|
Post by iancransonsknees on Apr 7, 2024 12:18:47 GMT
It's the old "joke", it was there if you wanted it but you chose not to. It’s relevant to both leave & remain…..only 34.5% of the electorate voted to remain. 33.5m of 46.5m registered voters chose to vote, I wonder what the result would have been if those other 13m people had voted? Nothing funny about it as far as I'm concerned. If you read the thread back my point was not about Brexit per se but that if you want the Tories out (I do) then don't just trust the opinion polls and assume that's what's going to happen and leave the voting to someone else. Even Farage agrees that's pretty much what happened with the Remain vote. Smacks of arrogance then if they thought they didn't have to try. They didn't get the importance of their argument across and the need for people to back it to make sure of the result. That's the problem with this country though, it's full of a lot of lazy people who are happy enough to leave the heavy lifting to somebody else.
|
|
|
Voting
Apr 7, 2024 12:40:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by Seymour Beaver on Apr 7, 2024 12:40:52 GMT
Nothing funny about it as far as I'm concerned. If you read the thread back my point was not about Brexit per se but that if you want the Tories out (I do) then don't just trust the opinion polls and assume that's what's going to happen and leave the voting to someone else. Even Farage agrees that's pretty much what happened with the Remain vote. Smacks of arrogance then if they thought they didn't have to try. They didn't get the importance of their argument across and the need for people to back it to make sure of the result. That's the problem with this country though, it's full of a lot of lazy people who are happy enough to leave the heavy lifting to somebody else. I just said that's what happened and there's a lesson to be learned for voters - that's all. No more no less. If you want to slag 'this country' off there are plently of other threads with posters on who I'm sure would be more than happy to indulge you.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Apr 7, 2024 12:51:08 GMT
It's the old "joke", it was there if you wanted it but you chose not to. It’s relevant to both leave & remain…..only 34.5% of the electorate voted to remain. 33.5m of 46.5m registered voters chose to vote, I wonder what the result would have been if those other 13m people had voted? Nothing funny about it as far as I'm concerned. If you read the thread back my point was not about Brexit per se but that if you want the Tories out (I do) then don't just trust the opinion polls and assume that's what's going to happen and leave the voting to someone else. Even Farage agrees that's pretty much what happened with the Remain vote. Was just making an analogy of those who didn’t vote and didn’t mean to trivialise. I have been a dyed in the wool Tory voter since I was 18, 53 years ago. But, for first time ever, I will not vote for them in this election simply because the country needs change and I certainly won’t be leaving it to someone else to vote them out. My dilemma, along with many other normally Tory voters, is where to put that cross. I’m reading manifestos and can’t see a massive difference between Conservative and Labour and Reform seem to be waving a magic wand conjuring up the money to pay for the changes they intend to make. Rachel Reeves has recently said Labour will "stand up" for us pensioners saying they had supported the government with the triple lock policy but not going as far as to say it will continue. I do agree with her statement regarding the Tories policy to abolish NI asking where the money would come from. I think in this election people, instead of making a loyal vote, will look very closely at party manifestos before filling out that ballot paper.
|
|
|
Voting
Apr 7, 2024 14:45:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by musik on Apr 7, 2024 14:45:52 GMT
Reform UK: Economic policy left, socially conservative Labour: Economic policy right, socially progressive I thought it was the opposite: Labour - economic policy left Reform UK - economic policy right At least that's how they're presented here in Svea Rike.
|
|
|
Voting
Apr 7, 2024 16:24:12 GMT
via mobile
musik likes this
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 7, 2024 16:24:12 GMT
Reform UK: Economic policy left, socially conservative Labour: Economic policy right, socially progressive I thought it was the opposite: Labour - economic policy left Reform UK - economic policy right At least that's how they're presented here in Svea Rike. Up to the 1990s the British Labour Party did have a left leaning economic policy - pro state ownership, sceptical of the free market and many members described themselves as socialist. However in practice when in power the Labour Party never really fully embraced socialism. The party's economic policy changed under Tony Blair - it ditched the party's commitment to state ownership and embraced the free market. Economic policy moved to the left under Corbyn but is now pretty much back where it was under Blair. Labours economic policy is more interventionist than the Tories but it is nowhere near being "left wing" in the original sense. Reform UK are right wing in terms of being socially conservative but their economic policy is way more interventionist than the Labour Party and they are commited to taking a number of industries back into public ownership - it is closer to the Labour Party's economic position from the 70s. The point I'm making is that right and left has more than one meaning. The Labour Party is left wing (progressive) in terms of it's social attitudes but right wing (committed to the free market) in terms of it's economic policy. Reform UK is right wing in terms of it's social attitudes (socially conservative) but more left wing (interventionist) in terms of it's economic policy. A lot of people who support Reform UK are working class, socially conservative ex Labour supporters who became alienated by Labours adoption of progressive social attitudes. Many voted Tory last time round having been conned into thinking that Brexit was a rejection of globalisation (it wasn't - the Tories behind Brexit are uber globalists) and the levelling up agenda would improve their lot (unsurprisingly it never happened). For over a hundred years British politics was defined in terms of left (Labour) and right (Tories) the situation is way more complicated now and the left/right two party system no longer represents where the electorate is at.
