevent some of them from quietly questioning Napoleon’s decisions. To check this threat to the pigs’ power, Napoleon relies on rousing slogans, songs, and phrases to instill patriotism and conformity among the animals. On Animal Farm, it quickly becomes clear that language and rhetoric can be much more effective tools of social control than violence. The pigs rely on slogans, poems, and commandments to both inspire the animals and keep them subservient. Crucially, the pigs understand that their songs and sayings must be easy to memorize and repeat if the other animals are to internalize their precepts. When written commandments prove too difficult for many of the animals, the pigs synthesize them into a single, brief catchphrase: “Four legs good, two legs bad.” The slogan inspires the animals to adore their leaders rather than fear them, and by repeating it they deepen their commitment to the pigs. Boxer, the loyal cart-horse, continuously reaffirms his faith in the pigs’ judgment by repeating the slogan “Napoleon is always right” in addition to his usual mantra, “I will work harder.” The animals eventually use the pigs’ slogans to police themselves, such as when several animals protest Napoleon’s decision to begin trading farm products to humans. Though they are initially silenced by “a tremendous growling from the dogs,” the tension isn’t dissolved until the sheep break into a collective recital of “‘Four legs good, two legs bad!’” In this key scene, Orwell explicitly contrasts brute force and the power of language, demonstrating that while the former may be effective in the short term, the latter has deeper, more lasting effects. The central role of rhetoric in the pigs’ administration is illustrated by the power afforded Squealer, the aptly-named spokespig, as well as the presence of a government poet pig, Minimus. In addition to the songs, slogans, poems, and commandments, Napoleon and the pigs also rewrite the oral and written histories of the farm in order to serve their needs and maintain their authority. When Napoleon violently seizes power, he quickly justifies his takeover by falsely denouncing his former ally and fellow revolutionary, Snowball, as a human-sympathizer and enemy of Animalism. In fact, he continuously retells the story of Snowball’s “treachery” until Snowball’s role in the Rebellion and subsequent founding of Animal Farm has been completely effaced. Despite the fact that many of the animals remember Snowball receiving a medal for his bravery in the Battle of the Cowshed, Squealer convinces them that Snowball had actually fought alongside Mr. Jones against the animals. Loyal Boxer, who has trouble believing the official tale, is convinced otherwise when Squealer tells him that Napoleon knows it to be true. “Ah, that is different,” exclaims Boxer. “If Comrade Napoleon says it, it must be right.” Later, as the pigs move into the farmhouse, Squealer makes more revisions to the official doctrine when he secretly amends the commandment “No animal shall sleep in a bed” to “No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets” and revises the rule about drinking to “No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.” The pigs even replace the old mantras with “Four legs good, two legs better,” and ultimately, “All animals are equal, except some are more equal than others.” When the animals actually catch Squealer in the act of rewriting the commandments, they don’t seriously suspect anything, a testament to the power the pigs’ rhetoric and language has over them." | |||
" I have seen enough of both left and right wing parties to claim certain things with certainty. And I always backed my claims with examples of their behaviour. Of course, if it doesn't confirm with your opinions, it is easy to just say it is all wrong. It is not the duty of a government to control morality of people. If you let the government take that level of control, that will only lead to an Orwellian society. The duty of a government is administration, economic policies and safety of its people. Government has no business forcing their own moral ideals on people. If you let that happen, it is dangerous and that is what screws up a country. Not the other way around It is the governments with a strict moral standpoint that have death penalty for gays because they feel that it is immoral to be gay.
Millions were spent on micro targeting because people were not using traditional media anymore. Not many people watch television continuously along with ads. It makes more sense to redirect that money to social media. If they told different things to different people that were not compatible with each other, they would not have a proper manifesto.
Vague promises? They told they will get Brexit done. Unlike the labour who had to write an essay to explain their brexit stance.
Where in the manifesto did they claim "no immigration"? It was always about immigration based on country's needs.
The rest of your post about the referendum message on stopping Muslims from entering Europe was entirely done by Farage and not by Tories. It was Cummings idea to stay away from that kind of message because he knew that Farage would do that dirty work. But the Tories manifesto never claimed anything about controlling Muslims immigration.
Whether you like it or not, skill based immigration is the way to go forward. All countries will eventually move towards it. Canada and Australia are already doing it and they have been doing well. If you want to make the best out of immigration, you need a system like that. The initial version will obviously be imperfect. You have to let it take its course over time before judging it.
And which economic school taught you that bringing in rich people will create wealth disparity?
Unless you are running a socialist state, getting rich people to spend money in your country is only good for the country. They will obviously pay more taxes which will help funding social welfare that helps the poor.
Not politics imposing morality
"I am not taking a moral standpoint here trying to say what is good and what is bad. I am saying that politicians are not taking a moral standpoint either."
Take a moral standpoint. Politics free from a sense of right and wrong and fairness and compassioncompassion is one that does not care about the consequences to human beings.
Even the truth can be rewritten as Trump has done and BoJo/Cummings are trying to do.
Animal Farm again.
You don't need to micro-target on social media. You could send the same message. The laughable Tory manifesto pamphlet full of short, empty catchphrases.
Micro-targeting is giving different people different messages which cannot be contradicted or fact checked.
They get their own, individual, unverifiable, promise.
"Getting Brexit done" means what? Not just leaving the EU. Some unspecified "better" life afterwards.
Pretending that what they said has any relevance to what was communicated and conveniently mixed with any number of other messages is duplicitous at best.
The Tory election and what people chose to believe about Brexit are the same.
Once again, it's providing a number of simultaneous options and people deciding on which to believe is meant.
Don't pretend that there was one simple Tory and Brexit. message.
There was deliberately a plethora of messaging.
We still haven't established this one thing yet.
Do you think that the behaviour described by George Orwell in Animal Farm is equally applicable to the growth of right wing as much as left wing totalitarian regimes?
In my moral standpoint, I value freedom more than anything else. I value women's rights and LGBT rights.
You are right that both right and left wing can lead to totalitarianism. So where do we draw the line? The first sign that a government is moving towards totalitarianism is when your freedom is taken away in one form or another. Right to speak, right to vote, right to consume information etc. Any kind of censorship, any attempt to legally shut down voices. This is the basis in Orwell's books as well.
With BoJo Cummings problem, I personally feel that Cummings should be fired. No questions. But you still have the right to speak about this. You still have the right to protest about it. You still have the right to vote against it. Favouritism has been a problem with almost all the governments. Though it is bad, I don't think it is in a level where you can compare that to Orwell's societies.
Did you even read the manifesto? If not, here it is. Getting Brexit done is not a vague statement at all and they are getting it done. All the other points below are to the point. Will they be able to achieve them all? We have to wait and see for ourselves.
* We will get Brexit done in January and unleash the potential of our whole country.
* Extra funding for the NHS, with 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more GP surgery appointments a year.
* 20,000 more police and tougher sentencing for criminals.
* An Australian-style points-based system to control immigration.
* Millions more invested every week in science, schools, apprenticeships and infrastructure while controlling debt.
* Reaching Net Zero by 2050 with investment in clean energy solutions and green infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions and pollution.
* We will not raise the rate of income tax, VAT or National Insurance."The first sign that a government is moving towards totalitarianism is denying fact. Another sign is trying to exclude and isolate and control critical elements of the press. Perhaps by trying to selectively separate one group from another for a briefing? Perhaps by threatening their funding? Another sign is not consulting Parliament on important issues or even shutting it down when it proves inconvenient. All these things have happened. The fact that the Prime Minister appears subservient to an unelected advisor is not Orwellian? Perhaps just Machivellian then? It was easy to read the Conservative manifesto because it was a pamphlet. It is the vague, uncosted and detail free promises that you just wrote. That was the manifesto pretty much in its entirety plus some pictures. You call that a manifesto?
Just out of interest, you if your population is increased by wealthy immigrants the wealth gap does not increase?
There are more wealthy people and the same number of poor people?
You think that "trickle down" economics is a thing after it's been disproved again and again?
Giving rich people more money makes them richer and their children richer.
Giving poor people money makes them warmer and less hungry. They spend more of not all of every extra pound that they receive than a wealthy one.
However, at least it is clear that both the right and the left are equally capable of destruction when it is corrupted and that language can be used to control the population. | |||
" Not politics imposing morality
"I am not taking a moral standpoint here trying to say what is good and what is bad. I am saying that politicians are not taking a moral standpoint either."
Take a moral standpoint. Politics free from a sense of right and wrong and fairness and compassioncompassion is one that does not care about the consequences to human beings.
Even the truth can be rewritten as Trump has done and BoJo/Cummings are trying to do.
Animal Farm again.
You don't need to micro-target on social media. You could send the same message. The laughable Tory manifesto pamphlet full of short, empty catchphrases.
Micro-targeting is giving different people different messages which cannot be contradicted or fact checked.
They get their own, individual, unverifiable, promise.
"Getting Brexit done" means what? Not just leaving the EU. Some unspecified "better" life afterwards.
Pretending that what they said has any relevance to what was communicated and conveniently mixed with any number of other messages is duplicitous at best.
