Anything Political

[Oztalgian 3,278]

39 minutes ago, Brew said:

I’ve read the arguments for and not convinced, arguments against I find far more persuasive.

Brew, I'd be interested to hear your persuasive arguments against compulsory voting.

[mary1947 2,079]

Just read the discussion  on politics. Can't add much to it.

I will always vote because it took women years to get the chance to vote.

The thing is when I went to vote in the May elections, They did not want my poll card or any identity, I could have been any one all the asked name/address. 

If I had said Sally Slapcabbage 4 Cabbage Lane The Drift, and it was on their sheet they would have given me the slip of paper, ticked me off'. Is This right?. What I'm trying to say is I could have been anybody.

[letsavagoo 963]

On 5/12/2021 at 1:33 PM, DJ360 said:

I 'm just left wondering if all those who voted for Johnson and his crew basically to get their way over Brexit..realise just what they have done.

 

 

 

Col. you say ‘To get their way over Brexit’ There is a bit more to it isn’t there. 
After all there was a referendum on Brexit and the result was leave. The majority wasn’t great but neither is a 6-5 result in football but there’s still a winner. Let’s not get into discussion about it wasn’t a fair fight, lies were told etc. This is old ground covered in depth previously but there was a referendum and what people have done is stick 2 fingers up at the majority of MP’s who didn’t understand democracy and vote for the party who said they would see Brexit through. The shear arrogance demonstrated by many politicians on both sides over the referendum result was staggering. And we are now out of the European Union. How much out, how successful, time will tell. I suppose that’s what you’re saying but you make it sound like kids having a paddy. It’s not, it’s a deep rooted believe in democracy and seeing that through. The consequences may turn out to be good or bad but if it proves to be a bad choice then that is a price I am willing to pay for democracy. 

 

[Brew 5,411]

 

Not too sure about persuasive. 

 

Google will bring up many pages on the subject and to be honest I'm predisposed to resist authority anyway.

 

Those in favour claim it to be a  civic duty, it’s not, it’s a right and  voters should be free to decide whether or not they exercise it.  Voting in my view is a privilege not an obligation. We may disagree with them but people have the right to say “I don’t care, I’m not interested, I don't agree”

 

CV has nothing to do with democracy, for many years indigenous Australians had no voting rights at all, it was the purview of the chosen few only.

 

Supporters point to the fact the right to vote was hard won over decades - irrelevant.

The same applies to religious freedom and the right to worship who you like –  that does not mean we should we make church attendance mandatory as it once was in England. (Act of Uniformity 1588)

 

CV prevents low turnout but does it make the results more valid if the voter is forced on pain of punishment for failing to obey? I see a forced vote as less valid than one given freely.

 

Spoiled, or informal votes (Aus) are 500% higher than in the UK and over 800% in Brazil indicating, again in my view, many object and resent the state coercing them to vote - though we can't actually know whether it was by accident or design.

 

Compelling anyone to make a choice where they consider it not in their best interests or against their belief is totalitarianism.

 

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,728]

15 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

Col. you say ‘To get their way over Brexit’ There is a bit more to it isn’t there. 
After all there was a referendum on Brexit and the result was leave. The majority wasn’t great but neither is a 6-5 result in football but there’s still a winner. Let’s not get into discussion about it wasn’t a fair fight, lies were told etc. This is old ground covered in depth previously but there was a referendum and what people have done is stick 2 fingers up at the majority of MP’s who didn’t understand democracy and vote for the party who said they would see Brexit through.

 

Sorry.. but you really can't say that without a bit of background.  The whole Brexit campaign was founded on lies.  We did not, ever, surrender our sovereignty...we always had as much control of our borders as we wished to use and we continued to make our own laws.. Fact.

Now that is not to say that there may not have been legitimate arguments for leaving... but I never heard them.  There may also have been benefits from leaving... but they are pretty much invisible at present.

 

Moving on to MP's who didn't understand democracy.  Name one.  The issues in Parliament were not to do with 'whether Brexit?'  because all MPs recognised the result of the referendum..however reluctantly.... No. they were to do with 'how Brexit?' .  In other words.. the 'deal'.  Because Cameron did not frame his referendum properly... there was no guidance on this and thus it fell to Parliament.. which is the supreme organ of our democracy... to sort it out.

Johnson tried to force the issue from a position of Parliamentary minority and was rightly slapped down by the Supreme Court.  He also lied to the Queen.

 

15 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

The shear arrogance demonstrated by many politicians on both sides over the referendum result was staggering. And we are now out of the European Union. How much out, how successful, time will tell.