|
|
|
Voting
Apr 7, 2024 19:00:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by musik on Apr 7, 2024 19:00:54 GMT
I thought it was the opposite: Labour - economic policy left Reform UK - economic policy right At least that's how they're presented here in Svea Rike. Up to the 1990s the British Labour Party did have a left leaning economic policy - pro state ownership, sceptical of the free market and many members described themselves as socialist. However in practice when in power the Labour Party never really fully embraced socialism. The party's economic policy changed under Tony Blair - it ditched the party's commitment to state ownership and embraced the free market. Economic policy moved to the left under Corbyn but is now pretty much back where it was under Blair. Labours economic policy is more interventionist than the Tories but it is nowhere near being "left wing" in the original sense. Reform UK are right wing in terms of being socially conservative but their economic policy is way more interventionist than the Labour Party and they are commited to taking a number of industries back into public ownership - it is closer to the Labour Party's economic position from the 70s. The point I'm making is that right and left has more than one meaning. The Labour Party is left wing (progressive) in terms of it's social attitudes but right wing (committed to the free market) in terms of it's economic policy. Reform UK is right wing in terms of it's social attitudes (socially conservative) but more left wing (interventionist) in terms of it's economic policy. A lot of people who support Reform UK are working class, socially conservative ex Labour supporters who became alienated by Labours adoption of progressive social attitudes. Many voted Tory last time round having been conned into thinking that Brexit was a rejection of globalisation (it wasn't - the Tories behind Brexit are uber globalists) and the levelling up agenda would improve their lot (unsurprisingly it never happened). For over a hundred years British politics was defined in terms of left (Labour) and right (Tories) the situation is way more complicated now and the left/right two party system no longer represents where the electorate is at. Thank You so much! My first thought was, "gosh many people who are voting Reform UK must see them(selves) as right wing??" Our Sweden Democrats is seen by some (=media) as a right wing party. But in fact many of the former Social Democrats voters have changed to the Sweden Democrats. That's why they're now around 20% and the second largest party. "Socially progressive/conservative". Hmm. An aspect not mentioned over here. In debates they talk about law and order and crime, defence, security and eventual war. Then economic policy. Here they've begun to use the Gal-Tan scale sometimes instead of just Left to Right. Up there we have globalists and down there we have the nationalists.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 7, 2024 20:07:49 GMT
Up to the 1990s the British Labour Party did have a left leaning economic policy - pro state ownership, sceptical of the free market and many members described themselves as socialist. However in practice when in power the Labour Party never really fully embraced socialism. The party's economic policy changed under Tony Blair - it ditched the party's commitment to state ownership and embraced the free market. Economic policy moved to the left under Corbyn but is now pretty much back where it was under Blair. Labours economic policy is more interventionist than the Tories but it is nowhere near being "left wing" in the original sense. Reform UK are right wing in terms of being socially conservative but their economic policy is way more interventionist than the Labour Party and they are commited to taking a number of industries back into public ownership - it is closer to the Labour Party's economic position from the 70s. The point I'm making is that right and left has more than one meaning. The Labour Party is left wing (progressive) in terms of it's social attitudes but right wing (committed to the free market) in terms of it's economic policy. Reform UK is right wing in terms of it's social attitudes (socially conservative) but more left wing (interventionist) in terms of it's economic policy. A lot of people who support Reform UK are working class, socially conservative ex Labour supporters who became alienated by Labours adoption of progressive social attitudes. Many voted Tory last time round having been conned into thinking that Brexit was a rejection of globalisation (it wasn't - the Tories behind Brexit are uber globalists) and the levelling up agenda would improve their lot (unsurprisingly it never happened). For over a hundred years British politics was defined in terms of left (Labour) and right (Tories) the situation is way more complicated now and the left/right two party system no longer represents where the electorate is at. Thank You so much! My first thought was, "gosh many people who are voting Reform UK must see them(selves) as right wing??" Our Sweden Democrats is seen by some (=media) as a right wing party. But in fact many of the former Social Democrats voters have changed to the Sweden Democrats. That's why they're now around 20% and the second largest party. "Socially progressive/conservative". Hmm. An aspect not mentioned over here. In debates they talk about law and order and crime, defence, security and eventual war. Then economic policy. Here they've begun to use the Gal-Tan scale sometimes instead of just Left to Right. Up there we have globalists and down there we have the nationalists. That's interesting - the Gal -Tan scale makes sense. We also have a divide in terms of globalisation and nationalists. Other than Reform UK our main stream parties are all globalist.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Apr 7, 2024 20:42:48 GMT
