Bolitics UKIP Nutters

[Si.]

[villaajax]

From Have I Got New For You, the tree that looks like Farage

 

[tonyh29]

Looks more like admiral Ackbar from Star Wars tbh

[dAVe80]

Or the brother out of Everybody Loves Raymond. 

[bickster]

From Have I Got New For Yew, the tree that looks like Farage

 

Corrected

[thetrees]

No! People want a healthy work life balance. Most people realise life is short and we want to spend it working less hard, working less hours and doing the things that really matter - spending time enjoying life with our families and friends.

Hallelujah to that. I am sure that is something that we would all like to do.

And we can all work less hard and less hours, if we are prepared to sacrifice a portion of our income.

Or is the expectation that someone else should pay for it?

[Kingfisher]

The problem that we have to work so many hours to make ends meet is one politicians should be working on, rather than actively creating a worse situation.

http://greenparty.org.uk/news/28-04-2009-government-failed-workers-refusing-compromise-working-time.html

Edited May 31, 2014 by Kingfisher

[NurembergVillan]

 

No! People want a healthy work life balance. Most people realise life is short and we want to spend it working less hard, working less hours and doing the things that really matter - spending time enjoying life with our families and friends.

Hallelujah to that. I am sure that is something that we would all like to do.

And we can all work less hard and less hours, if we are prepared to sacrifice a portion of our income.

Or is the expectation that someone else should pay for it?

 

 

Just working the hours we're contracted for would be fine.

 

Google seem to be doing alright.

[Kingfisher]

Low wages and increasing living costs mean we're putting in long hours. Increased job insecurity because of the erosion of workers rights means we often put in extra hours for free for our employers just to keep on top of our workload.

I can't help but feel that it's a situation that's come about because of a pro business bias in politics.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Kingfisher

[tonyh29]

The problem that we have to work so many hours to make ends meet is one politicians should be working on, rather than actively creating a worse situation.

http://greenparty.org.uk/news/28-04-2009-government-failed-workers-refusing-compromise-working-time.html

Why don't you just start a Green Party thread and you can do your party political broadcasts from there

[Kingfisher]

The problem that we have to work so many hours to make ends meet is one politicians should be working on, rather than actively creating a worse situation.

http://greenparty.org.uk/news/28-04-2009-government-failed-workers-refusing-compromise-working-time.html

Why don't you just start a Green Party thread and you can do your party political broadcasts from there

This probably sounds strange, I hate to think of myself as a Green Party supporter. I hate party politics, and would certainly never blindly follow a party, as some might. They're not perfect, but they're the closest thing to a breath of fresh air in politics at the moment. UKIP most certainly are not!

[peterms]

 

I really don't know how people can gauge whether we should be in the EU or not. A lot of people who vote UKIP want to get out of Europe, my parents do for sure, yet as much as I love my parents they aren't exactly the brightest, how on earth they feel they can understand and evaluate the complexities of what it means to either be in or out of Europe is beyond me?

Well once upon a time the people were considered smart enough to chose whether or not to join the Common Market, so why with a far better informed and educated population should the people not be qualified to decide now? I certainly don't feel that (m)any politicians have such a superior intellect and understanding than the public that they are more qualified to decide such important issues for us.  How many of them do you think will have read the Lisbon Treaty before voting on it in the Commons? The vast majority will have trooped through the lobbies they were told to by the party whips.

 

For a truly informed decision about the EU to be made (should we ever get a referendum to decide the issue) then there should be a public forum established to discuss it, where all sides of the debate can air their views and have them scrutinised by the public.  This could be integrated and take place across multiple media platforms, over an extended period of time. 

 

The most important aspect though would be to exclude politicians entirely, let them lie to each other on their own time and let the public examine, cross examine and then debate the evidence provided by actual experts, before make an informed choice.  

 

 

It wasn't that people were once considered smarter, just that joining what you rightly say was the the Common Market (and, wow, how it has expanded its brief since then) was seen as a decision which should be put to such a vote.  There was also the point that both parties (for there were then two) were to some extent divided on the issue, so a referendum allowed campaigning without splitting the party.

 

Love the idea about a public forum to hear ideas.  But we need a name for it.  What about something like "agora"?  It's not an acronym, the word just popped into my head.

 

But excluding politicians would be hard.  If a politician is someone who holds elected office, that part is clear.  My reservation is that so many would-be politicians flood the airwaves and print media already.

[thetrees]

Low wages and increasing living costs mean we're putting in long hours. Increased job insecurity because of the erosion of workers rights means we often put in extra hours for free for our employers just to keep on top of our workload.

I can't help but feel that it's a situation that's come about because of a pro business bias in politics.

The situation that you describe is not one that has come about recently, it has been pretty much the norm for decades, unless the 'pro-business bias' description applies to every government since 1945?

I also don't see an erosion of worker's rights. Compulsory paid holidays, minimum wage and the (IMO) ridiculous paternity leave are examples of an improvement of worker's rights (i know, all Labour led improvements). There can always be an argument for further improvements, but I cannot see erosion there.