The Tory election and what people chose to believe about Brexit are the same.
Once again, it's providing a number of simultaneous options and people deciding on which to believe is meant.
Don't pretend that there was one simple Tory and Brexit. message.
There was deliberately a plethora of messaging.
We still haven't established this one thing yet.
Do you think that the behaviour described by George Orwell in Animal Farm is equally applicable to the growth of right wing as much as left wing totalitarian regimes?
In my moral standpoint, I value freedom more than anything else. I value women's rights and LGBT rights.
You are right that both right and left wing can lead to totalitarianism. So where do we draw the line? The first sign that a government is moving towards totalitarianism is when your freedom is taken away in one form or another. Right to speak, right to vote, right to consume information etc. Any kind of censorship, any attempt to legally shut down voices. This is the basis in Orwell's books as well.
With BoJo Cummings problem, I personally feel that Cummings should be fired. No questions. But you still have the right to speak about this. You still have the right to protest about it. You still have the right to vote against it. Favouritism has been a problem with almost all the governments. Though it is bad, I don't think it is in a level where you can compare that to Orwell's societies.
Did you even read the manifesto? If not, here it is. Getting Brexit done is not a vague statement at all and they are getting it done. All the other points below are to the point. Will they be able to achieve them all? We have to wait and see for ourselves.
* We will get Brexit done in January and unleash the potential of our whole country.
* Extra funding for the NHS, with 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more GP surgery appointments a year.
* 20,000 more police and tougher sentencing for criminals.
* An Australian-style points-based system to control immigration.
* Millions more invested every week in science, schools, apprenticeships and infrastructure while controlling debt.
* Reaching Net Zero by 2050 with investment in clean energy solutions and green infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions and pollution.
* We will not raise the rate of income tax, VAT or National Insurance.
The first sign that a government is moving towards totalitarianism is denying fact.
Another sign is trying to exclude and isolate and control critical elements of the press. Perhaps by trying to selectively separate one group from another for a briefing? Perhaps by threatening their funding?
Another sign is not consulting Parliament on important issues or even shutting it down when it proves inconvenient.
All these things have happened.
The fact that the Prime Minister appears subservient to an unelected advisor is not Orwellian? Perhaps just Machivellian then?
It was easy to read the Conservative manifesto because it was a pamphlet.
It is the vague, uncosted and detail free promises that you just wrote. That was the manifesto pretty much in its entirety plus some pictures.
You call that a manifesto?
Just out of interest, you if your population is increased by wealthy immigrants the wealth gap does not increase?
There are more wealthy people and the same number of poor people?
You think that "trickle down" economics is a thing after it's been disproved again and again?
Giving rich people more money makes them richer and their children richer.
Giving poor people money makes them warmer and less hungry. They spend more of not all of every extra pound that they receive than a wealthy one.
However, at least it is clear that both the right and the left are equally capable of destruction when it is corrupted and that language can be used to control the population."Denying fact is just telling lies. All politicians over the history have done that. It is upto the people to identify these lies. You are right about freedom of press. That move is definitely something we should be vary about, if we want to avoid an Orwellian society. Same applies for shutting down parliament. All these fall into the category of "taking away freedom". Taking away freedom is the surest sign for a government trying to move towards Orwellian society. But showing favouritism and saving the ass of a politician doesn't fall into the category. All politicians try that at some point of time. Because power is all that politicians want. A totalitarian government is a dream come true for them. UK did very well in not letting BoJo shut down the parliament and I hope it has legal means and will to stop such things from happening anytime. Prime minister getting advice from others doesn't make him subservient. Again, this is something that happens everywhere. The prime minister candidate is usually just a face that parties choose to attract people. The real brains are mostly somewhere behind. As long as the election process is democratic, we have nothing to worry about. A manifesto is a promise. They promised clearly what they want to do. When has a manifesto ever explained where they are going to get the money for it? The labour manifesto had points like "Better healthcare for all", "Make sure NHS has enough money", "Get many police officers", "Pass laws to control pollution". There is no way you can keep them accountable for any of these statements. What do you mean by "many police officers", "Better healthcare", "control pollution"? There is no clear metric to measure against these kinds of promises. If you are worried about where the money is coming from, we should talk about universal broadband too. Not saying that the conservatives are good. But the labour party was so bad in the last election. People were totally right in choosing the conservatives instead. Hope Starmer fixes all the problems in that party. More wealthy and same number of poor people is obviously better. If you want to run social welfare, you need more people who pay more taxes. Are you saying that getting in more poor people is going to help the poor people who are already living here? Trickle down economics has been working very well around the world. Unfortunately, all good news are never covered by the media. Around the world, the number of people who are under severe poverty has been reduced to half. Wannabe socialists and arm-chair communists will never talk about that. If you want facts, I suggest you read the book Factfulness by Hans Rosling. And no one is giving more money to rich people. Rich people are earning more money. There is a difference. There are some rich assholes who break laws in the process. But there are many good people who became rich legally and are contributing to the development of society. So stop with this bashing of rich people all the time. They are not the reason why some people are poor. | |||
| |||
" Not politics imposing morality
"I am not taking a moral standpoint here trying to say what is good and what is bad. I am saying that politicians are not taking a moral standpoint either."
Take a moral standpoint. Politics free from a sense of right and wrong and fairness and compassioncompassion is one that does not care about the consequences to human beings.
Even the truth can be rewritten as Trump has done and BoJo/Cummings are trying to do.
Animal Farm again.
You don't need to micro-target on social media. You could send the same message. The laughable Tory manifesto pamphlet full of short, empty catchphrases.
Micro-targeting is giving different people different messages which cannot be contradicted or fact checked.
They get their own, individual, unverifiable, promise.
"Getting Brexit done" means what? Not just leaving the EU. Some unspecified "better" life afterwards.
Pretending that what they said has any relevance to what was communicated and conveniently mixed with any number of other messages is duplicitous at best.
The Tory election and what people chose to believe about Brexit are the same.
Once again, it's providing a number of simultaneous options and people deciding on which to believe is meant.
Don't pretend that there was one simple Tory and Brexit. message.
There was deliberately a plethora of messaging.
We still haven't established this one thing yet.
Do you think that the behaviour described by George Orwell in Animal Farm is equally applicable to the growth of right wing as much as left wing totalitarian regimes?
In my moral standpoint, I value freedom more than anything else. I value women's rights and LGBT rights.
You are right that both right and left wing can lead to totalitarianism. So where do we draw the line? The first sign that a government is moving towards totalitarianism is when your freedom is taken away in one form or another. Right to speak, right to vote, right to consume information etc. Any kind of censorship, any attempt to legally shut down voices. This is the basis in Orwell's books as well.
With BoJo Cummings problem, I personally feel that Cummings should be fired. No questions. But you still have the right to speak about this. You still have the right to protest about it. You still have the right to vote against it. Favouritism has been a problem with almost all the governments. Though it is bad, I don't think it is in a level where you can compare that to Orwell's societies.
Did you even read the manifesto? If not, here it is. Getting Brexit done is not a vague statement at all and they are getting it done. All the other points below are to the point. Will they be able to achieve them all? We have to wait and see for ourselves.
* We will get Brexit done in January and unleash the potential of our whole country.
* Extra funding for the NHS, with 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more GP surgery appointments a year.
* 20,000 more police and tougher sentencing for criminals.
* An Australian-style points-based system to control immigration.
* Millions more invested every week in science, schools, apprenticeships and infrastructure while controlling debt.
* Reaching Net Zero by 2050 with investment in clean energy solutions and green infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions and pollution.
* We will not raise the rate of income tax, VAT or National Insurance.
The first sign that a government is moving towards totalitarianism is denying fact.
Another sign is trying to exclude and isolate and control critical elements of the press. Perhaps by trying to selectively separate one group from another for a briefing? Perhaps by threatening their funding?
Another sign is not consulting Parliament on important issues or even shutting it down when it proves inconvenient.
All these things have happened.
The fact that the Prime Minister appears subservient to an unelected advisor is not Orwellian? Perhaps just Machivellian then?
It was easy to read the Conservative manifesto because it was a pamphlet.
It is the vague, uncosted and detail free promises that you just wrote. That was the manifesto pretty much in its entirety plus some pictures.
You call that a manifesto?
Just out of interest, you if your population is increased by wealthy immigrants the wealth gap does not increase?
There are more wealthy people and the same number of poor people?
You think that "trickle down" economics is a thing after it's been disproved again and again?
Giving rich people more money makes them richer and their children richer.
Giving poor people money makes them warmer and less hungry. They spend more of not all of every extra pound that they receive than a wealthy one.
However, at least it is clear that both the right and the left are equally capable of destruction when it is corrupted and that language can be used to control the population.
Denying fact is just telling lies. All politicians over the history have done that. It is upto the people to identify these lies.
You are right about freedom of press. That move is definitely something we should be vary about, if we want to avoid an Orwellian society. Same applies for shutting down parliament. All these fall into the category of "taking away freedom". Taking away freedom is the surest sign for a government trying to move towards Orwellian society. But showing favouritism and saving the ass of a politician doesn't fall into the category.
