Massive New Tory Electoral Scandal breaking

What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

Little John
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

Recent polls make it clear that a growing percentage of Remainers think the UK should walk away if the EU does not play ball and a massive majority of Leavers think this and always have done.

So, clearly, May is in a position to deliver such a Brexit, should push come to shove.

I am suggesting, however, that she has no intention of doing so and never did and will look for a way to sell to the public whatever compromise she is intending to make.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11165
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

Little John wrote:Recent polls make it clear that a growing percentage of Remainers think the UK should walk away if the EU does not play ball and a massive majority of Leavers think this and always have done.

So, clearly, May is in a position to deliver such a Brexit, should push come to shove.

I am suggesting, however, that she has no intention of doing so and never did and will look for a way to sell to the public whatever compromise she is intending to make.
Are you suggesting I vote UKIP? :P
User avatar
Lord Beria3
Posts: 5064
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: Moscow Russia
Contact:

Post by Lord Beria3 »

May has shifted to the Left on economic policy - state intervention in the energy markets, a "industrial strategy" and a Brexit strategy which doesn't obsess about the City.

These are all big shifts from the Cameron era of politics. The fact that free-market Tories are very worried about the shift in thinking in 10 Downing Street says it all. I read the Torygraph every day and a number of the more neo-liberal writers are in despair about the May economic programme.

It's evolutionary, not revolutionary stuff, but the Tories know that winning elections involves appealing to the working/middle class voters who want protection from savage globalization and mass migration. The Tories under May are starting to address these concerns.

Around half the population support the Tories (some polls show the Tories at 49%) and we will see what the eventual outcome will be.

I'm afraid Corbyn, by his own actions is unsuited to being a PM. His Brexit position remains confusing, he doesn't have a issue with open door migration policy and would let in large numbers of refugees. I haven't mentioned yet his long record of support for the IRA during the terror years and his softness towards Islamic fundamentalism.

You don't have to like or even particularly agree with the Tories to recognize that May is the best option to vote for in the context of the Brexit negotiations.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
fuzzy
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: The Marches, UK

Post by fuzzy »

The saddest situation is the 'greens' - the party which we should all be able to support, has never reasonably represented the interests of me, my countrymen or the planet itself. If they could ditch the baby farming/middle class/free market bollox and actually choose necessary, hard to stomach policies, their support could be massive.
Little John
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

They can't because, despite ecological issues properly belonging to science and so, in principle, being free of cultural contamination, the truth on the ground is that the green movement is fully allied to the interests of and built upon the bourgeoisies class. We can see that clearly enough with the tenor of some of the so-called "green" posters on here.

This is why so many proletariat Trump voters completely rejected the Green agenda by voting for Trump. In other words, they have not only rejected the existing ruling class. They are rejecting all of their accompanying values as well.

The baby and the bathwater.
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14625
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: Hou�sʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹ��llʎ uoʇ �oɹʇɥ ʇɥ� �ɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ �ʌ�u qoʇɥ�ɹ˙

Post by emordnilap »

Corbyn has some great policies lined up, including nationalisation of rail, energy and post. That alone is worth voting for him for.

The trouble is, people will be told by the right-wing press that it's "back to the bad old days" of "being held to ransom" by those industries. It need not be so, as we all know.

We've learned a lot since the days of public ownership and such a claim should be seen for what it is - scaremongering.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
cubes
Posts: 710
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:40 pm
Location: Norfolk

Post by cubes »

Tbh royal mail is irrelevant nowdays, let it rot in the private sector. Water is the one that should never have been privatised, you can make arguments both for and against energy and rail.

I can't say public ownership (in the old sense) would be good though, it really did lead to some inefficiencies for political reasons (making people redundant is bad for votes).
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11165
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

emordnilap wrote: The trouble is, people will be told by the right-wing press that it's "back to the bad old days" of "being held to ransom" by those industries.
Is The Sun still that powerful? It makes little difference what the Telegraph, Mail and Express say - anyone who reads those papers was never going to vote Labour anyway.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11165
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

fuzzy wrote:The saddest situation is the 'greens' - the party which we should all be able to support, has never reasonably represented the interests of me, my countrymen or the planet itself. If they could ditch the baby farming/middle class/free market bollox and actually choose necessary, hard to stomach policies, their support could be massive.
Agreed. I can't be bothered to even comment or think about them anymore, so useless they've become. Lost the plot, quite literally.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11165
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

Little John wrote:They can't because, despite ecological issues properly belonging to science and so, in principle, being free of cultural contamination, the truth on the ground is that the green movement is fully allied to the interests of and built upon the bourgeoisies class. We can see that clearly enough with the tenor of some of the so-called "green" posters on here.
It is worse than that. Yes, there is the "Biff Problem", which we don't need to discuss any further. But the Environmental Movement itself has even deeper problems, which I've been personally struggling to come to terms with for much of my adult life. It has failed, comprehensively. It has lost the war it set out to fight.

This sums it up:

https://thebreakthrough.org/archive/the ... nmentalism
In the fall of 2004, Breakthrough co-founders, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, triggered a firestorm of controversy with their essay, "The Death of Environmentalism." In it they argued that the politics that dealt with acid rain and smog can't deal with global warming. Society has changed, and our politics have not kept up. Environmentalism must die, they concluded, so that something new can be born.
To give it a bit of my own spin, the underlying problem is that the environmental movement views human civilisation as an "unnatural" entity/process which is separate from "The Environment" - and destroying it. But the reality is that humans are part of the environment and everything that is happening is just the next stage the evolution of life on Earth. These processes are natural. Evolution proceeds by punctuated equilibrium and this is just the latest punctuation.
User avatar
Lord Beria3
Posts: 5064
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: Moscow Russia
Contact:

Post by Lord Beria3 »

Agree UE.