 

Indeed.  But given the deteriorating state of politics in Northern Ireland..as a direct result of Johnson's 'Brexit at any price' stance, and the very strong likelihood of Scotland leaving the Union... snd the failure of fisheries policies..and the idiotic..not to say inhuman activities of Patel's Dept. re: EU citizens.. only the most rabid 'Little Englander' could count Brexit as a success so far.

15 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

It’s not, it’s a deep rooted believe in democracy and seeing that through.

 

Not in my view.  It's a failure to grasp the purpose of Parliament as the defender of Democracy, against all comers. It has served us well enough for 800 years.  destroy it at your peril.  I have built my political life and views around the concept of democracy and I do not see Johnson or his crew as anything but a threat to it.

16 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

The consequences may turn out to be good or bad but if it proves to be a bad choice then that is a price I am willing to pay for democracy. 

 

I'd agree with you if I thought that Johnson and his crooked buddies were defending Democracy.. but trust me.. they aren't.

[letsavagoo 963]

I did say I didn’t want to get int o a discussion on the ‘it was all lies’ aspect of the Brexit campaign so I won’t. Why I responded to your post (and it’s rare that I respond to the ‘politics’ thread which personally I don’t believe belongs on the Nottstalgia forum but that’s another matter) was that it reminded me of the statement by Chris Emmas Williams recently defeated in the council elections, quote “ The voters have let us down. I hope they don’t live to regret it” Arrogant or what. Ridiculous. 

As for MP’s not understanding democracy. Well in fairness to you the statement isn’t quite clear but name an MP who wanted to overturn the referendum? 
Really. I haven’t time in the day. 
I felt that parliament were quite willing to ride roughshod over democracy never mind defend it. The people spoke though didn’t they. Get over it.

[Brew 5,411]

14 minutes ago, letsavagoo said:

I did say I didn’t want to get int o a discussion on the ‘it was all lies’ aspect of the Brexit campaign so I won’t.

 

I did note that and you made some good points in your post. In this post, again good, some points I agree with, some I don't but it's rather spoilt by the truculent and unnecessary phrase 'get over it' which you must admit is somewhat hackneyed now.

 

Incidentally there were 59 MP's who wanted a second referendum

[letsavagoo 963]

I admit Brew, that the comment ‘get over it’ was added in a final edit. I nearly removed it but let it go. I wish I had. Point taken. I won’t excuse it but I’m trying, perhaps not very eloquently say, we are where we are so let’s move on.  If I could remove it I would. Thank you for the information that it was 59 MP’s who wanted to defend democracy by wanting to overturn a democratic vote. 

[Brew 5,411]

The important thing Lets is we don't fall out and remain on good terms, Your posts have some good points and I hope you continue.. 

[letsavagoo 963]

I don’t look at the forum that often but sometimes I’ll have a spell when I look in daily and try and catch up then not look again for some time. I don’t always log in so the politics thread doesn’t show which suits me fine. When I do log in, perhaps to make a comment the politics thread comes up so I will read through it. The post I did comment on just piqued my interest as it reminded me of ex councillor Williams arrogant voters let us down comment that I had just been reading about minutes before.
 I’m not a fan of having the politics thread on this forum but clearly it invokes lively discussion with those who do enjoy the discussion so I leave it to those who are happy to contribute. I do not agree with many of the views expressed on the politics thread and personally find no joy or point spending time engaging in discussion as political views are entrenched (as are mine) and ‘your’ view is always right no matter what. I just don’t enjoy it so avoid it. I thank  for your comments above and encouragement to contribute Brew but doubt you will hear from me very often.

[Oztalgian 3,278]

On 5/16/2021 at 2:30 AM, Brew said:

We may disagree with them but people have the right to say “I don’t care, I’m not interested, I don't agree”

Brew, Under our CV system you are not actually required to vote, all you have to do is turn up at the voting station, have your name crossed off and receive your ballot paper. What you do with that paper is up to you, you can put it into the ballot box blank, write a comment on it, unfortunately these are counted as informal. You could number the candidates from 1 to ?? down the paper, this is a valid vote and often called a "donkey vote". That is why the number one position on the ballot paper is so important.

If I had may way the ballot paper would have a way of lodging a protest vote to let the self serving barstewards what we really think of their rorts and lies. I've often thought of changing my name to "None of Them" and standing for election.

[DJ360 6,728]

On 5/15/2021 at 3:57 AM, Brew said:

You seem to be implying that Labour are more altruistic than Tory voters. You must have far more faith in your fellow man than I.

 

I'm surprised you say that.  To me it is obvious that Labour's policies are aimed at restraining the worst excesses of capitalism, increasing opportunity for all and suporting thse least able to support themselves.  Tory policy has generally been the exact opposite since at least Thatcher.