All politicians try that at some point of time. Because power is all that politicians want. A totalitarian government is a dream come true for them. UK did very well in not letting BoJo shut down the parliament and I hope it has legal means and will to stop such things from happening anytime.
Prime minister getting advice from others doesn't make him subservient. Again, this is something that happens everywhere. The prime minister candidate is usually just a face that parties choose to attract people. The real brains are mostly somewhere behind. As long as the election process is democratic, we have nothing to worry about.
A manifesto is a promise. They promised clearly what they want to do. When has a manifesto ever explained where they are going to get the money for it?
The labour manifesto had points like "Better healthcare for all", "Make sure NHS has enough money", "Get many police officers", "Pass laws to control pollution". There is no way you can keep them accountable for any of these statements. What do you mean by "many police officers", "Better healthcare", "control pollution"? There is no clear metric to measure against these kinds of promises. If you are worried about where the money is coming from, we should talk about universal broadband too.
Not saying that the conservatives are good. But the labour party was so bad in the last election. People were totally right in choosing the conservatives instead. Hope Starmer fixes all the problems in that party.
More wealthy and same number of poor people is obviously better. If you want to run social welfare, you need more people who pay more taxes. Are you saying that getting in more poor people is going to help the poor people who are already living here? Trickle down economics has been working very well around the world. Unfortunately, all good news are never covered by the media. Around the world, the number of people who are under severe poverty has been reduced to half. Wannabe socialists and arm-chair communists will never talk about that. If you want facts, I suggest you read the book Factfulness by Hans Rosling.
And no one is giving more money to rich people. Rich people are earning more money. There is a difference. There are some rich assholes who break laws in the process. But there are many good people who became rich legally and are contributing to the development of society. So stop with this bashing of rich people all the time. They are not the reason why some people are poor.
"You cant say people are right because you dont know. I didnt vote for them and I know I was right. | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else." Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. " This
The very reason why communism/marxist socialism turns into a totalitarian government. | |||
| |||
" Not politics imposing morality
"I am not taking a moral standpoint here trying to say what is good and what is bad. I am saying that politicians are not taking a moral standpoint either."
Take a moral standpoint. Politics free from a sense of right and wrong and fairness and compassioncompassion is one that does not care about the consequences to human beings.
Even the truth can be rewritten as Trump has done and BoJo/Cummings are trying to do.
Animal Farm again.
You don't need to micro-target on social media. You could send the same message. The laughable Tory manifesto pamphlet full of short, empty catchphrases.
Micro-targeting is giving different people different messages which cannot be contradicted or fact checked.
They get their own, individual, unverifiable, promise.
"Getting Brexit done" means what? Not just leaving the EU. Some unspecified "better" life afterwards.
Pretending that what they said has any relevance to what was communicated and conveniently mixed with any number of other messages is duplicitous at best.
The Tory election and what people chose to believe about Brexit are the same.
Once again, it's providing a number of simultaneous options and people deciding on which to believe is meant.
Don't pretend that there was one simple Tory and Brexit. message.
There was deliberately a plethora of messaging.
We still haven't established this one thing yet.
Do you think that the behaviour described by George Orwell in Animal Farm is equally applicable to the growth of right wing as much as left wing totalitarian regimes?
In my moral standpoint, I value freedom more than anything else. I value women's rights and LGBT rights.
You are right that both right and left wing can lead to totalitarianism. So where do we draw the line? The first sign that a government is moving towards totalitarianism is when your freedom is taken away in one form or another. Right to speak, right to vote, right to consume information etc. Any kind of censorship, any attempt to legally shut down voices. This is the basis in Orwell's books as well.
With BoJo Cummings problem, I personally feel that Cummings should be fired. No questions. But you still have the right to speak about this. You still have the right to protest about it. You still have the right to vote against it. Favouritism has been a problem with almost all the governments. Though it is bad, I don't think it is in a level where you can compare that to Orwell's societies.
Did you even read the manifesto? If not, here it is. Getting Brexit done is not a vague statement at all and they are getting it done. All the other points below are to the point. Will they be able to achieve them all? We have to wait and see for ourselves.
* We will get Brexit done in January and unleash the potential of our whole country.
* Extra funding for the NHS, with 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more GP surgery appointments a year.
* 20,000 more police and tougher sentencing for criminals.
* An Australian-style points-based system to control immigration.
* Millions more invested every week in science, schools, apprenticeships and infrastructure while controlling debt.
* Reaching Net Zero by 2050 with investment in clean energy solutions and green infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions and pollution.
* We will not raise the rate of income tax, VAT or National Insurance.
The first sign that a government is moving towards totalitarianism is denying fact.
Another sign is trying to exclude and isolate and control critical elements of the press. Perhaps by trying to selectively separate one group from another for a briefing? Perhaps by threatening their funding?
Another sign is not consulting Parliament on important issues or even shutting it down when it proves inconvenient.
All these things have happened.
The fact that the Prime Minister appears subservient to an unelected advisor is not Orwellian? Perhaps just Machivellian then?
It was easy to read the Conservative manifesto because it was a pamphlet.
It is the vague, uncosted and detail free promises that you just wrote. That was the manifesto pretty much in its entirety plus some pictures.
You call that a manifesto?
Just out of interest, you if your population is increased by wealthy immigrants the wealth gap does not increase?
There are more wealthy people and the same number of poor people?
You think that "trickle down" economics is a thing after it's been disproved again and again?
Giving rich people more money makes them richer and their children richer.
Giving poor people money makes them warmer and less hungry. They spend more of not all of every extra pound that they receive than a wealthy one.
However, at least it is clear that both the right and the left are equally capable of destruction when it is corrupted and that language can be used to control the population.
Denying fact is just telling lies. All politicians over the history have done that. It is upto the people to identify these lies.
You are right about freedom of press. That move is definitely something we should be vary about, if we want to avoid an Orwellian society. Same applies for shutting down parliament. All these fall into the category of "taking away freedom". Taking away freedom is the surest sign for a government trying to move towards Orwellian society. But showing favouritism and saving the ass of a politician doesn't fall into the category.
All politicians try that at some point of time. Because power is all that politicians want. A totalitarian government is a dream come true for them. UK did very well in not letting BoJo shut down the parliament and I hope it has legal means and will to stop such things from happening anytime.
Prime minister getting advice from others doesn't make him subservient. Again, this is something that happens everywhere. The prime minister candidate is usually just a face that parties choose to attract people. The real brains are mostly somewhere behind. As long as the election process is democratic, we have nothing to worry about.
A manifesto is a promise. They promised clearly what they want to do. When has a manifesto ever explained where they are going to get the money for it?
The labour manifesto had points like "Better healthcare for all", "Make sure NHS has enough money", "Get many police officers", "Pass laws to control pollution". There is no way you can keep them accountable for any of these statements. What do you mean by "many police officers", "Better healthcare", "control pollution"? There is no clear metric to measure against these kinds of promises. If you are worried about where the money is coming from, we should talk about universal broadband too.
Not saying that the conservatives are good. But the labour party was so bad in the last election. People were totally right in choosing the conservatives instead. Hope Starmer fixes all the problems in that party.
More wealthy and same number of poor people is obviously better. If you want to run social welfare, you need more people who pay more taxes. Are you saying that getting in more poor people is going to help the poor people who are already living here? Trickle down economics has been working very well around the world. Unfortunately, all good news are never covered by the media. Around the world, the number of people who are under severe poverty has been reduced to half. Wannabe socialists and arm-chair communists will never talk about that. If you want facts, I suggest you read the book Factfulness by Hans Rosling.
And no one is giving more money to rich people. Rich people are earning more money. There is a difference. There are some rich assholes who break laws in the process. But there are many good people who became rich legally and are contributing to the development of society. So stop with this bashing of rich people all the time. They are not the reason why some people are poor.
You cant say people are right because you dont know.
I didnt vote for them and I know I was right."You "think" you are right. | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses" That's the whole point. All the hardcore socialists keep crying about how life is unfair and people are so selfish. But they are no different either. It all boils down to that hypothetical moral question. If a situation arises where you can either save only one kid who is your kid or five kids who you don't even know, who will you choose to save? Most people will choose to save their own kid. Humans are wired that way. There is nothing wrong in choosing one's own kid over others. People who sit outside and point fingers at others for being selfish can do one. | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. " How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. This
The very reason why communism/marxist socialism turns into a totalitarian government."It's completely not. | |||
" Not politics imposing morality
"I am not taking a moral standpoint here trying to say what is good and what is bad. I am saying that politicians are not taking a moral standpoint either."
Take a moral standpoint. Politics free from a sense of right and wrong and fairness and compassioncompassion is one that does not care about the consequences to human beings.
Even the truth can be rewritten as Trump has done and BoJo/Cummings are trying to do.
Animal Farm again.
You don't need to micro-target on social media. You could send the same message. The laughable Tory manifesto pamphlet full of short, empty catchphrases.