The Green Party is a shambles. They don't seem even focused on the environment anymore which is tragic.

Britain could do with a "real" hard green party. The Greens are worse then useless.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Lurkalot
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:45 pm

Post by Lurkalot »

fuzzy wrote:The saddest situation is the 'greens' - the party which we should all be able to support, has never reasonably represented the interests of me, my countrymen or the planet itself. If they could ditch the baby farming/middle class/free market bollox and actually choose necessary, hard to stomach policies, their support could be massive.
I can share your disappointment in the Green Party but I'm less sure about the last part of your comment. In our democracy people tend to vote with their own immediate interests at heart and a party advocating "necessary, hard to stomach policies" wouldn't find itself with massive support. I really don't think the majority would vote for a lower consumption , more frugal lifestyle. Many already see the Greens as trying to get us to live "in draughty , cold shacks living on vegatables" , to paraphrase quotes I've seen on numerous other forums and a harsher line would only see them less electable than they are now.
One big failing I can't understand is their stance on immigration. Britain is a small already crowed island that isn't self sufficient in fuel , food , or a miriad of other things yet they seem perfectly happy to allow in many more. That will only gobble up more land and increase the need for more imported resources. They just don't seem to see overpopulation as an issue.
Little John
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

Lurkalot wrote:
fuzzy wrote:The saddest situation is the 'greens' - the party which we should all be able to support, has never reasonably represented the interests of me, my countrymen or the planet itself. If they could ditch the baby farming/middle class/free market bollox and actually choose necessary, hard to stomach policies, their support could be massive.
I can share your disappointment in the Green Party but I'm less sure about the last part of your comment. In our democracy people tend to vote with their own immediate interests at heart and a party advocating "necessary, hard to stomach policies" wouldn't find itself with massive support. I really don't think the majority would vote for a lower consumption , more frugal lifestyle. Many already see the Greens as trying to get us to live "in draughty , cold shacks living on vegatables" , to paraphrase quotes I've seen on numerous other forums and a harsher line would only see them less electable than they are now.
One big failing I can't understand is their stance on immigration. Britain is a small already crowed island that isn't self sufficient in fuel , food , or a miriad of other things yet they seem perfectly happy to allow in many more. That will only gobble up more land and increase the need for more imported resources. They just don't seem to see overpopulation as an issue.
see here:

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... 374#284374
fuzzy
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: The Marches, UK

Post by fuzzy »

Lurkalot wrote:
fuzzy wrote:The saddest situation is the 'greens' - the party which we should all be able to support, has never reasonably represented the interests of me, my countrymen or the planet itself. If they could ditch the baby farming/middle class/free market bollox and actually choose necessary, hard to stomach policies, their support could be massive.
I can share your disappointment in the Green Party but I'm less sure about the last part of your comment. In our democracy people tend to vote with their own immediate interests at heart and a party advocating "necessary, hard to stomach policies" wouldn't find itself with massive support. I really don't think the majority would vote for a lower consumption , more frugal lifestyle. Many already see the Greens as trying to get us to live "in draughty , cold shacks living on vegatables" , to paraphrase quotes I've seen on numerous other forums and a harsher line would only see them less electable than they are now.
One big failing I can't understand is their stance on immigration. Britain is a small already crowed island that isn't self sufficient in fuel , food , or a miriad of other things yet they seem perfectly happy to allow in many more. That will only gobble up more land and increase the need for more imported resources. They just don't seem to see overpopulation as an issue.
Actually, you have hit the nail on the head. I wasn't very clear in my statement. My take is that all parties do whatever 'focus groups' lead them into. The greens want to reward baby farmers and 'right on' people because [and it's the same weakness for all parties] they are chasing votes the PPE way. If they just stated, dictatorially:
much less immigration, huge lorries out, cars + planes hammered, massive cycle + canal support, land ownership reform, environmental strategy that isn't for the Duke of Westminster, tariffs where helpful, public ownership of common monopolies, no profit basic retail banking run by gov, social housing to give people choices, taxation that works, an end to grovelling to pensioners, parents, lobbyists, the city, the US etc. at everyone else's expense, lobbyists on a gibbot, 1/2 of whitehall, MPs and Lords scrapped, local gov no bigger than a 1/2 day walk in diameter, reintroduce 100s courts. Replace modern legal system with a computer program, saponify the lawyers, judges and other cronies - basically a strategy for a contracting economic world etc. Nothing too tricky - personally I reckon a lot of [eg old labour] people would be interested.

If they want anymore, they are going to have to pay me.
raspberry-blower
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:26 am

Post by raspberry-blower »

More blowback from the Manchester atrocity:

Jonathan Cook: MI6 Theresa May and the Manchester attack
Jonathan Cook wrote: And who gave the approval for such a policy, one that was bound to radicalise at least some of Britain’s Libyan community and provide them with military training and experience they were certain to bring back to the UK?

And here’s the rub. Because when MI6 began funnelling British-Libyan fighters to Libya in 2011, Theresa May was Home Secretary. May must have known of the MI6 policy and doubtless approved it. And now she is in the midst of a general election campaign. If she loses, Jeremy Corbyn is placed to become prime minister in her stead. That is not a prospect any of the corporate media appear willing to accept, even the supposedly left-liberal elements of it, like the Guardian.
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
Post Reply