I thought it was the opposite: Labour - economic policy left Reform UK - economic policy right At least that's how they're presented here in Svea Rike. Up to the 1990s the British Labour Party did have a left leaning economic policy - pro state ownership, sceptical of the free market and many members described themselves as socialist. However in practice when in power the Labour Party never really fully embraced socialism. The party's economic policy changed under Tony Blair - it ditched the party's commitment to state ownership and embraced the free market. Economic policy moved to the left under Corbyn but is now pretty much back where it was under Blair. Labours economic policy is more interventionist than the Tories but it is nowhere near being "left wing" in the original sense. Reform UK are right wing in terms of being socially conservative but their economic policy is way more interventionist than the Labour Party and they are commited to taking a number of industries back into public ownership - it is closer to the Labour Party's economic position from the 70s. The point I'm making is that right and left has more than one meaning. The Labour Party is left wing (progressive) in terms of it's social attitudes but right wing (committed to the free market) in terms of it's economic policy. Reform UK is right wing in terms of it's social attitudes (socially conservative) but more left wing (interventionist) in terms of it's economic policy. A lot of people who support Reform UK are working class, socially conservative ex Labour supporters who became alienated by Labours adoption of progressive social attitudes. Many voted Tory last time round having been conned into thinking that Brexit was a rejection of globalisation (it wasn't - the Tories behind Brexit are uber globalists) and the levelling up agenda would improve their lot (unsurprisingly it never happened). For over a hundred years British politics was defined in terms of left (Labour) and right (Tories) the situation is way more complicated now and the left/right two party system no longer represents where the electorate is at. Hmmn. Not sure I see Reform as being as economically left wing as you suggest. Certainly they are proposing to limit foreign ownership of utilities but stop short of nationalisation with the govt taking a 50% stake but private companies being operationally responsible. Meanwhile the remainder is pretty hard right small state stuff. Tax cuts: the personal allowance threshold for income tax should be raised to £20,000 together with lower taxes for higher earners. Spending cuts: ‘wasteful government spending’ should be reduced by £50 billion. Cuts to red tape: Scrapping ‘thousands and thousands of daft EU regulations’. . Net zero: 'burdensome' targets which inhibit growth should be ditched. In addition Fuel duty to be reduced by 20p/litre, inheritance tax ditched and VAT reduced to 18% The holes in the budget they propose to fill with Trussonomic growth. Much of which sounds like pretty standard free market libertarian wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Voting
Apr 7, 2024 20:45:42 GMT
via mobile
Post by musik on Apr 7, 2024 20:45:42 GMT
Thank You so much! My first thought was, "gosh many people who are voting Reform UK must see them(selves) as right wing??" Our Sweden Democrats is seen by some (=media) as a right wing party. But in fact many of the former Social Democrats voters have changed to the Sweden Democrats. That's why they're now around 20% and the second largest party. "Socially progressive/conservative". Hmm. An aspect not mentioned over here. In debates they talk about law and order and crime, defence, security and eventual war. Then economic policy. Here they've begun to use the Gal-Tan scale sometimes instead of just Left to Right. Up there we have globalists and down there we have the nationalists. That's interesting - the Gal -Tan scale makes sense. We also have a divide in terms of globalisation and nationalists. Other than Reform UK our main stream parties are all globalist. I took a quick look and The Sweden Democrats, The Christ Democrats, The Conservatives and the Social Democrats are all a little bit more on the nationalist side, no huge differences. The Left Party, The Center Liberal Party, The Liberals and the Green Party are more on the globalist side.
|
|
|
Voting
Apr 7, 2024 20:57:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by Seymour Beaver on Apr 7, 2024 20:57:34 GMT
Nothing funny about it as far as I'm concerned. If you read the thread back my point was not about Brexit per se but that if you want the Tories out (I do) then don't just trust the opinion polls and assume that's what's going to happen and leave the voting to someone else. Even Farage agrees that's pretty much what happened with the Remain vote. Was just making an analogy of those who didn’t vote and didn’t mean to trivialise. I have been a dyed in the wool Tory voter since I was 18, 53 years ago. But, for first time ever, I will not vote for them in this election simply because the country needs change and I certainly won’t be leaving it to someone else to vote them out. My dilemma, along with many other normally Tory voters, is where to put that cross. I’m reading manifestos and can’t see a massive difference between Conservative and Labour and Reform seem to be waving a magic wand conjuring up the money to pay for the changes they intend to make. Rachel Reeves has recently said Labour will "stand up" for us pensioners saying they had supported the government with the triple lock policy but not going as far as to say it will continue. I do agree with her statement regarding the Tories policy to abolish NI asking where the money would come from. I think in this election people, instead of making a loyal vote, will look very closely at party manifestos before filling out that ballot paper. Fair play to you and understand your dilemma. Also refreshing that you are someone digging amongst the economic aspects of various manifestos (ie the stuff that matters) as the basis for coming to a decision rather than being distracted by the irrelevant noise around Rwanda, gender identity and the 'wokeness' of National Trust scones.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 7, 2024 21:02:27 GMT
Was just making an analogy of those who didn’t vote and didn’t mean to trivialise. I have been a dyed in the wool Tory voter since I was 18, 53 years ago. But, for first time ever, I will not vote for them in this election simply because the country needs change and I certainly won’t be leaving it to someone else to vote them out. My dilemma, along with many other normally Tory voters, is where to put that cross. I’m reading manifestos and can’t see a massive difference between Conservative and Labour and Reform seem to be waving a magic wand conjuring up the money to pay for the changes they intend to make. Rachel Reeves has recently said Labour will "stand up" for us pensioners saying they had supported the government with the triple lock policy but not going as far as to say it will continue. I do agree with her statement regarding the Tories policy to abolish NI asking where the money would come from. I think in this election people, instead of making a loyal vote, will look very closely at party manifestos before filling out that ballot paper. Fair play to you and understand your dilemma. Also refreshing that you are someone digging amongst the economic aspects of various manifestos (ie the stuff that matters) as the basis for coming to a decision rather than being distracted by the irrelevant noise around Rwanda, gender identity and the 'wokeness' of National Trust scones. Come on Beaver. Do you really think people are bothered about Rwanda and wokeness in the grand scheme of things. They’re just a tool to score points. I think you underestimate the electorate on the real issues