Micro-targeting is giving different people different messages which cannot be contradicted or fact checked.
They get their own, individual, unverifiable, promise.
"Getting Brexit done" means what? Not just leaving the EU. Some unspecified "better" life afterwards.
Pretending that what they said has any relevance to what was communicated and conveniently mixed with any number of other messages is duplicitous at best.
The Tory election and what people chose to believe about Brexit are the same.
Once again, it's providing a number of simultaneous options and people deciding on which to believe is meant.
Don't pretend that there was one simple Tory and Brexit. message.
There was deliberately a plethora of messaging.
We still haven't established this one thing yet.
Do you think that the behaviour described by George Orwell in Animal Farm is equally applicable to the growth of right wing as much as left wing totalitarian regimes?
In my moral standpoint, I value freedom more than anything else. I value women's rights and LGBT rights.
You are right that both right and left wing can lead to totalitarianism. So where do we draw the line? The first sign that a government is moving towards totalitarianism is when your freedom is taken away in one form or another. Right to speak, right to vote, right to consume information etc. Any kind of censorship, any attempt to legally shut down voices. This is the basis in Orwell's books as well.
With BoJo Cummings problem, I personally feel that Cummings should be fired. No questions. But you still have the right to speak about this. You still have the right to protest about it. You still have the right to vote against it. Favouritism has been a problem with almost all the governments. Though it is bad, I don't think it is in a level where you can compare that to Orwell's societies.
Did you even read the manifesto? If not, here it is. Getting Brexit done is not a vague statement at all and they are getting it done. All the other points below are to the point. Will they be able to achieve them all? We have to wait and see for ourselves.
* We will get Brexit done in January and unleash the potential of our whole country.
* Extra funding for the NHS, with 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more GP surgery appointments a year.
* 20,000 more police and tougher sentencing for criminals.
* An Australian-style points-based system to control immigration.
* Millions more invested every week in science, schools, apprenticeships and infrastructure while controlling debt.
* Reaching Net Zero by 2050 with investment in clean energy solutions and green infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions and pollution.
* We will not raise the rate of income tax, VAT or National Insurance.
The first sign that a government is moving towards totalitarianism is denying fact.
Another sign is trying to exclude and isolate and control critical elements of the press. Perhaps by trying to selectively separate one group from another for a briefing? Perhaps by threatening their funding?
Another sign is not consulting Parliament on important issues or even shutting it down when it proves inconvenient.
All these things have happened.
The fact that the Prime Minister appears subservient to an unelected advisor is not Orwellian? Perhaps just Machivellian then?
It was easy to read the Conservative manifesto because it was a pamphlet.
It is the vague, uncosted and detail free promises that you just wrote. That was the manifesto pretty much in its entirety plus some pictures.
You call that a manifesto?
Just out of interest, you if your population is increased by wealthy immigrants the wealth gap does not increase?
There are more wealthy people and the same number of poor people?
You think that "trickle down" economics is a thing after it's been disproved again and again?
Giving rich people more money makes them richer and their children richer.
Giving poor people money makes them warmer and less hungry. They spend more of not all of every extra pound that they receive than a wealthy one.
However, at least it is clear that both the right and the left are equally capable of destruction when it is corrupted and that language can be used to control the population.
Denying fact is just telling lies. All politicians over the history have done that. It is upto the people to identify these lies.
You are right about freedom of press. That move is definitely something we should be vary about, if we want to avoid an Orwellian society. Same applies for shutting down parliament. All these fall into the category of "taking away freedom". Taking away freedom is the surest sign for a government trying to move towards Orwellian society. But showing favouritism and saving the ass of a politician doesn't fall into the category.
All politicians try that at some point of time. Because power is all that politicians want. A totalitarian government is a dream come true for them. UK did very well in not letting BoJo shut down the parliament and I hope it has legal means and will to stop such things from happening anytime.
Prime minister getting advice from others doesn't make him subservient. Again, this is something that happens everywhere. The prime minister candidate is usually just a face that parties choose to attract people. The real brains are mostly somewhere behind. As long as the election process is democratic, we have nothing to worry about.
A manifesto is a promise. They promised clearly what they want to do. When has a manifesto ever explained where they are going to get the money for it?
The labour manifesto had points like "Better healthcare for all", "Make sure NHS has enough money", "Get many police officers", "Pass laws to control pollution". There is no way you can keep them accountable for any of these statements. What do you mean by "many police officers", "Better healthcare", "control pollution"? There is no clear metric to measure against these kinds of promises. If you are worried about where the money is coming from, we should talk about universal broadband too.
Not saying that the conservatives are good. But the labour party was so bad in the last election. People were totally right in choosing the conservatives instead. Hope Starmer fixes all the problems in that party.
More wealthy and same number of poor people is obviously better. If you want to run social welfare, you need more people who pay more taxes. Are you saying that getting in more poor people is going to help the poor people who are already living here? Trickle down economics has been working very well around the world. Unfortunately, all good news are never covered by the media. Around the world, the number of people who are under severe poverty has been reduced to half. Wannabe socialists and arm-chair communists will never talk about that. If you want facts, I suggest you read the book Factfulness by Hans Rosling.
And no one is giving more money to rich people. Rich people are earning more money. There is a difference. There are some rich assholes who break laws in the process. But there are many good people who became rich legally and are contributing to the development of society. So stop with this bashing of rich people all the time. They are not the reason why some people are poor.
You cant say people are right because you dont know.
I didnt vote for them and I know I was right.
You "think" you are right."No I made the right decision for me. You said the right decision was to vote in the tories..you cannot in any way know that. | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses" I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses That's the whole point. All the hardcore socialists keep crying about how life is unfair and people are so selfish. But they are no different either. It all boils down to that hypothetical moral question. If a situation arises where you can either save only one kid who is your kid or five kids who you don't even know, who will you choose to save? Most people will choose to save their own kid. Humans are wired that way. There is nothing wrong in choosing one's own kid over others. People who sit outside and point fingers at others for being selfish can do one." i can see it and i think the majority of people can aswell.lets face it on fabs as well as the real world its a minority of peeps who think the system is wrong the rest think the system is either ok or are to busy living there own lives to give to hoots.just because someone shouts louder than the majority it dosent make them right and everyone else wrong | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses That's the whole point. All the hardcore socialists keep crying about how life is unfair and people are so selfish. But they are no different either. It all boils down to that hypothetical moral question. If a situation arises where you can either save only one kid who is your kid or five kids who you don't even know, who will you choose to save? Most people will choose to save their own kid. Humans are wired that way. There is nothing wrong in choosing one's own kid over others. People who sit outside and point fingers at others for being selfish can do one. i can see it and i think the majority of people can aswell.lets face it on fabs as well as the real world its a minority of peeps who think the system is wrong the rest think the system is either ok or are to busy living there own lives to give to hoots.just because someone shouts louder than the majority it dosent make them right and everyone else wrong" Its called having an opinion. | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets." you can have a society like that if thats what the majority want.but judging by the last election thats not what the majority are intrested in.who knows in four years time people may have changed there minds.then again mabey labour will swing back twards the blair era again and the public wont really have much choice at all | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets." The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now ." Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. " Raises taxes doesnt raise additional revenue? Explain that to me as that's exactly what it does. | |||
| |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. Raises taxes doesnt raise additional revenue? Explain that to me as that's exactly what it does." I suggest you research the law of diminishing returns if that’s what you believe. The key for any government’s fiscal policy is finding the optimum point - anything beyond is counter intuitive | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. Raises taxes doesnt raise additional revenue? Explain that to me as that's exactly what it does. I suggest you research the law of diminishing returns if that’s what you believe. The key for any government’s fiscal policy is finding the optimum point - anything beyond is counter intuitive " So if more money is raised in tax..where does this go? | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK?" The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. Raises taxes doesnt raise additional revenue? Explain that to me as that's exactly what it does. I suggest you research the law of diminishing returns if that’s what you believe. The key for any government’s fiscal policy is finding the optimum point - anything beyond is counter intuitive So if more money is raised in tax..where does this go?" More money isn’t raised...that’s the whole point! | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. Raises taxes doesnt raise additional revenue? Explain that to me as that's exactly what it does. I suggest you research the law of diminishing returns if that’s what you believe. The key for any government’s fiscal policy is finding the optimum point - anything beyond is counter intuitive So if more money is raised in tax..where does this go? More money isn’t raised...that’s the whole point! " I earn 150k a year..I currently pay say 1 k in tax. There is a change and that 1k goes upto to 1 and a half k. Yet no more money is raised? You have truly lost me. | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. Raises taxes doesnt raise additional revenue? Explain that to me as that's exactly what it does. I suggest you research the law of diminishing returns if that’s what you believe. The key for any government’s fiscal policy is finding the optimum point - anything beyond is counter intuitive So if more money is raised in tax..where does this go? More money isn’t raised...that’s the whole point! I earn 150k a year..I currently pay say 1 k in tax. There is a change and that 1k goes upto to 1 and a half k. Yet no more money is raised? You have truly lost me." No, you’ve lost yourself | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there?" Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. Raises taxes doesnt raise additional revenue? Explain that to me as that's exactly what it does." Let me explain to you. I moved from India to the UK a couple of years back. There are plenty of reasons for my move. One if the reasons being I get a higher salary here. Even after tax, the money I save here is somewhat higher than the money I saved back home. If UK increases the tax, I will start looking at other options. Even companies in my sector have started paying lot more, back in India due to demand. Maybe I will go there or any other country where I can save more. The world is big and UK is not the only country in the world. Me going would not cause such a dent in UK's tax collections. But plenty of other people who earn a lot more than me will think about the same thing. All people who want to invest money and start a new business in the UK will think twice before doing it. Even if it is 1% raise in tax, for a business it would mean possibly paying more salary for every employee to compensate for that and paying more taxes on the profit they make. The whole idea that you can always tax the rich even more to improve our country is a bullshit idea invented by the left and it hardly works. | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. Raises taxes doesnt raise additional revenue? Explain that to me as that's exactly what it does. I suggest you research the law of diminishing returns if that’s what you believe. The key for any government’s fiscal policy is finding the optimum point - anything beyond is counter intuitive So if more money is raised in tax..where does this go? More money isn’t raised...that’s the whole point! I earn 150k a year..I currently pay say 1 k in tax. There is a change and that 1k goes upto to 1 and a half k. Yet no more money is raised? You have truly lost me." I know it was just an example. But still, if you are earning 150k, that tax you pay is looooooooot more than 1k. | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. Raises taxes doesnt raise additional revenue? Explain that to me as that's exactly what it does. Let me explain to you. I moved from India to the UK a couple of years back. There are plenty of reasons for my move. One if the reasons being I get a higher salary here. Even after tax, the money I save here is somewhat higher than the money I saved back home. If UK increases the tax, I will start looking at other options. Even companies in my sector have started paying lot more, back in India due to demand. Maybe I will go there or any other country where I can save more. The world is big and UK is not the only country in the world. Me going would not cause such a dent in UK's tax collections. But plenty of other people who earn a lot more than me will think about the same thing. All people who want to invest money and start a new business in the UK will think twice before doing it. Even if it is 1% raise in tax, for a business it would mean possibly paying more salary for every employee to compensate for that and paying more taxes on the profit they make. The whole idea that you can always tax the rich even more to improve our country is a bullshit idea invented by the left and it hardly works." You could use that argument for anyone. Like I said earlier I think it worked about at about 20 pence a week on people earning over 80k a year. Are people really really going to shift their entire lives for a few pound a month? And the arguments for business paying more tax is even more flawed.They make millions in profit here..why would they move? I disagree completely.Asking the better off to pay a couple more pound a month is hardly revolutionary and if the money is spent on healthcare and front line services it can only result in a better society. If you want an example of lower taxes for the better off you only have to look at the sickening inequalities in america. | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK." It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. " Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media. | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media." When did you live in Sweden? | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media." Who said anything about crime? Are the levels between rich and poor as great as they are in this country? | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. Raises taxes doesnt raise additional revenue? Explain that to me as that's exactly what it does. Let me explain to you. I moved from India to the UK a couple of years back. There are plenty of reasons for my move. One if the reasons being I get a higher salary here. Even after tax, the money I save here is somewhat higher than the money I saved back home. If UK increases the tax, I will start looking at other options. Even companies in my sector have started paying lot more, back in India due to demand. Maybe I will go there or any other country where I can save more. The world is big and UK is not the only country in the world. Me going would not cause such a dent in UK's tax collections. But plenty of other people who earn a lot more than me will think about the same thing. All people who want to invest money and start a new business in the UK will think twice before doing it. Even if it is 1% raise in tax, for a business it would mean possibly paying more salary for every employee to compensate for that and paying more taxes on the profit they make. The whole idea that you can always tax the rich even more to improve our country is a bullshit idea invented by the left and it hardly works. You could use that argument for anyone. Like I said earlier I think it worked about at about 20 pence a week on people earning over 80k a year. Are people really really going to shift their entire lives for a few pound a month? And the arguments for business paying more tax is even more flawed.They make millions in profit here..why would they move? I disagree completely.Asking the better off to pay a couple more pound a month is hardly revolutionary and if the money is spent on healthcare and front line services it can only result in a better society. If you want an example of lower taxes for the better off you only have to look at the sickening inequalities in america." People would not immediately pack everything and move just because the taxes were raised. For people who are running businesses, if they want to set a new branch, they would just set it up in another country where they will be taxed less. You will slowly but steadily see the economy degrade over a period of time. From an individual perspective, I get reached out from recruiters all the time. One fine day, if I see an offer that is better I would gladly make a move. If you are good at what you do and your skill is in demand, moving to another country is not as hard as it used to be. In fact, it is lot more fun. | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media. When did you live in Sweden? " Great argument. One has to live in Sweden to talk about it? I have friends who work there. There is enough information available on the internet about poverty and homelessness. | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. Raises taxes doesnt raise additional revenue? Explain that to me as that's exactly what it does. Let me explain to you. I moved from India to the UK a couple of years back. There are plenty of reasons for my move. One if the reasons being I get a higher salary here. Even after tax, the money I save here is somewhat higher than the money I saved back home. If UK increases the tax, I will start looking at other options. Even companies in my sector have started paying lot more, back in India due to demand. Maybe I will go there or any other country where I can save more. The world is big and UK is not the only country in the world. Me going would not cause such a dent in UK's tax collections. But plenty of other people who earn a lot more than me will think about the same thing. All people who want to invest money and start a new business in the UK will think twice before doing it. Even if it is 1% raise in tax, for a business it would mean possibly paying more salary for every employee to compensate for that and paying more taxes on the profit they make. The whole idea that you can always tax the rich even more to improve our country is a bullshit idea invented by the left and it hardly works. You could use that argument for anyone. Like I said earlier I think it worked about at about 20 pence a week on people earning over 80k a year. Are people really really going to shift their entire lives for a few pound a month? And the arguments for business paying more tax is even more flawed.They make millions in profit here..why would they move? I disagree completely.Asking the better off to pay a couple more pound a month is hardly revolutionary and if the money is spent on healthcare and front line services it can only result in a better society. If you want an example of lower taxes for the better off you only have to look at the sickening inequalities in america. People would not immediately pack everything and move just because the taxes were raised. For people who are running businesses, if they want to set a new branch, they would just set it up in another country where they will be taxed less. You will slowly but steadily see the economy degrade over a period of time. From an individual perspective, I get reached out from recruiters all the time. One fine day, if I see an offer that is better I would gladly make a move. If you are good at what you do and your skill is in demand, moving to another country is not as hard as it used to be. In fact, it is lot more fun." Asking people to pay a few extra quid a month will not see a mass exodus of "talent' It's an empty threat The obscenely wealthy make whenever an election comes around | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media. When did you live in Sweden? Great argument. One has to live in Sweden to talk about it? I have friends who work there. There is enough information available on the internet about poverty and homelessness." Yes there is, would you like to compare the rates of poverty and homelessness between Sweden and the UK? | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media. Who said anything about crime? Are the levels between rich and poor as great as they are in this country?" Sweden does somewhat better in the difference. Not because of taxes. But because of historic reasons. And the goal should not be about decreasing the gap between the rich and poor. The goal should be to increase the standard of living for the poor as an absolute quantity instead of comparing it with rich. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates made billions because of their hard work and risk taking ability. We should take away the money from them to reduce the wealth gap? | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media. When did you live in Sweden? Great argument. One has to live in Sweden to talk about it? I have friends who work there. There is enough information available on the internet about poverty and homelessness." I've just googled inequality..quelle surprise it's one of the lowest in the world | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media. Who said anything about crime? Are the levels between rich and poor as great as they are in this country? Sweden does somewhat better in the difference. Not because of taxes. But because of historic reasons. And the goal should not be about decreasing the gap between the rich and poor. The goal should be to increase the standard of living for the poor as an absolute quantity instead of comparing it with rich. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates made billions because of their hard work and risk taking ability. We should take away the money from them to reduce the wealth gap?" Yes we should  | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media. When did you live in Sweden? Great argument. One has to live in Sweden to talk about it? I have friends who work there. There is enough information available on the internet about poverty and homelessness. Yes there is, would you like to compare the rates of poverty and homelessness between Sweden and the UK? " Homeless count per 10000 people based on the latest numbers in these countries is 36 in Sweden and 46 in UK. But Sweden last recorded these numbers is 2011. | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media. Who said anything about crime? Are the levels between rich and poor as great as they are in this country? Sweden does somewhat better in the difference. Not because of taxes. But because of historic reasons. And the goal should not be about decreasing the gap between the rich and poor. The goal should be to increase the standard of living for the poor as an absolute quantity instead of comparing it with rich. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates made billions because of their hard work and risk taking ability. We should take away the money from them to reduce the wealth gap? Yes we should "Easy to be that moral leader and point the fingers when you are not the one who is going to lose. | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media. Who said anything about crime? Are the levels between rich and poor as great as they are in this country? Sweden does somewhat better in the difference. Not because of taxes. But because of historic reasons. And the goal should not be about decreasing the gap between the rich and poor. The goal should be to increase the standard of living for the poor as an absolute quantity instead of comparing it with rich. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates made billions because of their hard work and risk taking ability. We should take away the money from them to reduce the wealth gap?" Yes I imagine Bill Gates would really miss that couple of quid a week. I agree it's about raising the standard of living but how do you do that? Another point..raising taxes would potentially create jobs in front line services which have been ##### by the Tories.These jobs would in turn generate taxes etc would go back into the economy. | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media. Who said anything about crime? Are the levels between rich and poor as great as they are in this country? Sweden does somewhat better in the difference. Not because of taxes. But because of historic reasons. And the goal should not be about decreasing the gap between the rich and poor. The goal should be to increase the standard of living for the poor as an absolute quantity instead of comparing it with rich. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates made billions because of their hard work and risk taking ability. We should take away the money from them to reduce the wealth gap? Yes we should
Easy to be that moral leader and point the fingers when you are not the one who is going to lose."Yes it is? I guess I must have moral, tbf to Gates, he has given billions to charity | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media. Who said anything about crime? Are the levels between rich and poor as great as they are in this country? Sweden does somewhat better in the difference. Not because of taxes. But because of historic reasons. And the goal should not be about decreasing the gap between the rich and poor. The goal should be to increase the standard of living for the poor as an absolute quantity instead of comparing it with rich. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates made billions because of their hard work and risk taking ability. We should take away the money from them to reduce the wealth gap? Yes we should
Easy to be that moral leader and point the fingers when you are not the one who is going to lose.