As far as I see it, life is about choices.

I, like many others, choose to work hard, and many unpaid hours, in order to make a decent living to take care of my family. On two occasions during our married life, my wife and I have chosen to compromise our income and lifestyle for things that are more important. We made that choice, and had no expectation of others at both times.

I also choose to work in the private sector, which can be argued has potentially greater risks and greater rewards. A job in the public sector, with the promise of a pension, and conditions that are probably nearer to your desired working situation, would maybe more suitable for some.

[Awol]

 

What about something like "agora"?  It's not an acronym, the word just popped into my head.

Sure, it's not like we haven't already borrowed democracy from them and the old Greek connection is quite classy. 

 

But excluding politicians would be hard.  If a politician is someone who holds elected office, that part is clear.  My reservation is that so many would-be politicians flood the airwaves and print media already.

A would-be politician is just another private citizen trying to find a soap box, which we're all entitled to do.  I don't pretend to 'get' exactly how crowd funding works but it probably wouldn't cost the earth to set up shop in a little corner of t'interweb, advertise the existence of the new site through social media, moderate it very, very well and impartially (no donation over £100 accepted to keep out vested interests) and slowly start to get people really talking. 

 

You could invite legal and constitutional experts to put forward analysis of the current implications of membership vis a vis the constitutional situation before Maastricht and Lisbon, then how that is likely to change in the future, both if we remain inside or if we leave.  Other genuine experts can post their own views and debate with each other in a 'read only' format with 'normal' contributors debating their debate. You could have different sections for the economy, social policy, everything. Actually set the agenda instead of being spoon fed dog toffee - and then obligingly shouting at each other like football fans cheering on our team. 

 

The main point is that if this debate is had outwith the political parties and encompassing a broad enough spectrum of opinion then over time it would take on a life of its own, drawing on the vast well of wisdom, knowledge and expertise within society to shape and develop the debate, thereby destroying the fallacies and myths deployed by both sides. That would leave a distilled consensus (or as far as is possible) around what is or is not accurate as both sides conduct endless due diligence on the claims of the other lot.  

 

In theory you've then created a fully referenced database of information and a forum to debate it, upon which those with a mind to can draw. The ability of politicians and media to push out their own propaganda and agendas would basically be snuffed out for two reasons:

 

1) The debate is taking place directly between the people and without input from politicians. 

2) Where debates took place on TV, on current affairs programmes etc. it would force all participants to learn about the issues themselves and conduct discussions with more honesty and integrity - or face routine humiliation at the hands of a public with the facts at their fingertips. 

 

Technology has provided the means for a society to communicate with itself en mass and simply go around the corruption and vested interests that control politicians and the media. It might even become apparent that we don't need them quite as much as we thought... either way, it then leaves the decision over a vital issue to a highly informed - and probably the most highly informed ever - electorate. For those who don't care or find the idea of discussing politics very interesting (and fair enough I reckon) that's fine, they can still crack on doing whatever is they do without worrying about it, a modern democracy in action.

 

It could catch on you know.       

[limpid]

 

What about something like "agora"?  It's not an acronym, the word just popped into my head.

Sure, it's not like we haven't already borrowed democracy from them and the old Greek connection is quite classy.

Not really. The Greek system was an oligarchy operated like modern jury service in that representatives were selected by lot from a pool of those with a certain level of education and wealth (which were effectively the same thing).

[ermie123]

I am also an English Jew and we are under a constant threat here and abroad, you all no who from and it will not stop with just us and there i will leave it. 

[StefanAVFC]

I am also an English Jew and we are under a constant threat here and abroad, you all no who from and it will not stop with just us and there i will leave it. 

 

There are militants in any religion. 

 

There are plenty of people of another religion living in this country discriminated against even though they've done absolutely nothing wrong.

 

If UKIP is the answer, I can't even comprehend what the question is.

[samjp26]

 

I am also an English Jew and we are under a constant threat here and abroad, you all no who from and it will not stop with just us and there i will leave it. 

 

There are militants in any religion. 

 

There are plenty of people of another religion living in this country discriminated against even though they've done absolutely nothing wrong.

 

If UKIP is the answer, I can't even comprehend what the question is.

 

 

It is also select Jews that are opposed by select Muslims, silly to even suggest that all Jews are under constant threat from all Muslims. If we want to get into that debate then we could talk all day about the Zionists who have Muslims under constant threat overseas, but there I will leave it.

 

I agree with Stefan though, UKIP isn't the answer or in any way a party that will have an affect on such a thing.

[bickster]

Oh gawd someone invoked the R debate, I predict the Mossad Online Posse's VT representative Glarmorgan will appear from nowhere because someone said the J word.

[bickster]

It is also select Jews that are opposed by select Muslims, silly to even suggest that all Jews are under constant threat from all Muslims. If we want to get into that debate then we could talk all day about the Zionists who have Muslims under constant threat overseas, but there I will leave it.

You should know by now that religion is not the home of rationality