Bolitics The New Condem Government

[PaulC]

 

 

Facebook as a political tool and to a lesser degree the other social media outlets due to them limiting the content, is now becoming a very dangerous thing.

 

 

Absolutely, and it's depressing.  From people regurgitating baseless "facts" about one party or another, to the hilariously bad attempts by all parties to try and use Twitter.  When George Orwell wrote 1984, the made up facts and stats he foresaw, and the screens where everybody could see every detail of your movements was clearly Facebook, except we do it out of choice.

 

Yes Orwell wrote that book in the 40s while in the advanced stages of TB. I would say that big brother is the internet rather than just facebook though.

[mjmooney]

We've managed to achieve the salient predictions of both 1984 (total lack of privacy and anonymity) and Brave New World (a population anaesthetised by 24/7 mindless 'entertainment'). 

[drat01]

 

 

Surely the whole point being raised is evaluating what the political parties are claiming to stand for, what chance of them delivering on those policies that you agree with etc. I know I certainly look at what they all claim they will do and have yet to find any time that Labour did not tick most of the boxes for me and what concerns me.

 

The problem with this  is that it's wrong. Nice, but wrong.

Why? Firstly because whole swathes of the country are safe seats. It essentially doesn't matter who I vote for, where I live a tory will get in. My only hope is to vote tactically, in an anti tory way. Suppose Labour was to be the closest to my ideas (it isn't, but bear with me), if the only half chance of beating the tory was to vote (say) LibDem, then that's what I'd do. This is the case in many many constituencies. People who don't want the incumbent party have to bite their lips and vote for the one most likely to defeat them, not necessarily their favourite.

 

And Mike's idea sounds great, except it's removing the person standing from the choice, and just going with a party.

Again, where I live, the MP got himself in all kinds of scandal with allegations of drugs and a male, er, companion from Brazil. Now many of the locals here might decide they don't want an allegedly, er, unstable person with an alleged liking for Bolivian marching Powder and male "friends" to whom he may have given, co-incidentally, sums of money in exchange for special hugs. They're quite traditional like that round here. So they wouldn't be able to get rid of him

 

Or if I liked 8/10 Labour policies, but absolutely loathed 2 of them, but was OK with 5 Conservative ones, but less keen on 4 and din't like 1, my vote would be for Labour, but actually the 2 policies I hated would stop me voting for them, ever.

 

I know it wasn't a totally serious suggestion, and I like the notion at first glance, but actually it's rubbish

 

Pete - you are arguing a different matter there so it's not wrong as such :-)

 

You know my stance on votes and how all should be equal - PR as such was never given a fair chance for review by the people.

 

In respect to how many of the policies you agree with and make your decision as to who to vote for that is where the common sense comes in - something that we all agree seems to be lacking a lot of the time if we use the comments on social media as some sort of barometer.

[Risso]

 

How many Polish-born people have settled in the UK in the last 10 years, half a million or so?  Has that had an effect on the country in terms of unemployment, wages and public services etc?  Makeminvilla makes some good points.  Because people are afraid to discuss those sorts of questions, UKIP are filling the information void, very successfully.  And whether that migration has had a positive effect, or a negative effect, it happened without the people of the UK having much of a say in it.  That's also where they're making capital.

I visit Poland regularly, and most people that I speak to think that there are some 5m out of the country, with around 800k in the UK.

Without cross-border immigration certain industries in our country would be stuffed, but then that would potentially make the job market more competitive, thus pushing wages up towards the 'living wage' so coveted by some of our left thinkers.

In the end the Blair regime did not think things through on open borders or 'multi-cultural Britain' which is probably why UKIP has better established itself than it could have hoped.

They will disappear though, as we lapse back into the Labour/Tory see-saw.

 

 

The point is though, is that if a country "needs" workers via immigration, then that should be a planned policy, not just saying "right, as many hundreds of thousands of people from one country as can make it over will be allowed to live and work here."  To be fair to Blair, I don't think the hundreds of thousands of Poles and other Eastern Europeans was a desire to make the country more multi-cultural, it was just a huge and completely idiotic under-estimate of how many people from a country like Poland would decide to come to the UK.  Predicted 13,000, got the best part of a million.

 

"One spectacular mistake in which I participated (not alone) was in lifting the transitional restrictions on the Eastern European states like Poland and Hungary which joined the EU in mid-2004.

"Other existing EU members, notably France and Germany, decided to stick to the general rule which prevented migrants from these new states from working until 2011.

"'But we thought that it would be good for Britain if these folk could come and work here from 2004.