Yes it is? I guess I must have moral, tbf to Gates, he has given billions to charity "That's the point. Bill Gates has already paid taxes which is not low by any means. Still he donates a lot to charity around the world on his own interest. He remains happy and he makes the world a better place. He does a lot of research with help of people to just determine what is the best way to spend the money he is planning to donate. But government shouldn't just go and get more money from them by means of taxation. | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media. Who said anything about crime? Are the levels between rich and poor as great as they are in this country? Sweden does somewhat better in the difference. Not because of taxes. But because of historic reasons. And the goal should not be about decreasing the gap between the rich and poor. The goal should be to increase the standard of living for the poor as an absolute quantity instead of comparing it with rich. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates made billions because of their hard work and risk taking ability. We should take away the money from them to reduce the wealth gap? Yes I imagine Bill Gates would really miss that couple of quid a week. I agree it's about raising the standard of living but how do you do that? Another point..raising taxes would potentially create jobs in front line services which have been ##### by the Tories.These jobs would in turn generate taxes etc would go back into the economy. " Couple of quids? Do your math first and calculate how much Bill Gates has to pay if you increase taxes even by 1% And Bill Gates has done enough good for the world which neither me, you, anyone on labour or Tory party would ever do. All out of his own interest. That's how it should work. The government should not just barge in and say "hey some people are suffering from poverty. We need money from you" and just grab it. We all already pay enough taxes. So how it should be fixed? Look at the country's expenses. See where the money is spent. Maybe spend less on defense? Make it easy for businesses to thrive. This will automatically create more opportunities. If the government gets more money by tax, it would equate to more jobs in public sector. But the number of jobs in private sector would go down due to lack of investment owing to higher taxes, leading to less tax and the government would end up having less money than it even had in the first place. That's why people do not vote for any party that claims that they will fix the country's problems by increasing taxes. | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media. Who said anything about crime? Are the levels between rich and poor as great as they are in this country? Sweden does somewhat better in the difference. Not because of taxes. But because of historic reasons. And the goal should not be about decreasing the gap between the rich and poor. The goal should be to increase the standard of living for the poor as an absolute quantity instead of comparing it with rich. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates made billions because of their hard work and risk taking ability. We should take away the money from them to reduce the wealth gap? Yes I imagine Bill Gates would really miss that couple of quid a week. I agree it's about raising the standard of living but how do you do that? Another point..raising taxes would potentially create jobs in front line services which have been ##### by the Tories.These jobs would in turn generate taxes etc would go back into the economy. Couple of quids? Do your math first and calculate how much Bill Gates has to pay if you increase taxes even by 1% And Bill Gates has done enough good for the world which neither me, you, anyone on labour or Tory party would ever do. All out of his own interest. That's how it should work. The government should not just barge in and say "hey some people are suffering from poverty. We need money from you" and just grab it. We all already pay enough taxes. So how it should be fixed? Look at the country's expenses. See where the money is spent. Maybe spend less on defense? Make it easy for businesses to thrive. This will automatically create more opportunities. If the government gets more money by tax, it would equate to more jobs in public sector. But the number of jobs in private sector would go down due to lack of investment owing to higher taxes, leading to less tax and the government would end up having less money than it even had in the first place. That's why people do not vote for any party that claims that they will fix the country's problems by increasing taxes. " So basically..if you are rich you can do whatever the fuck you want? You are bound by no laws? That's the way it should be?so every single business man in the world is a philanthropist?good luck with that. I agree with defence..trident is fucking ridiculous. I'm not saying tax is the only solution..but asking the richer to contribute a bit more,or even pay their fair share (these multinationals have armies of accountants whose sole purpose is to get them to pay as little tax as possible)is hardly going to leave us as a 3rd world power | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media. Who said anything about crime? Are the levels between rich and poor as great as they are in this country? Sweden does somewhat better in the difference. Not because of taxes. But because of historic reasons. And the goal should not be about decreasing the gap between the rich and poor. The goal should be to increase the standard of living for the poor as an absolute quantity instead of comparing it with rich. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates made billions because of their hard work and risk taking ability. We should take away the money from them to reduce the wealth gap? Yes I imagine Bill Gates would really miss that couple of quid a week. I agree it's about raising the standard of living but how do you do that? Another point..raising taxes would potentially create jobs in front line services which have been ##### by the Tories.These jobs would in turn generate taxes etc would go back into the economy. Couple of quids? Do your math first and calculate how much Bill Gates has to pay if you increase taxes even by 1% And Bill Gates has done enough good for the world which neither me, you, anyone on labour or Tory party would ever do. All out of his own interest. That's how it should work. The government should not just barge in and say "hey some people are suffering from poverty. We need money from you" and just grab it. We all already pay enough taxes. So how it should be fixed? Look at the country's expenses. See where the money is spent. Maybe spend less on defense? Make it easy for businesses to thrive. This will automatically create more opportunities. If the government gets more money by tax, it would equate to more jobs in public sector. But the number of jobs in private sector would go down due to lack of investment owing to higher taxes, leading to less tax and the government would end up having less money than it even had in the first place. That's why people do not vote for any party that claims that they will fix the country's problems by increasing taxes. So basically..if you are rich you can do whatever the fuck you want? You are bound by no laws? That's the way it should be?so every single business man in the world is a philanthropist?good luck with that. I agree with defence..trident is fucking ridiculous. I'm not saying tax is the only solution..but asking the richer to contribute a bit more,or even pay their fair share (these multinationals have armies of accountants whose sole purpose is to get them to pay as little tax as possible)is hardly going to leave us as a 3rd world power " Did I ever say that rich people should be allowed to break laws? Some rich people try to evade taxes illegally. Those people should definitely be prosecuted. In the UK, the highest tax slab is 45%. They pay some extra national insurance over that. It is very much legal for the government to increase the tax. And it is very much legal for them to move out their investments to somewhere else if they are not happy with the taxes. By increasing the tax and forcing them to pay more, the country will only shoot itself on the foot. As I told, the country already collects enough in taxes. It just needs to learn and put the money in good use. There are many people I know who have come from poor families and made really big in their lives. The means are there. But there are so many other factors which block their way to good life. Like parenting, drug abuse, alcohol etc. These are issues which cannot be solved by throwing money at it. You need researcher to understand the social issues and provide strategic solutions. Like training the teachers so that students will see them as role models. This way, even if the situation in the homes are bad, the teachers can act as mentors. But none of the political parties will care about these things. Because, they never cared about solving the issue in the first place. Political parties want votes and they will do anything to get them. Shrewd and scientific solutions will not get you votes. | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. Raises taxes doesnt raise additional revenue? Explain that to me as that's exactly what it does. Let me explain to you. I moved from India to the UK a couple of years back. There are plenty of reasons for my move. One if the reasons being I get a higher salary here. Even after tax, the money I save here is somewhat higher than the money I saved back home. If UK increases the tax, I will start looking at other options. Even companies in my sector have started paying lot more, back in India due to demand. Maybe I will go there or any other country where I can save more. The world is big and UK is not the only country in the world. Me going would not cause such a dent in UK's tax collections. But plenty of other people who earn a lot more than me will think about the same thing. All people who want to invest money and start a new business in the UK will think twice before doing it. Even if it is 1% raise in tax, for a business it would mean possibly paying more salary for every employee to compensate for that and paying more taxes on the profit they make. The whole idea that you can always tax the rich even more to improve our country is a bullshit idea invented by the left and it hardly works. You could use that argument for anyone. Like I said earlier I think it worked about at about 20 pence a week on people earning over 80k a year. Are people really really going to shift their entire lives for a few pound a month? And the arguments for business paying more tax is even more flawed.They make millions in profit here..why would they move? I disagree completely.Asking the better off to pay a couple more pound a month is hardly revolutionary and if the money is spent on healthcare and front line services it can only result in a better society. If you want an example of lower taxes for the better off you only have to look at the sickening inequalities in america." Are you sure about it being only 20 pence a week or even £2 a week. It does not seem enough to do much. What will it raise per year? I don't know if it's still the case but not so long ago London had a major influx of wealthy French people and when asked it was because back in France the government put up taxes on them. Money moves easily. Companies can move their headquarters to a lower tax country and still make the same amount of money here in the UK for themselves | |||