|
|
|
Voting
Apr 7, 2024 21:25:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by musik on Apr 7, 2024 21:25:07 GMT
Fair play to you and understand your dilemma. Also refreshing that you are someone digging amongst the economic aspects of various manifestos (ie the stuff that matters) as the basis for coming to a decision rather than being distracted by the irrelevant noise around Rwanda, gender identity and the 'wokeness' of National Trust scones. Come on Beaver. Do you really think people are bothered about Rwanda and wokeness in the grand scheme of things. They’re just a tool to score points. I think you underestimate the electorate on the real issues I read yesterday that England have a deal w Rwanda when it comes to prisoners. Correct? So our own Alternative for Sweden (often seen as nazists by some) think it would be a good idea to do something similar here to lower the amount of prisoners in Swedish prisons and send them elsewhere for a certain sum of money compensation. Denmark (or Norway?) already do so.
|
|
|
Voting
Apr 7, 2024 21:27:30 GMT
via mobile
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 7, 2024 21:27:30 GMT
Come on Beaver. Do you really think people are bothered about Rwanda and wokeness in the grand scheme of things. They’re just a tool to score points. I think you underestimate the electorate on the real issues I read yesterday that England have a deal w Rwanda when it comes to prisoners. Correct? So our own Alternative for Sweden (often seen as nazists by some) think it would be a good idea to do something similar here to lower the amount of prisoners in Swedish prisons and send them elsewhere for a certain sum of money compensation. Denmark (or Norway?) already do so. Good on em
|
|
|
Voting
Apr 7, 2024 21:29:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by musik on Apr 7, 2024 21:29:12 GMT
I read yesterday that England have a deal w Rwanda when it comes to prisoners. Correct? So our own Alternative for Sweden (often seen as nazists by some) think it would be a good idea to do something similar here to lower the amount of prisoners in Swedish prisons and send them elsewhere for a certain sum of money compensation. Denmark (or Norway?) already do so. Good on em A win-win.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Apr 7, 2024 21:30:46 GMT
Fair play to you and understand your dilemma. Also refreshing that you are someone digging amongst the economic aspects of various manifestos (ie the stuff that matters) as the basis for coming to a decision rather than being distracted by the irrelevant noise around Rwanda, gender identity and the 'wokeness' of National Trust scones. Come on Beaver. Do you really think people are bothered about Rwanda and wokeness in the grand scheme of things. They’re just a tool to score points. I think you underestimate the electorate on the real issues Based on the amount of bollocks people swallowed over Brexit I'd have to say yes. Meanwhile across the pond it's the stuff that goes down well with Trump's core constituency and what goes over there usually finds it's way here. Plus - take that away and GB News wouldn't have anything to talk about. As you would probably know better than I.😁
|
|
|
Voting
Apr 8, 2024 6:53:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 8, 2024 6:53:59 GMT
Come on Beaver. Do you really think people are bothered about Rwanda and wokeness in the grand scheme of things. They’re just a tool to score points. I think you underestimate the electorate on the real issues Based on the amount of bollocks people swallowed over Brexit I'd have to say yes. Meanwhile across the pond it's the stuff that goes down well with Trump's core constituency and what goes over there usually finds it's way here. Plus - take that away and GB News wouldn't have anything to talk about. As you would probably know better than I.😁 Yeh I can’t get enough GB news
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Apr 8, 2024 7:03:22 GMT
Everyone who votes differently than me is a thicko who swallows fake news about unimportant issues. I, on the otherhand, am very informed & I only care about the real important issues.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Apr 8, 2024 7:24:24 GMT
Everyone who votes differently than me is a thicko who swallows fake news about unimportant issues. I, on the otherhand, am very informed & I only care about the real important issues. Come on TDC we need the facts presented after hours of pointless research to this important obscure football forum before we're going to swallow that one
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 8, 2024 9:51:19 GMT
That's interesting - the Gal -Tan scale makes sense. We also have a divide in terms of globalisation and nationalists. Other than Reform UK our main stream parties are all globalist. I took a quick look and The Sweden Democrats, The Christ Democrats, The Conservatives and the Social Democrats are all a little bit more on the nationalist side, no huge differences. The Left Party, The Center Liberal Party, The Liberals and the Green Party are more on the globalist side. I may be wrong but my understanding of the research on GAL-TAN Green-Alternative-Libertarian and Traditional-Authoritarian-Nationalist was to measure if an Individual Voter who does have allegiance to a particular Political Party on Left-Right Economic issues could be persuaded to Vote alternatively due to Socio-Cultural issues. The research also indicated Educational Levels was also a factor. Personally I'm not convinced as humans are complex and influenced by a whole range of factors and it depends on what weight it attaches to each. There's no doubt the Political Parties in this Country have been running the logarithms as in my opinion many fringe issues like "What is a Woman" or "Sending 300 Migrants to Rwanda" receive far more air time than they require. As the Government sets the Agenda for what narrative should be discussed it is understandable they would want to steer the conversation away from their appalling Economic and Public Services Record.