 

On 5/15/2021 at 3:57 AM, Brew said:

The flat owners need to look to their solicitors who allowed them to sign an agreement that placed  them in such an onerous position though it may be they were well aware of the commitment.  It does seem wrong but we don’t know all the facts.

 

I strongly suspect that the existence of dangerous cladding was not known to owners or their solicitors.  That is the whole issue. The cladding appears to have been installed despite manufacturers and quite possibly constructors too, being fully aware that it did not meet safety requirements.

 

On 5/15/2021 at 3:57 AM, Brew said:

It’s good job then  that Blair’s plan to flog off part of the NHS as mentioned above never got off the ground or we would probably be in an even more parlous state.

 

What Blair did or did not propose 15 years ago is neither here nor there. .. because it didn't happen.  No.. this one is entirely a Tory created mess. Austerity..which was in itself a very questionable policy..led to effective cuts in NHS funding. Other policy decisions reduced Nurse training and recruitment of agency staff at inflated prices in order to fill the gap just exacerbated the problems. The NHS was struggling to cope with 'winter pressures', before Covid hit.

The Cygnus exercises led to multiple reports of which as far as I can tell only one has been published and pre-Covid none had been acted upon. Stocks of PPE etc.. were insufficient and out of date.

Govt' has adopted the position that so long as the NHS is not 'overwhelmed'..then all is well.  Personally, I see that as a very low ambition.  Better to have policies in place to minimise spread of the contagion.  In that area.. the Govt has failed spectacularly, by dithering.  They are still dithering.

On 5/15/2021 at 3:57 AM, Brew said:

Of all the answers I expected I did not think it would be quite so naïve, you surprise me. If we prepare for all eventualities it would not only be impossible it would cost billions for facilities that are not used but maintained ‘just in case’.

 

Not so.  I'm not talking about building huge hospitals which cannot be staffed.  I'm talking about having in place effective plans to control disease spread, to limit travel etc.  I think it is already established that Govt failed miserably on the PPE issue, due to penny pinching. 

Ventilators and similar kit.  These were in short supply...yet it seems to be 'understood' that future pandemics and emerging 'bugs' will likely follow the pattern and be respiratory diseases along the lines of new Flu variants, Sars, Mers and Covid.

Next up, measures to ensure fair access to food etc..for all. That too was very close to becoming a public order issue in early/mid 2020 as idiots cleared shelves. Also.. plans to stockpile and maintain PPE, both in sufficient quantity, and 'in date'.  Also, plans to support ALL people who for whatever pandemic related  reason cannot earn money or access the necessities of life.

 

On 5/15/2021 at 3:57 AM, Brew said:

Coalition? Hmmm the problem is if you drop Labour from the title they lose their identity

 

I think I already said as much.  As I understand coalitions.. the various members keep their individual identity, but agree to 'suspend hostilities' on some issues in order to defeat something seen as a common threat.

[DJ360 6,728]

29 minutes ago, Oztalgian said:

rorts

 

Second time you've posted that Oz.  Is it a predictive text issue or does it have some special meaning known only to Aussies?

[Oztalgian 3,278]

Sorry DJ I thought it was a word in common usage. Yes it is an informal Australianism. It is most often used in a political or tax context.

"A fraudulent or dishonest act or practice" or to "Take advantage of public service"

[Brew 5,411]

 To me it is obvious that Labour's policies are aimed at restraining the worst excesses of capitalism, increasing opportunity for all and suporting thse least able to support themselves.

 

I agree their intention is as you say but unfortunately their record of achieving it is not exactly sparkling.

 

I strongly suspect that the existence of dangerous cladding was not known to owners or their solicitors

 

Whether they knew of the unsuitable cladding or not is largely irrelevant. My question is how did they agree to a clause that placed the onus for maintenance and improvement on the tenants? Is it a usual term for those who buy apartments? If not why is it there?

 

What Blair did or did not propose 15 years ago is neither here nor there.

 

I mention the ill-fated Blair proposal to virtually kill the NHS to demonstrate that Labour is not the good goody two shoes whose sole objective is our wellbeing.

 

The Cygnus exercises led to multiple reports of which as far as I can tell only one has been published and pre-Covid none had been acted upon.

 

Why do you give impression the Cygnus exercise was a Tory initiative? Or that it failed?

It was a cross party exercise. If it has failed then the responsibility lies across the board.

 

I have read the report and noted the number of departments and experts who advised, I do not lightly dismiss it. Though you may disagree thanks to it we were as prepared as any and better than some. 

We have said many times hindsight is a wonderful thing. With the knowledge available back then I doubt we could have done better. We can now but now know so much more.

 

In that area.. the Govt has failed spectacularly, by dithering.  They are still dithering.