"there will never be a fair society people are selfish animals for the most part who will do whats best for them and there own before they will even consider others that they dont know.can anyone say hand on heart they wouldnt put themselves and there familys wellbeing before anyone elses I agree people are selfish. But you can have a system where you at least try to have an equal and fair society (Scandinavia for eg)or you live in a country whose mantra was once greed is good and people are literally dying on the streets. The only difference between Scandinavia and the UK is that Scandinavia has around 10% higher tax. That makes them a fair society compared to UK? The gap between rich and poor isnt as vast so yes. But apparently higher taxes dont work..so how does that explain the standard of living over there? Because countries are different? Sweden never participated in a world war. They had a much faster head start than UK. Norway has oil resources. If you look at the percentage of a country's GDP that is spent on public welfare, the difference is not even close to 1% between Sweden and the UK. It's not about that..its about their political/social model. Over there everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living and there is much less inequality over there. Does that mean they dont have business people?no of course not. Over here we have a system that positively encourages greed.a system where hedge fund managers are lauded and nurses are treated like shite. A system where kids go hungry whilst bankers swig £500 bottles of wine. Who told that everyone in Sweden is entitled to a decent standard of living? There is homelessness is Sweden. There are people who earn much lesser in Sweden. There is crime in Sweden. They are relatively a little bit better than the UK in some aspects because of historic reasons. But that's about it. The whole idea that everyone in Sweden has some decent level of living is a myth created by left wing media. Who said anything about crime? Are the levels between rich and poor as great as they are in this country? Sweden does somewhat better in the difference. Not because of taxes. But because of historic reasons. And the goal should not be about decreasing the gap between the rich and poor. The goal should be to increase the standard of living for the poor as an absolute quantity instead of comparing it with rich. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates made billions because of their hard work and risk taking ability. We should take away the money from them to reduce the wealth gap? Yes I imagine Bill Gates would really miss that couple of quid a week. I agree it's about raising the standard of living but how do you do that? Another point..raising taxes would potentially create jobs in front line services which have been ##### by the Tories.These jobs would in turn generate taxes etc would go back into the economy. Couple of quids? Do your math first and calculate how much Bill Gates has to pay if you increase taxes even by 1% And Bill Gates has done enough good for the world which neither me, you, anyone on labour or Tory party would ever do. All out of his own interest. That's how it should work. The government should not just barge in and say "hey some people are suffering from poverty. We need money from you" and just grab it. We all already pay enough taxes. So how it should be fixed? Look at the country's expenses. See where the money is spent. Maybe spend less on defense? Make it easy for businesses to thrive. This will automatically create more opportunities. If the government gets more money by tax, it would equate to more jobs in public sector. But the number of jobs in private sector would go down due to lack of investment owing to higher taxes, leading to less tax and the government would end up having less money than it even had in the first place. That's why people do not vote for any party that claims that they will fix the country's problems by increasing taxes. So basically..if you are rich you can do whatever the fuck you want? You are bound by no laws? That's the way it should be?so every single business man in the world is a philanthropist?good luck with that. I agree with defence..trident is fucking ridiculous. I'm not saying tax is the only solution..but asking the richer to contribute a bit more,or even pay their fair share (these multinationals have armies of accountants whose sole purpose is to get them to pay as little tax as possible)is hardly going to leave us as a 3rd world power Did I ever say that rich people should be allowed to break laws? Some rich people try to evade taxes illegally. Those people should definitely be prosecuted. In the UK, the highest tax slab is 45%. They pay some extra national insurance over that. It is very much legal for the government to increase the tax. And it is very much legal for them to move out their investments to somewhere else if they are not happy with the taxes. By increasing the tax and forcing them to pay more, the country will only shoot itself on the foot. As I told, the country already collects enough in taxes. It just needs to learn and put the money in good use. There are many people I know who have come from poor families and made really big in their lives. The means are there. But there are so many other factors which block their way to good life. Like parenting, drug abuse, alcohol etc. These are issues which cannot be solved by throwing money at it. You need researcher to understand the social issues and provide strategic solutions. Like training the teachers so that students will see them as role models. This way, even if the situation in the homes are bad, the teachers can act as mentors. But none of the political parties will care about these things. Because, they never cared about solving the issue in the first place. Political parties want votes and they will do anything to get them. Shrewd and scientific solutions will not get you votes." They are structural inequalities you are talking about. It would take some radical to get rid of them. | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. Raises taxes doesnt raise additional revenue? Explain that to me as that's exactly what it does. Let me explain to you. I moved from India to the UK a couple of years back. There are plenty of reasons for my move. One if the reasons being I get a higher salary here. Even after tax, the money I save here is somewhat higher than the money I saved back home. If UK increases the tax, I will start looking at other options. Even companies in my sector have started paying lot more, back in India due to demand. Maybe I will go there or any other country where I can save more. The world is big and UK is not the only country in the world. Me going would not cause such a dent in UK's tax collections. But plenty of other people who earn a lot more than me will think about the same thing. All people who want to invest money and start a new business in the UK will think twice before doing it. Even if it is 1% raise in tax, for a business it would mean possibly paying more salary for every employee to compensate for that and paying more taxes on the profit they make. The whole idea that you can always tax the rich even more to improve our country is a bullshit idea invented by the left and it hardly works. You could use that argument for anyone. Like I said earlier I think it worked about at about 20 pence a week on people earning over 80k a year. Are people really really going to shift their entire lives for a few pound a month? And the arguments for business paying more tax is even more flawed.They make millions in profit here..why would they move? I disagree completely.Asking the better off to pay a couple more pound a month is hardly revolutionary and if the money is spent on healthcare and front line services it can only result in a better society. If you want an example of lower taxes for the better off you only have to look at the sickening inequalities in america. Are you sure about it being only 20 pence a week or even £2 a week. It does not seem enough to do much. What will it raise per year? I don't know if it's still the case but not so long ago London had a major influx of wealthy French people and when asked it was because back in France the government put up taxes on them. Money moves easily. Companies can move their headquarters to a lower tax country and still make the same amount of money here in the UK for themselves" I cant remember The exact figure..I'm fairly sure if you earn 80k a year it was about £8 a month at the most. | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. Raises taxes doesnt raise additional revenue? Explain that to me as that's exactly what it does. Let me explain to you. I moved from India to the UK a couple of years back. There are plenty of reasons for my move. One if the reasons being I get a higher salary here. Even after tax, the money I save here is somewhat higher than the money I saved back home. If UK increases the tax, I will start looking at other options. Even companies in my sector have started paying lot more, back in India due to demand. Maybe I will go there or any other country where I can save more. The world is big and UK is not the only country in the world. Me going would not cause such a dent in UK's tax collections. But plenty of other people who earn a lot more than me will think about the same thing. All people who want to invest money and start a new business in the UK will think twice before doing it. Even if it is 1% raise in tax, for a business it would mean possibly paying more salary for every employee to compensate for that and paying more taxes on the profit they make. The whole idea that you can always tax the rich even more to improve our country is a bullshit idea invented by the left and it hardly works. You could use that argument for anyone. Like I said earlier I think it worked about at about 20 pence a week on people earning over 80k a year. Are people really really going to shift their entire lives for a few pound a month? And the arguments for business paying more tax is even more flawed.They make millions in profit here..why would they move? I disagree completely.Asking the better off to pay a couple more pound a month is hardly revolutionary and if the money is spent on healthcare and front line services it can only result in a better society. If you want an example of lower taxes for the better off you only have to look at the sickening inequalities in america. Are you sure about it being only 20 pence a week or even £2 a week. It does not seem enough to do much. What will it raise per year? I don't know if it's still the case but not so long ago London had a major influx of wealthy French people and when asked it was because back in France the government put up taxes on them. Money moves easily. Companies can move their headquarters to a lower tax country and still make the same amount of money here in the UK for themselves I cant remember The exact figure..I'm fairly sure if you earn 80k a year it was about £8 a month at the most." So at max £8 a month its enough? Seems to little. I don't know how many people it affects but seem to remember a claim it only affects top 5 percent. How much is it claimed to raise? | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. Raises taxes doesnt raise additional revenue? Explain that to me as that's exactly what it does. Let me explain to you. I moved from India to the UK a couple of years back. There are plenty of reasons for my move. One if the reasons being I get a higher salary here. Even after tax, the money I save here is somewhat higher than the money I saved back home. If UK increases the tax, I will start looking at other options. Even companies in my sector have started paying lot more, back in India due to demand. Maybe I will go there or any other country where I can save more. The world is big and UK is not the only country in the world. Me going would not cause such a dent in UK's tax collections. But plenty of other people who earn a lot more than me will think about the same thing. All people who want to invest money