|
|
|
Post by Dutchpeter on Apr 8, 2024 10:43:48 GMT
I thought it was the opposite: Labour - economic policy left Reform UK - economic policy right At least that's how they're presented here in Svea Rike. Up to the 1990s the British Labour Party did have a left leaning economic policy - pro state ownership, sceptical of the free market and many members described themselves as socialist. However in practice when in power the Labour Party never really fully embraced socialism. The party's economic policy changed under Tony Blair - it ditched the party's commitment to state ownership and embraced the free market. Economic policy moved to the left under Corbyn but is now pretty much back where it was under Blair. Labours economic policy is more interventionist than the Tories but it is nowhere near being "left wing" in the original sense. Reform UK are right wing in terms of being socially conservative but their economic policy is way more interventionist than the Labour Party and they are commited to taking a number of industries back into public ownership - it is closer to the Labour Party's economic position from the 70s. The point I'm making is that right and left has more than one meaning. The Labour Party is left wing (progressive) in terms of it's social attitudes but right wing (committed to the free market) in terms of it's economic policy. Reform UK is right wing in terms of it's social attitudes (socially conservative) but more left wing (interventionist) in terms of it's economic policy. A lot of people who support Reform UK are working class, socially conservative ex Labour supporters who became alienated by Labours adoption of progressive social attitudes. Many voted Tory last time round having been conned into thinking that Brexit was a rejection of globalisation (it wasn't - the Tories behind Brexit are uber globalists) and the levelling up agenda would improve their lot (unsurprisingly it never happened). For over a hundred years British politics was defined in terms of left (Labour) and right (Tories) the situation is way more complicated now and the left/right two party system no longer represents where the electorate is at. Excellent summary. The first time I looked at what reform were about, I thought they resembled the Callaghan government and therefore by extension the early days of the SDP. I myself fit your description of socially conservative but left leaning political interventionism. I feel at home in the old right wing of the Labour Party which died with John Smith.
|
|
|
Voting
Apr 8, 2024 11:28:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by musik on Apr 8, 2024 11:28:38 GMT
I may be wrong but my understanding of the research on GAL-TAN Green-Alternative-Libertarian and Traditional-Authoritarian-Nationalist was to measure if an Individual Voter who does have allegiance to a particular Political Party on Left-Right Economic issues could be persuaded to Vote alternatively due to Socio-Cultural issues. The research also indicated Educational Levels was also a factor. Personally I'm not convinced as humans are complex and influenced by a whole range of factors and it depends on what weight it attaches to each. ---issues like "What is a Woman" or "Sending 300 Migrants to Rwanda" receive far more air time than they require. That's the whole point with the Gal-Tan scale according to the "Interview with the Party Leader" programs over here: "what weight do you attach to each factor?", then position the symbol for your party. In which of the four boxes do you place it? They used Left-Right and Globalist-Nationalist as far as I remember. Of course, when having more than one factor on the Y axis it will go out of focus. One factor might get you higher while the other one does the opposite. I think as long as the etiology isn't fully understood the gender topic will be under debate. Were they sending migrants to Rwanda?! From what I read it said criminals. If it was just migrants one revealing has just been made.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 8, 2024 12:41:40 GMT
I may be wrong but my understanding of the research on GAL-TAN Green-Alternative-Libertarian and Traditional-Authoritarian-Nationalist was to measure if an Individual Voter who does have allegiance to a particular Political Party on Left-Right Economic issues could be persuaded to Vote alternatively due to Socio-Cultural issues. The research also indicated Educational Levels was also a factor. Personally I'm not convinced as humans are complex and influenced by a whole range of factors and it depends on what weight it attaches to each. ---issues like "What is a Woman" or "Sending 300 Migrants to Rwanda" receive far more air time than they require. That's the whole point with the Gal-Tan scale according to the "Interview with the Party Leader" programs over here: "what weight do you attach to each factor?", then position the symbol for your party. In which of the four boxes do you place it? They used Left-Right and Globalist-Nationalist as far as I remember. Of course, when having more than one factor on the Y axis it will go out of focus. One factor might get you higher while the other one does the opposite. I think as long as the etiology isn't fully understood the gender topic will be under debate. Were they sending migrants to Rwanda?! From what I read it said criminals. If it was just migrants one revealing has just been made. In my opinion the etiology is intrinsic I.e. it comes from within. As its impossible to fully understand what another person truly feels or believes I don't see the need for people to try and impose their intrinsic thinking on another when it makes no material difference to them It has probably got lost in translation in Sweden but as part of the Government package to stop the 3% of Migrants that arrive in UK on small boats Legislation has been passed to make this an illegal act in itself. This is contrary to ECHR rules which raises another culture debate on whether UK should join Russia and Belarus as the only European Countries outside ECHR. At its basis is a sense of entitlement that UK should be allowed to do what it likes within a Rules Bases System which is an obvious contradiction. But yes the Rwanda Plan is to Deport less than 1% of the 3% of Migrants to Rwanda without considering their Refugee Status. It has cost £500Mn so far without anyone sent to Rwanda but its supposed to deter people making the boat crossing but if you do the match even assuming the plan proceeds an individual Migrant would have about a 0.03% chance of selection There are many other Culture Issues being debated, I just selected those two as examples, in my opinion some very worthy others not so much e.g Female/Ethnic/Religious Equality, Climate Change, Statues representing UKs past and future, Free Speech and who should have it etc For the most part these are being Engineered by the current Government who want to talk about anything other than their Economic Record. The theory being if you feel strongly enough about any of these issues you will ignore the former. I suspect its a vain attempt to mitigate impending Electoral Disaster because as always "It's the Economy Stupid "