 

That’s your view Col many, myself included, are of the opinion that any failure is hardly spectacular and we are doing better than most. Indeed Vox.Com had a banner headline recently that claimed we lead the world in some aspects. Sure we can be better but often we are taking a very narrow view and unaware of the wider picture.

 

I appreciate your views are somewhat skewed against the blonde one but to me even bad men can sometimes do good things and I can think of no other member of the government who could do better.

 

 

I'm talking about having in place effective plans to control disease spread, to limit travel etc.

I think it is already established that Govt failed miserably on the PPE issue, due to penny pinching. 

Ventilators and similar kit. 

 

This is exactly what the Cygnus exercise did.

Why would they spend millions on ventilators when conventional wisdom said:

 

"Little is known about the practice of ventilation management in patients with COVID-19. We aimed to describe the practice of ventilation management and to establish outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 in a single country during the first month of the outbreak". (The Lancet) (The country was Holland)

 

I'm talking about having in place effective plans to control disease spread,

 

Apart from travel restrictions how do you propose this is done?

In January PHE raised the threat level from ‘very low’ to ‘low’, (less than 40 cases) hardly reason to panic and shut the airports.

Some weeks later in March (590 infections), the government unveiled ‘Coronavirus Action Plan’ and warned the spread was highly likely  On the 12^th travel restrictions started to come into force.

The timeline is well detailed and easily found, it would be difficult without the gift hindsight to move an entire nation quicker.

 

it seems to be 'understood' that future pandemics and emerging 'bugs' will likely follow the pattern and be respiratory diseases along the lines of new Flu variants, Sars, Mers and Covid.

 

Spending billions on an ‘understanding’ of something that may not happen for years plus the strong possibility they would get it wrong is guaranteed to bring howls of protest and accusations profligacy with the public purse

 

 Next up, measures to ensure fair access to food etc..for all. That too was very close to becoming a public order issue in early/mid 2020 as idiots cleared shelves.

 

A fine idea Col but short of rationing, which must begin in a non-emergency to be effective, how do you propose to do that?  

 

I think I already said as much.  As I understand coalitions…

 

I wasn’t thinking of coalitions. The word ‘Labour’ in the public consciousness has old fashioned and out of date connotations, particularly among the up and coming electorate. To remove the word would kill the party and that's unthinkable.

 

[radfordred 6,284]

Not sure Hancock or Cummings are telling the truth 

[MargieH 7,599]

Don't suppose we'll ever know, even after an official inquiry!  The only people who will be laughing are the lawyers.... they'll be working overtime

[Brew 5,411]

I'm still digesting most of it.

Initial thoughts are that of a bitter man who's ego took a terrible blow when he lost a power struggle in No10.

I note his use of  the word 'retrospectively' another  way of saying "in hindsight", the only way perfect vision is possible.

 

As for lying he seems to have forgotten his little jaunt at the height of the lockdown and the obvious lie he gave as a reason for it.

Did Hancock lie?  If he believed his statements to be true at the time but were later shown to be wrong, is it a deliberate lie? 

 

Strange though for man who is trying to gain the moral high ground he only mentions all these things after he was sacked...

 

I'm not saying Cummings is not telling the truth but it is his truth, it is as he sees it. Most of what he is saying so far comes down to nothing more than a difference of opinion on the best way to handle the pandemic.

 

At the end of it all it's looking more and more like a petulant, self serving egotist who took on Johnson - and lost

[DJ360 6,728]

Re: Cummings v Johnson.

Looking for evidence of who is telling the smaller number of lies between the whole sorry gang is rather reminiscent of watching rats fighting in a bag. The one which emerges triumphant at the end.. is still a rat.

 

[catfan 14,793]

But BJ gets more popular by the day.

There is no credible opposition.

[Brew 5,411]

He certainly looks to be Teflon coated at the moment. Cummings is no longer worthy of a mention ne'er mind the front pages. Only a couple of the Sunday papers mention Hancock, most seem dewey eyed about Bojo getting married in secret.

 

I think we should look at the wedding photos carefully to make sure his finger weren't crossed when they got to the bit about forsaking all others and he said "I do"...

[benjamin1945 16,151]

Reckon this is what Boris does in number 10........Go Boris...at least he's not boring..............

[Jill Sparrow 10,305]

He's giving our Ben some competition with his many women!

[MargieH 7,599]

Ben, I don’t care if a Prime Minister is boring or not!  I just wish we could have one who REALLY cares for all the people in the UK and seeks to

bring justice to the poorer parts of society.   I know that would be a difficult task but a Prime Minister should at least try!!!   (And a PM who tells the truth might be a good start)

[benjamin1945 16,151]

Last one we had like that Margie was Clement ATLEE.........Just after the War..........