and start a new business in the UK will think twice before doing it. Even if it is 1% raise in tax, for a business it would mean possibly paying more salary for every employee to compensate for that and paying more taxes on the profit they make. The whole idea that you can always tax the rich even more to improve our country is a bullshit idea invented by the left and it hardly works. You could use that argument for anyone. Like I said earlier I think it worked about at about 20 pence a week on people earning over 80k a year. Are people really really going to shift their entire lives for a few pound a month? And the arguments for business paying more tax is even more flawed.They make millions in profit here..why would they move? I disagree completely.Asking the better off to pay a couple more pound a month is hardly revolutionary and if the money is spent on healthcare and front line services it can only result in a better society. If you want an example of lower taxes for the better off you only have to look at the sickening inequalities in america. Are you sure about it being only 20 pence a week or even £2 a week. It does not seem enough to do much. What will it raise per year? I don't know if it's still the case but not so long ago London had a major influx of wealthy French people and when asked it was because back in France the government put up taxes on them. Money moves easily. Companies can move their headquarters to a lower tax country and still make the same amount of money here in the UK for themselves I cant remember The exact figure..I'm fairly sure if you earn 80k a year it was about £8 a month at the most. So at max £8 a month its enough? Seems to little. I don't know how many people it affects but seem to remember a claim it only affects top 5 percent. How much is it claimed to raise?" Think it was a variety of measures. They wanted to go after those companies who just take the piss ie Amazon etc. Nationisation etc. | |||
"The gap between rich and poor in this country is shocking.For the 1st time in over a century mortality rates are actually going up in certain parts of the country. It's nothing to do with blaming the rich its about making society fairer.Labour made this one of their main policies whilst the tories literally couldnt give a fuck.Its on their interests to have those at the bottom scrambling over crumbs.The fact that a lot of working class people voted for a party which,in all lklihood,will make them worse off,says more about them than anything else. Fairer for whom? Certainly not fairer for the working class family who have worked hard, managed to buy their own house, made a calculated decision before having children and now want what’s best for them. You can’t improve society by dividing wealth, reducing aspiration and having a race to the bottom. How exactly is having the most wealthy sectors of society pay a little more tax negatively impact a working class family? Presuneambly if you are on minimum wage and dont have a house you dont work hard? A race to the bottom is what we have now . Firstly raising taxes at the top does not raise additional revenue, it makes Socialists feel better about themselves. Secondly you’ve made the same assumptions that Labour did in the last election - mainly that those in the middle or towards the lower end of the middle of the earning scale are not working class. As for impact - you have a garden, we’ll tax that and thereby reduce the value of your property. You have savings and want to help your children get on the property ladder, we’ll tax that. Those assets you’ve grafted for and accrued over a lifetime and paid tax on, well when you die we’ll tax that too. Once you take away the incentive for someone to want to better themselves you’ve got your race to the bottom. Raises taxes doesnt raise additional revenue? Explain that to me as that's exactly what it does. Let me explain to you. I moved from India to the UK a couple of years back. There are plenty of reasons for my move. One if the reasons being I get a higher salary here. Even after tax, the money I save here is somewhat higher than the money I saved back home. If UK increases the tax, I will start looking at other options. Even companies in my sector have started paying lot more, back in India due to demand. Maybe I will go there or any other country where I can save more. The world is big and UK is not the only country in the world. Me going would not cause such a dent in UK's tax collections. But plenty of other people who earn a lot more than me will think about the same thing. All people who want to invest money and start a new business in the UK will think twice before doing it. Even if it is 1% raise in tax, for a business it would mean possibly paying more salary for every employee to compensate for that and paying more taxes on the profit they make. The whole idea that you can always tax the rich even more to improve our country is a bullshit idea invented by the left and it hardly works. You could use that argument for anyone. Like I said earlier I think it worked about at about 20 pence a week on people earning over 80k a year. Are people really really going to shift their entire lives for a few pound a month? And the arguments for business paying more tax is even more flawed.They make millions in profit here..why would they move? I disagree completely.Asking the better off to pay a couple more pound a month is hardly revolutionary and if the money is spent on healthcare and front line services it can only result in a better society. If you want an example of lower taxes for the better off you only have to look at the sickening inequalities in america. Are you sure about it being only 20 pence a week or even £2 a week. It does not seem enough to do much. What will it raise per year? I don't know if it's still the case but not so long ago London had a major influx of wealthy French people and when asked it was because back in France the government put up taxes on them. Money moves easily. Companies can move their headquarters to a lower tax country and still make the same amount of money here in the UK for themselves I cant remember The exact figure..I'm fairly sure if you earn 80k a year it was about £8 a month at the most. So at max £8 a month its enough? Seems to little. I don't know how many people it affects but seem to remember a claim it only affects top 5 percent. How much is it claimed to raise? Think it was a variety of measures. They wanted to go after those companies who just take the piss ie Amazon etc. Nationisation etc." Yes I think getting the likes of the those huge companies to pay more is popular and I learn today that as of April this year they now have to pay a tax on where they make money. How long it will last have no idea but a start. The £8 per month for top 5 percent will not raise much as far as I can see given how much was promised to be spent. Either the £8 is far too low or far more than top 5 percent will have taxes increased by labour | |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties? No. Think you're seeing what you want to see there. Orwell was a socialist. 1984 is about totalitarianism, of any political hue. Animal Farm is kinda based around the Russian revolution but is generally about the futility of revolution and the corrupting effect of power. Orwell was a socialist. But he hated socialist parties because these parties use socialist ideas as tools to grab power. Once they grab power, they become totalitarian. That line in Animal farm - "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" exemplifies it. At the beginning of the revolution, they write the rule as "All animals are equal". Once they grab power, they add "Bur some are more equal than others"" I write about things like this all the time, slightly different as its not one party against another but one species against all others. why are human rights more than other species, why do humans think they rule above all...we actually do the least for the environment & actively destroy it. Why is it OK to control other species populations but not our own? Etc etc etc. So many areas that are not only true in party policies but as species policies. | |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties? No. Think you're seeing what you want to see there. Orwell was a socialist. 1984 is about totalitarianism, of any political hue. Animal Farm is kinda based around the Russian revolution but is generally about the futility of revolution and the corrupting effect of power. Orwell was a socialist. But he hated socialist parties because these parties use socialist ideas as tools to grab power. Once they grab power, they become totalitarian. That line in Animal farm - "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" exemplifies it. At the beginning of the revolution, they write the rule as "All animals are equal". Once they grab power, they add "Bur some are more equal than others" I write about things like this all the time, slightly different as its not one party against another but one species against all others. why are human rights more than other species, why do humans think they rule above all...we actually do the least for the environment & actively destroy it. Why is it OK to control other species populations but not our own? Etc etc etc. So many areas that are not only true in party policies but as species policies. " Because all species are selfish. Humans are just stronger among the lot. If we are going by morality, we are hypocrites in so many ways. The same person who has no qualms eating chicken, lamb, meat and steak loses his mind when he hears news of dogs being slaughtered. | |||
"I have read both Animal farm and 1984. Aren't both the books, a criticism of socialist and communist parties? No. Think you're seeing what you want to see there. Orwell was a socialist. 1984 is about totalitarianism, of any political hue. Animal Farm is kinda based around the Russian revolution but is generally about the futility of revolution and the corrupting effect of power. Orwell was a socialist. But he hated socialist parties because these parties use socialist ideas as tools to grab power. Once they grab power, they become totalitarian. That line in Animal farm - "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" exemplifies it. At the beginning of the revolution, they write the rule as "All animals are equal". Once they grab power, they add "Bur some are more equal than others" I write about things like this all the time, slightly different as its not one party against another but one species against all others. why are human rights more than other species, why do humans think they rule above all...we actually do the least for the environment & actively destroy it. Why is it OK to control other species populations but not our own? Etc etc etc. So many areas that are not only true in party policies but as species policies. Because all species are selfish. Humans are just stronger among the lot. If we are going by morality, we are hypocrites in so many ways. The same person who has no qualms eating chicken, lamb, meat and steak loses his mind when he hears news of dogs being slaughtered." I'd say the reason why humans rule is because we are far more adaptable & creative than any other species....we are not smarter though, we actively destroy our own & others environments through ignorance leading to greed. I know what you mean, everyone's shouting for a vaccine & medical advances but forget the shear about of animals that are tortured, maimed & killed for those few years of extra life expectancy. We've been here 2 seconds in universal times & wrecked the place...we all play a part in the effects, even if we don't like it and actively try to avoid/mitigate our footprint. The only species who may/are highly likely to bring about it's own extinction...just shows knowledge is merely madness. | |||