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 8, 2024 22:45:08 GMT
Up to the 1990s the British Labour Party did have a left leaning economic policy - pro state ownership, sceptical of the free market and many members described themselves as socialist. However in practice when in power the Labour Party never really fully embraced socialism. The party's economic policy changed under Tony Blair - it ditched the party's commitment to state ownership and embraced the free market. Economic policy moved to the left under Corbyn but is now pretty much back where it was under Blair. Labours economic policy is more interventionist than the Tories but it is nowhere near being "left wing" in the original sense. Reform UK are right wing in terms of being socially conservative but their economic policy is way more interventionist than the Labour Party and they are commited to taking a number of industries back into public ownership - it is closer to the Labour Party's economic position from the 70s. The point I'm making is that right and left has more than one meaning. The Labour Party is left wing (progressive) in terms of it's social attitudes but right wing (committed to the free market) in terms of it's economic policy. Reform UK is right wing in terms of it's social attitudes (socially conservative) but more left wing (interventionist) in terms of it's economic policy. A lot of people who support Reform UK are working class, socially conservative ex Labour supporters who became alienated by Labours adoption of progressive social attitudes. Many voted Tory last time round having been conned into thinking that Brexit was a rejection of globalisation (it wasn't - the Tories behind Brexit are uber globalists) and the levelling up agenda would improve their lot (unsurprisingly it never happened). For over a hundred years British politics was defined in terms of left (Labour) and right (Tories) the situation is way more complicated now and the left/right two party system no longer represents where the electorate is at. Excellent summary. The first time I looked at what reform were about, I thought they resembled the Callaghan government and therefore by extension the early days of the SDP. I myself fit your description of socially conservative but left leaning political interventionism. I feel at home in the old right wing of the Labour Party which died with John Smith. Reform's economic policies remind me of the Labour Party of the 70s and early 80s - not exactly socialist but further to the left than the current Labour Party. This isn't that surprising given that those policies, unlike those of the Tories, were designed to benefit the working cless. The core demographic of Reform is ex Labour voters who got disillusioned with Labour's drift to the university educated middle class and the adoption of a progressive social attitudes. Labour are desperately trying to portray themselves as representing the socially conservative working class but the reality is they don't anymore. They are being just as dishonesty as the Tories. My background is classic working class but I got a university education, have adopted socially progressive attitudes and had a decent career in IT. I get what it is to be working class but I'd be lying if I were to say that's where I'm at now. I'd never vote Reform but I get why people do and that section of the electorate deserve a voice and neither the Tories nor Labour are that voice.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 9, 2024 0:09:35 GMT
Excellent summary. The first time I looked at what reform were about, I thought they resembled the Callaghan government and therefore by extension the early days of the SDP. I myself fit your description of socially conservative but left leaning political interventionism. I feel at home in the old right wing of the Labour Party which died with John Smith. Reform's economic policies remind me of the Labour Party of the 70s and early 80s - not exactly socialist but further to the left than the current Labour Party. This isn't that surprising given that those policies, unlike those of the Tories, were designed to benefit the working cless. The core demographic of Reform is ex Labour voters who got disillusioned with Labour's drift to the university educated middle class and the adoption of a progressive social attitudes. Labour are desperately trying to portray themselves as representing the socially conservative working class but the reality is they don't anymore. They are being just as dishonesty as the Tories. My background is classic working class but I got a university education, have adopted socially progressive attitudes and had a decent career in IT. I get what it is to be working class but I'd be lying if I were to say that's where I'm at now. I'd never vote Reform but I get why people do and that section of the electorate deserve a voice and neither the Tories nor Labour are that voice. With respect CBUFAWKIPWH you are entirely misrepresenting the Reform Party offering. They are the Polar opposite of what giants like John Smith whom you claim to admire advocated Reform currently have two cental platforms a) net zero immigration and b) NO to Net Zero Emissions spending which will fund fantasy tax reform a) It is an entirely legitimate position to take but it should be accompanied by an honest debate on the Economic downside b) Again it is legitimate to be sceptical despite the overwhelming Scientific evidence but the problem arrises when Reform use bogus calculations in their analysis to calculate they can divert the spend to achieve net zero to instead release every Taxpayer from paying tax on first £20,000 and raise the threshold to £70,000 before you pay 40% Tax. This is Trussenomics on Steroids As they have zero chance of gaining any representation in HoC they have free reign to agitate a Culture War on both issues on GBeebies
