Hartlepool?

[JohnfromUK]

Interesting comment in today's press re Angela Rayner.  Allegedly she was opposed to the vaccine priority list set by the Joint Committee Vaccines and Immunisations (JCVI) which prioritised those with the highest mortality risks (e.g. care home residents, elderly, health service staff).

What she wanted was Public Service workers (and other Nationalised Industry workers) - i.e. the members of her old union, Unison.

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Absolutely not.  Labels are massively important in politics and only a fool would use 'working class' or similar.

 

If you think cronyism only affects the conservatives and somehow isn't a problem for governments of other colours....well you're wrong.  And best not go down the road of the Labour shadow cabinet and their alma maters.

We'll have to agree to differ on this one.  I think all parties are pursuing the 99% - except for certain elements of labour/trade unions still mirred in class warfare from last century, and the LD's shameless pursuing of the chattering class vote to the exclusion of everyone else.

But again, no party will explicitly state they're for the 'working man' or whatever, because it's an unnecessary constraint which may make others feel excluded.  Which is just straightforward stupid.

 

 

The term might be important for politics but I've simply used it to identify a group, but feel free to choose a label, now we've identified what group we're talking about, you tell me what party has exclusively represented them? 

Certainly not Labour, they are more interested in giving money to those who won't work and seem to have no clue how to run the economy which the masses rely on. The libs and greens are even worse. 

I'd like to see any party fronted by Farage given a shot personally. 

[udderlyoffroad]

20 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

now we've identified what group we're talking about, you tell me what party has exclusively represented them? 

No party has 'exclusively' represented them, for reasons I've already mentioned!!

Look, we both agree that we're talking about the 99% that has to work to earn a living, as opposed to those inheriting/earning sufficient money to not have to work. 

The latter group, in North America, are referred to as the one-percenters, because that's a very generous rounding-up of the proportion of the population they represent.

But, and here's the kicker, no party is going to use 'exclusively' represent the 99% and seek to exclude the one percent, because they have large cheque books and will reguarly donate to the party.  This happens across the political spectrum, by the way, it's not just a Tory thing.   People who have upgraded themselves from the 99% to the 1% regularly donate many thousands to labour - Lord Sir Alan Sugar of Amstradshire being just one notable (former) donor.

The other way of funding parties, through trade unions (effectively salary sacrifice)...er look how that's turning out for labour - stuck in class warfare of the 20th century and talking only to themselves.

Of course there is a third option for funding political parties: state funding....but that'll go down like a cup of cold sick with the British electorate.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by udderlyoffroad

[TRINITY]

3 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

No party has 'exclusively' represented them, for reasons I've already mentioned!!

Look, we both agree that we're talking about the 99% that has to work to earn a living, as opposed to those inheriting/earning sufficient money to not have to work. 

The latter group, in North America, are referred to as the one-percenters, because that's a very generous rounding-up of the proportion of the population they represent.

But, and here's the kicker, no party is going to use 'exclusively' represent the 99% and seek to exclude the one percent, because they have large cheque books and will reguarly donate to the party.  This happens across the political spectrum, by the way, it's not just a Tory thing.   People 'who have done good' regularly donate many thousands to labour - Lord Sir Alan Sugar of Amstradshire being one (notable) former donor.

The other way of funding parties, through trade unions (effectively salary sacrifice)...er look how that's turning out for labour - stuck in class warfare of the 20th century and talking only to themselves.

Of course there is a third option for funding political parties: state funding....but that'll go down like a cup of cold sick with the British electorate.

 

 

Correct.

Let's not forget, money is power and the one percenters therefore have plenty of both. Even if you had state funded party system it would not solve things. The one percenters could still manipulate things via media etc . I am also sure there would be others in politics who would certainly bend to their will given financial incentives. 

This group also have economic leverage in that they own property,companies ,industrial production and  media. They can threaten politicians in many ways with the control over these assets. 

When you think about it, you can see the logic of communism . However going down that route is even worse.

Let's face it, there will always be winners and losers, smart and dumb, lucky and unlucky. No system will be perfect but you can only try and balance things as best you can.