"Thorough research by the Home Office suggested that the impact of this benevolence would in any event be 'relatively small, at between 5,000 and 13,000 immigrants per year up to 2010'"

 

Brilliant.

[drat01]

Mart - your quoting of Jack Straw is taking things massively out of context - something that the right wing have consistently done IMO.

 

The whole thing re multi country business and its placement needs is more freedom against the artificial borders that surround europe. I think it was Lawrence who compared the EU as a Superstate earlier but surely that is exactly what the world is about these days. China, the US, Russia,India etc are superstates. Have you ever worked or lived in Europe? Mass migration of you want to label it happens all of the time - how many French people work in Belgium for example? What about Spaniards in Portugal and vice versa. There are no border controls and the only give away you have is that number plates change colour. What about the Irish working in the UK, should they be "sent home"?

 

Apologies if this comes across wrong but you talking about immigrants when you don't live in the UK remind me of the comments I saw over the last couple of days from UKIP supporters based in Malaga !  - this goes back to economics and the reality still exists that immigration, welfare etc shrink into insignificance against elements like Tax evasion and avoidance

[snowychap]

How many Polish-born people have settled in the UK in the last 10 years, half a million or so?  Has that had an effect on the country in terms of unemployment, wages and public services etc?  Makeminvilla makes some good points.  Because people are afraid to discuss those sorts of questions, UKIP are filling the information void, very successfully.  And whether that migration has had a positive effect, or a negative effect, it happened without the people of the UK having much of a say in it.  That's also where they're making capital.

I've seen and heard immigration and its possible or measured effects upon unemployment, wages, &c. being discussed quite often.

Unfortunately, most of the time it seems to be that someone who has studied the subject, analysed the data, drawn conclusions and put forward what it seems the data are saying to them is then shouted down by politicians or those who have not studied the data because the conclusion doesn't marry up with their prejudice. Most of the time that prejudice would appear to be that immigration has to adversely, and in a really material way, affect: unemployment; wages; the economy; public services; 'national culture', and whatever else. Some of the time it is the other way around, though, i.e. when those whose prejudice is naturally in favour of immigration ignore any of the negatives.

UKIP aren't filling any 'information void' very successfully, they are doing it in a pretty popular (or populist) way. They aren't filling any void with information but with opinion.

 

Edit: Spelling.

Edited May 27, 2014 by snowychap

[snowychap]

The point is though, is that if a country "needs" workers via immigration, then that should be a planned policy...

How many tractors do we need to produce in the next five years, comrade?

[bickster]

The point is though, is that if a country "needs" workers via immigration, then that should be a planned policy...

How many tractors do we need to produce in the next five years, comrade?

yes quite, whilst said in jest its bloody true in the UK. The parties arguing that we should get out of Europe are the right generally and the right traditionally argue that the market is king, so those in favour of the laissez-faire (how sic is that!) actually want us to interfere in a market (the labour market) and make the market smaller. This in turn will force wages up artificially as there'll be no-one left to do the jobs

The left on the other hand generally want the opposite...

If Monty Python did politics...

[villaajax]

[thetrees]

To have people on this forum, capable of operating a modern piece of i.t. kit and capable of writing a passable message in written english yet still saying they wouldn't vote Labour because regardless of policies the leader looks like a wally in selected photos......well it's grim.

 

To be fair, it's not as grim as people saying that they WOULD vote for Labour for any reason whatsoever.

I know you are joking Mart but has there ever been anyone who said that? I remember Tony once stating he would rather be dead than vote Red and I know that from your Tax avoidance non UK residence you favour the Tory party :-)

 

Surely the whole point being raised is evaluating what the political parties are claiming to stand for, what chance of them delivering on those policies that you agree with etc. I know I certainly look at what they all claim they will do and have yet to find any time that Labour did not tick most of the boxes for me and what concerns me.

 

It's certainly saddening and depressing when you see people on FB for example peddling some of the crap from "groups" like that Britain First and the like and then believing it to be real, when a quick google search shows it to be typically right wing racist bile.

Interesting Ian, as I encountered one of those Red Labour FB thingys that was basically trying to discredit and misrepresent UKIP. This was being spread by a teacher relative and her mates, all of whom are constant nomads and presently enjoying a tax free existence in Saudi Arabia. When asked whether they would like to submit a fair proportion of their income to HMRC, they all went very quiet.

Not very social for socialists, I thought

I think UKIP do a fine job of discrediting themselves without the need for any opposition to them doing so - and really do we need the stupidity of labels like Red this etc? - the whole Red Ed thing is such a nonsense and adds nothing to any debate or setting of credibility.  How did you know they were Socialist's by the way? Being a socialist can mean many things to many people most of them different much in the same was as I could label a few Fascists etc. (Edit: before anyone comments about my use of Gideon - despite it was his given name I have it on very good authority that some in the Gvmt departments call him that also to wind him up :-) )

 

Facebook as a political tool and to a lesser degree the other social media outlets due to them limiting the content, is now becoming a very dangerous thing.