|
|
|
Voting
Apr 9, 2024 6:07:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by iancransonsknees on Apr 9, 2024 6:07:11 GMT
Excellent summary. The first time I looked at what reform were about, I thought they resembled the Callaghan government and therefore by extension the early days of the SDP. I myself fit your description of socially conservative but left leaning political interventionism. I feel at home in the old right wing of the Labour Party which died with John Smith. Reform's economic policies remind me of the Labour Party of the 70s and early 80s - not exactly socialist but further to the left than the current Labour Party. This isn't that surprising given that those policies, unlike those of the Tories, were designed to benefit the working cless. The core demographic of Reform is ex Labour voters who got disillusioned with Labour's drift to the university educated middle class and the adoption of a progressive social attitudes. Labour are desperately trying to portray themselves as representing the socially conservative working class but the reality is they don't anymore. They are being just as dishonesty as the Tories. My background is classic working class but I got a university education, have adopted socially progressive attitudes and had a decent career in IT. I get what it is to be working class but I'd be lying if I were to say that's where I'm at now. I'd never vote Reform but I get why people do and that section of the electorate deserve a voice and neither the Tories nor Labour are that voice. Switch it off. Switch it on again. That said I agree and reflect most of that, but I'd rather vote Reform than Labour. They took voters for granted in SOT for decades and were too lazy and pig headed to even attempt to fight to retain them when they list to the Tories locally. There was never any benefit from being a safe Labour seat because none of the local MPs were part of the North Eastern cartel that ran Blair's Labour party back in the day. Hence, in some part, the managed decline that anyone living around here experiences on a daily basis.
|
|
|
Voting
Apr 9, 2024 12:15:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 9, 2024 12:15:21 GMT
Reform's economic policies remind me of the Labour Party of the 70s and early 80s - not exactly socialist but further to the left than the current Labour Party. This isn't that surprising given that those policies, unlike those of the Tories, were designed to benefit the working cless. The core demographic of Reform is ex Labour voters who got disillusioned with Labour's drift to the university educated middle class and the adoption of a progressive social attitudes. Labour are desperately trying to portray themselves as representing the socially conservative working class but the reality is they don't anymore. They are being just as dishonesty as the Tories. My background is classic working class but I got a university education, have adopted socially progressive attitudes and had a decent career in IT. I get what it is to be working class but I'd be lying if I were to say that's where I'm at now. I'd never vote Reform but I get why people do and that section of the electorate deserve a voice and neither the Tories nor Labour are that voice. With respect CBUFAWKIPWH you are entirely misrepresenting the Reform Party offering. They are the Polar opposite of what giants like John Smith whom you claim to admire advocated Reform currently have two cental platforms a) net zero immigration and b) NO to Net Zero Emissions spending which will fund fantasy tax reform a) It is an entirely legitimate position to take but it should be accompanied by an honest debate on the Economic downside b) Again it is legitimate to be sceptical despite the overwhelming Scientific evidence but the problem arrises when Reform use bogus calculations in their analysis to calculate they can divert the spend to achieve net zero to instead release every Taxpayer from paying tax on first £20,000 and raise the threshold to £70,000 before you pay 40% Tax. This is Trussenomics on Steroids As they have zero chance of gaining any representation in HoC they have free reign to agitate a Culture War on both issues on Gbeebies The point I've been making all along that you can't use a one dimensional term like right wing/left wing to describe modern politics. The defining factor in the 70s was in terms of economic policy - Labour were for state ownership, the Tories the free market. In those terms Reform UK is nearer to the Labour Party of the 70s than the current Labour Party and in that sense left of centre. Social attitudes weren't such a big differentiating factor in the 70s and it was less of a deciding factor on how people voted. There were many in the Labour movement, particularly in the unions, who were dead against immigration and I suspect many of those people are now supporting Reform UK. Claiming pro immigration was a defining feature of the old left simply isn't true. Also in the 70s climate change wasn't a major issue and didn't play a part in differentiating economic policy. And in the 7Os it was the Labour Party who were fighting against pit closures. The left claiming credit for climate aware economic policy requires something of a rewrite of history. I'd definitely characterize Reform UK as being socially conservative but associating social attitudes with left and right simply doesn't work. A good number of Tories are essentially socially progressive even though they keep quiet on the matter so as not to lose the socially conservative vote. You appear to be missing my point that you can't pigeon hole the political parties in the UK in simple left/right terms. It's way more nuanced than that.