[12gauge82]

17 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

No party has 'exclusively' represented them, for reasons I've already mentioned!!

Look, we both agree that we're talking about the 99% that has to work to earn a living, as opposed to those inheriting/earning sufficient money to not have to work. 

The latter group, in North America, are referred to as the one-percenters, because that's a very generous rounding-up of the proportion of the population they represent.

But, and here's the kicker, no party is going to use 'exclusively' represent the 99% and seek to exclude the one percent, because they have large cheque books and will reguarly donate to the party.  This happens across the political spectrum, by the way, it's not just a Tory thing.   People who have upgraded themselves from the 99% to the 1% regularly donate many thousands to labour - Lord Sir Alan Sugar of Amstradshire being just one notable (former) donor.

The other way of funding parties, through trade unions (effectively salary sacrifice)...er look how that's turning out for labour - stuck in class warfare of the 20th century and talking only to themselves.

Of course there is a third option for funding political parties: state funding....but that'll go down like a cup of cold sick with the British electorate.

 

 

Absolutely agreed, my original point was that we don't have a party that stands for the average working person. 

And I believe your right, the cons have done as good a job as any at the moment. I certainly wouldn't want to see Labour in, we'd have no vaccine roll out, in bigger debt, flood gates opened for illegals, soft on crime and a ruined economy, none of which benefits the 99%

 

[clangerman]

8 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Absolutely agreed, my original point was that we don't have a party that stands for the average working person. 

And I believe your right, the cons have done as good a job as any at the moment. I certainly wouldn't want to see Labour in, we'd have no vaccine roll out, in bigger debt, flood gates opened for illegals, soft on crime and a ruined economy, none of which benefits the 99%

 

the country is almost bankrupt dinghy sales in france are up and the streets are awash with criminals i won’t be patting any of them on the back 

[discobob]

15 hours ago, figgy said:

Children are not going to vote labour because their parent do or did.

Buuuuuut - here in Wales - my eldest lad is Labour - don't understand how - we (the Wife and I) used to be Conservatives (note the "used to be") until a few years ago, we can only figure (due to his complete lack of interest in this stuff) that he has picked this up in education!!

Don't forget, Wales (or rather Labour) has just given the vote to 16 year olds 😱

[TRINITY]

12 minutes ago, discobob said:

 

Don't forget, Wales (or rather Labour) has just given the vote to 16 year olds 😱

So has wee Jimmy,  plus immigrants who are not UK citizens. 

[discobob]

Just now, TRINITY said:

So has wee Jimmy,  plus immigrants who are not UK citizens. 

Same on them as well.

Anyway - does it matter who you vote for nowadays - the same ******** always get in and the majority of said same have been through the same indoctrination through the same lectures at Uni!!!

[henry d]

6 hours ago, discobob said:

...we can only figure (due to his complete lack of interest in this stuff) that he has picked this up in education!!

Which education? Schooling/further education, from his peers, rebelling against his parents and others?

6 hours ago, discobob said:

...the majority of said same have been through the same indoctrination through the same lectures at Uni!!!

I don't know if you went to university but it certainly isn't my recollection of it, in fact I would not have gotten past the first semester if I hadn't used and shown critical thinking at every stage.

[discobob]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

Which education? Schooling/further education, from his peers, rebelling against his parents and others?

Senior School - just coming up to 18

[RockySpears]

"The fpp (first past the post) system exacerbates the difficulties of engineering change. It results in a blunt selection process with a winner that is unlikley to reflect the demands of the population. "

  Using PR (Proportional Representation) would ruin the country:

No one voting Labour, puts the Tories second or third, and vice versa.

Every time you will get 30% Tory, 30% Labour and 30% mish mash

  Also, if you voted Tory and they get a massive majority in your area, but you end up with a Green MP are you going to be happy?  Under PR you don't get what you vote for, you get what is chosen for you from a pool.

PR means that you local MP is often not one that is voted for by locals. At least that is my understanding.

You could avoid putting a second place or third selection on your paper, but then you are invoking FPP again.

FPP maybe not the best, but it is clean, decisive and simple to understand.

RS