The 'Red Labour' tag belonged to the school teacher FB poster., not me. I just assumed it was one of those tags used to define the difference between 'New' Labour and a more traditional alternative, having been informed by many on here that 'New' Labour aren't socialist.

Being related to one of the discussers/sympathisers, I am privy to the fact that she is, indeed, a socialist. As the discussion was one of cosy agreement, I assumed that others were same.

Beyond Blair and Brown being liars and criminals, I don't really do tags.

I entirely agree with you about the dangers of Facebook, which I would extend to Twitter and social media in general.

[chrisp65]

 

 

And Mike's idea sounds great, except it's removing the person standing from the choice, and just going with a party.

 

I know it wasn't a totally serious suggestion, and I like the notion at first glance, but actually it's rubbish

 

I know it is, but (as you spotted) I just threw it out there as a debating point. 

 

There's also the tension between the local, the national and the global. 

 

Do I want an MP who will work primarily for his constituents, or one who will obey the party whip on national/international issues, even if this is not in his local constituency's interests? 

 

And what use is it (say) electing a broadly left-wing local council, if their budgets are largely controlled by a broadly right-wing central government? Or vice-versa. 

 

And would we rather have a FPTP system, where you tend to get a clear majority of one party, and a 'you know where you stand' consistency of policy, or a PR system, with an endless succession of hamstrung coalitions, and where a wider range of the electorate's views get some representation, even if some of those are extremist types (of either stripe)? 

 

Discuss. 

 

 

I've mentioned it previously but my local MP has worked really hard on a couple of causes close to my heart and has used his connections to get us access to legal advice and barristers we couldn't possibly have known about let alone afford. He turns up all over town genuinely getting involved in lots of community stuff and getting his mugshot in the free papers etc.. He also turns up at events with his laptop and gooseberry letting people know he's working - but accessible. All very commendable.

 

But if I vote for him, he's a tory and they potentially get in again.

 

Luckily for me a good friend I trust completely is standing so I can vote for him instead. But he doesn't stand a chance of winning, so have I wasted my vote?

[PaulC]

Your vote is never wasted.

[thetrees]

Mart - your quoting of Jack Straw is taking things massively out of context - something that the right wing have consistently done IMO.

 

The whole thing re multi country business and its placement needs is more freedom against the artificial borders that surround europe. I think it was Lawrence who compared the EU as a Superstate earlier but surely that is exactly what the world is about these days. China, the US, Russia,India etc are superstates. Have you ever worked or lived in Europe? Mass migration of you want to label it happens all of the time - how many French people work in Belgium for example? What about Spaniards in Portugal and vice versa. There are no border controls and the only give away you have is that number plates change colour. What about the Irish working in the UK, should they be "sent home"?

 

Apologies if this comes across wrong but you talking about immigrants when you don't live in the UK remind me of the comments I saw over the last couple of days from UKIP supporters based in Malaga !  - this goes back to economics and the reality still exists that immigration, welfare etc shrink into insignificance against elements like Tax evasion and avoidance

My reference of the EU superstate is, in my mind at least, nothing to do with immigration, it is about the political, territorial expansionism being carried out by a handful of ambitious, some unelected, people. Blitzkrieg without bullets.

My 'defence' of UKIP, a party of which I know little, and of which there may be little to know, is purely because they provoke discussion, nothing less. By doing so they encourage the parties that will ultimately gain power to engage with people on such issues, rather than just running and hiding behind the 'R' word.

Personally I am pro-immigration, and always have been.

[chrisp65]

Your vote is never wasted.

 

 

tell that to the Polish entry in eurovision

[mjmooney]

And Mike's idea sounds great, except it's removing the person standing from the choice, and just going with a party.

I know it wasn't a totally serious suggestion, and I like the notion at first glance, but actually it's rubbish

I know it is, but (as you spotted) I just threw it out there as a debating point.

There's also the tension between the local, the national and the global.

Do I want an MP who will work primarily for his constituents, or one who will obey the party whip on national/international issues, even if this is not in his local constituency's interests?

And what use is it (say) electing a broadly left-wing local council, if their budgets are largely controlled by a broadly right-wing central government? Or vice-versa.

And would we rather have a FPTP system, where you tend to get a clear majority of one party, and a 'you know where you stand' consistency of policy, or a PR system, with an endless succession of hamstrung coalitions, and where a wider range of the electorate's views get some representation, even if some of those are extremist types (of either stripe)?