|
|
|
Voting
Apr 9, 2024 23:01:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by musik on Apr 9, 2024 23:01:17 GMT
In my opinion the etiology is intrinsic I.e. it comes from within. As its impossible to fully understand what another person truly feels or believes I don't see the need for people to try and impose their intrinsic thinking on another when it makes no material difference to them So you won't agree with the Pope then? "abortion, euthanasia, surrogate mothers and sex reassignment is humanly unworthy. 👍🤠👍
|
|
|
Voting
Apr 9, 2024 23:46:46 GMT
Post by wannabee on Apr 9, 2024 23:46:46 GMT
In my opinion the etiology is intrinsic I.e. it comes from within. As its impossible to fully understand what another person truly feels or believes I don't see the need for people to try and impose their intrinsic thinking on another when it makes no material difference to them So you won't agree with the Pope then? "abortion, euthanasia, surrogate mothers and sex reassignment is humanly unworthy. 👍🤠👍 Anything that puts me on the opposite side of the argument to the Pope is fine by me.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Apr 10, 2024 5:53:31 GMT
With respect CBUFAWKIPWH you are entirely misrepresenting the Reform Party offering. They are the Polar opposite of what giants like John Smith whom you claim to admire advocated Reform currently have two cental platforms a) net zero immigration and b) NO to Net Zero Emissions spending which will fund fantasy tax reform a) It is an entirely legitimate position to take but it should be accompanied by an honest debate on the Economic downside b) Again it is legitimate to be sceptical despite the overwhelming Scientific evidence but the problem arrises when Reform use bogus calculations in their analysis to calculate they can divert the spend to achieve net zero to instead release every Taxpayer from paying tax on first £20,000 and raise the threshold to £70,000 before you pay 40% Tax. This is Trussenomics on Steroids As they have zero chance of gaining any representation in HoC they have free reign to agitate a Culture War on both issues on Gbeebies The point I've been making all along that you can't use a one dimensional term like right wing/left wing to describe modern politics. The defining factor in the 70s was in terms of economic policy - Labour were for state ownership, the Tories the free market. In those terms Reform UK is nearer to the Labour Party of the 70s than the current Labour Party and in that sense left of centre. Social attitudes weren't such a big differentiating factor in the 70s and it was less of a deciding factor on how people voted. There were many in the Labour movement, particularly in the unions, who were dead against immigration and I suspect many of those people are now supporting Reform UK. Claiming pro immigration was a defining feature of the old left simply isn't true. Also in the 70s climate change wasn't a major issue and didn't play a part in differentiating economic policy. And in the 7Os it was the Labour Party who were fighting against pit closures. The left claiming credit for climate aware economic policy requires something of a rewrite of history. I'd definitely characterize Reform UK as being socially conservative but associating social attitudes with left and right simply doesn't work. A good number of Tories are essentially socially progressive even though they keep quiet on the matter so as not to lose the socially conservative vote. You appear to be missing my point that you can't pigeon hole the political parties in the UK in simple left/right terms. It's way more nuanced than that. Surely that last paragraph applies to people too, despite the want of posters on here to label anyone who disagrees with their leanings?
|
|
|
Post by musik on Apr 10, 2024 8:06:38 GMT
In my opinion the etiology is intrinsic I.e. it comes from within. As its impossible to fully understand what another person truly feels or believes I don't see the need for people to try and impose their intrinsic thinking on another when it makes no material difference to them. Absolutely! I couldn't agree more.👍 Of course it comes from within. Otherwise, to use some of you guys' expressions, it would come from some imaginary person, from a man among the clouds. No, I believe in the science, and as it stands now, even if there's still a way to go, it says it's due to a hormone system not in balance in the latter parts of the pregnancy. So it's definitely from within, a biological disturbance. As far as I understand it now by stydying this field the reason to be against sex reassignment and the gender theory is based on the opposite to egoism and letting people be in whatever way they like to be.
|
|