Discuss.

I've mentioned it previously but my local MP has worked really hard on a couple of causes close to my heart and has used his connections to get us access to legal advice and barristers we couldn't possibly have known about let alone afford. He turns up all over town genuinely getting involved in lots of community stuff and getting his mugshot in the free papers etc.. He also turns up at events with his laptop and gooseberry letting people know he's working - but accessible. All very commendable.

But if I vote for him, he's a tory and they potentially get in again.

Luckily for me a good friend I trust completely is standing so I can vote for him instead. But he doesn't stand a chance of winning, so have I wasted my vote?

Pretty much my situation, too. Hard working Tory MP whom I respect (he's an 'out' gay as it happens), but I cannot vote for that party under any circumstances. Edited May 27, 2014 by mjmooney

[villaajax]

Our MP is just there to cut ribbons. My parents have been to see him about a problem in the past and he wasn't interested, barely listened and ultimately was just didn't do anything.

 

Same thing when my cousin and her husband went to see him about a problem they were having.

 

But being deep in the heart of Tory country, he doesn't have to do anything to get votes.

[thetrees]

 

I've mentioned it previously but my local MP has worked really hard on a couple of causes close to my heart and has used his connections to get us access to legal advice and barristers we couldn't possibly have known about let alone afford. He turns up all over town genuinely getting involved in lots of community stuff and getting his mugshot in the free papers etc.. He also turns up at events with his laptop and gooseberry letting people know he's working - but accessible. All very commendable.

 

But if I vote for him, he's a tory and they potentially get in again.

 

Luckily for me a good friend I trust completely is standing so I can vote for him instead. But he doesn't stand a chance of winning, so have I wasted my vote?

That's a shame, and a sad indictment of the big party political system. Clearly your MP has worked hard for his constituents, positively affecting issues that are close to your heart, and is deserving of your vote. The fact that party system stops you from doing so is another small example of how good politicians, people who can work to make a difference to our country, are sacrificed for potentially bad politicians, of which we have more than our fair share.

I understand, and I don't blame you, but I think that it is sad.

[chrisp65]

I don't think we've ever agreed before!

[Risso]

Mart - your quoting of Jack Straw is taking things massively out of context - something that the right wing have consistently done IMO.

 

The whole thing re multi country business and its placement needs is more freedom against the artificial borders that surround europe. I think it was Lawrence who compared the EU as a Superstate earlier but surely that is exactly what the world is about these days. China, the US, Russia,India etc are superstates. Have you ever worked or lived in Europe? Mass migration of you want to label it happens all of the time - how many French people work in Belgium for example? What about Spaniards in Portugal and vice versa. There are no border controls and the only give away you have is that number plates change colour. What about the Irish working in the UK, should they be "sent home"?

 

Apologies if this comes across wrong but you talking about immigrants when you don't live in the UK remind me of the comments I saw over the last couple of days from UKIP supporters based in Malaga !  - this goes back to economics and the reality still exists that immigration, welfare etc shrink into insignificance against elements like Tax evasion and avoidance

 

Sorry Ian, you'll have to explain the context thing to me:

 

"One spectacular mistake in which I participated (not alone) was in lifting the transitional restrictions on the Eastern European states like Poland and Hungary which joined the EU in mid-2004."

 

He's pretty clear to be fair, and "spectacular mistake" doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation.  And obviously, comparing the movement of workers between Belgium and France or Spain and Portugal is missing the point entirely.  They are very close geographically and economically going back many years.  What doesn't happen there is that all of a sudden, one much poorer country sends hundreds of thousands of its population to to the other in the space of a few short years. 

 

As for where I live, we're talking shite on a football message board, not standing for election!  I probably spend more days in the UK than you do anyway (note to any HMRC bods reading - this is a joke, I don't really).  Even though I'm still eligible to vote, I choose not to.  I'm not aware that not living in the UK precludes a person from discussing politics on the internet, any more than not living in Birmingham stops us from talking about the VIlla.

[thetrees]

Our MP is just there to cut ribbons. My parents have been to see him about a problem in the past and he wasn't interested, barely listened and ultimately was just didn't do anything.

 

Same thing when my cousin and her husband went to see him about a problem they were having.

 

But being deep in the heart of Tory country, he doesn't have to do anything to get votes.

My local MP was an ambitious Tory, and probably still is, although currently on an 'ambition break' , owing to a well reported altercation with a couple of policemen.

As a person he isn't really my cup of tea, but he is an excellent constituency MP, and was so when his career was still on the rise.

And he doesn't really need the votes either.