|
Post by elystokie on Mar 2, 2024 13:03:53 GMT
So in your opinion it is right that 14,000 people were turned away from the ballot box for the local elections (and many others before they got there by people telling them about ID outside of the polling stations) and stopped from voting because 15 people over a 5 year period were convicted or cautioned due to voter fraud? Please explain why you hold that opinion? It seems absolutely insane to me. I can't decide if it's more or less insane than making illegal something that kills less than 3 people a year đ€ If we did the same for everything that 'deadly' nobody would leave their house đ
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 2, 2024 13:08:45 GMT
Partly True but I was being a bit whimsical Farage was not Elected as an MEP in his own right but under the Closed List System which he was top of UKIP List. In EU Elections People Vote for Party's not individuals. Based on the proportion of Votes received by each Party or Independent Candidates MEP seats are apportioned with reference to the order Candidates appear on their Party List. You are correct. The Closed List System is another way of politicians manipulating democracy by them deciding who wins and gets a seat. That system coupled with PR means that effectively the same political leaders retain power as the public have no means of removing them. I was discussing the Closed List System with a retired anaesthetist consultant I was with at a prayer meeting last Thursday. He is a strong supporter of Israel and is visiting next week. He despairs at the Israel electoral system which effectively means small groups of parties get into power with the same leaders returned and then they carve up who actually takes power and gets the top jobs. The coalition government then persecutes minorities like Christians. As we saw with Nick Clegg politicians are prepared to dump their manifesto policies they were elected on, to get a share of power (and a bigger life long pension). We have a very flawed electoral system in this country but we need to be very careful how we change it. We need to retain one member per constituency so politicians can be removed. Byelections show how fickle the public can be and make protest votes. This would be extended to GEs if PR were adopted. Closed List is a system to ensure the party leaders get a seat. PR is similar and as in Germany you get a whole range of parties elected and then the main ones go behind closed doors to decide what the coalition government policies will be and who gets what job. Germany could have had three or four different coalition governments after the last election - the government Germany got was decided by secret haggling, not the public's choice. As I've already said, our system is flawed and needs improving but it is vital that the public can vote a politician out of power. If the public vote someone into power like Rochdale have done, that is their democratic decision and they have to live with the MP they have chosen to represent them. The same problem exists under FPTP - it is the parties who choose who they put up and the majority of people vote for the candidate of their preferred party having had no say in them having been chosen to stand. Also the closed list system is one of many versions of PR some of which, such Single Transferrable Vote, retain a named candidate for each constituency. The people with a vested interest in FPTP are Labour and Conservative diehards because they know it threatens there grip on political power. The fact is Parliament does not represent the electorate. The only people arguing against some form of OR are those benefitting from a rigged system that ensures they are over represented in Parliament and maintain control of the system. Funnily enough those with something to lose are the ones urging caution.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 2, 2024 13:48:58 GMT
So in your opinion it is right that 14,000 people were turned away from the ballot box for the local elections (and many others before they got there by people telling them about ID outside of the polling stations) and stopped from voting because 15 people over a 5 year period were convicted of voter fraud? Please explain why you hold that opinion? It seems absolutely insane to me. I'm insane Certainly illogical
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Mar 2, 2024 14:22:32 GMT
You are correct. The Closed List System is another way of politicians manipulating democracy by them deciding who wins and gets a seat. That system coupled with PR means that effectively the same political leaders retain power as the public have no means of removing them. I was discussing the Closed List System with a retired anaesthetist consultant I was with at a prayer meeting last Thursday. He is a strong supporter of Israel and is visiting next week. He despairs at the Israel electoral system which effectively means small groups of parties get into power with the same leaders returned and then they carve up who actually takes power and gets the top jobs. The coalition government then persecutes minorities like Christians. As we saw with Nick Clegg politicians are prepared to dump their manifesto policies they were elected on, to get a share of power (and a bigger life long pension). We have a very flawed electoral system in this country but we need to be very careful how we change it. We need to retain one member per constituency so politicians can be removed. Byelections show how fickle the public can be and make protest votes. This would be extended to GEs if PR were adopted. Closed List is a system to ensure the party leaders get a seat. PR is similar and as in Germany you get a whole range of parties elected and then the main ones go behind closed doors to decide what the coalition government policies will be and who gets what job. Germany could have had three or four different coalition governments after the last election - the government Germany got was decided by secret haggling, not the public's choice. As I've already said, our system is flawed and needs improving but it is vital that the public can vote a politician out of power. If the public vote someone into power like Rochdale have done, that is their democratic decision and they have to live with the MP they have chosen to represent them. The same problem exists under FPTP - it is the parties who choose who they put up and the majority of people vote for the candidate of their preferred party having had no say in them having been chosen to stand. Also the closed list system is one of many versions of PR some of which, such Single Transferrable Vote, retain a named candidate for each constituency. The people with a vested interest in FPTP are Labour and Conservative diehards because they know it threatens there grip on political power. The fact is Parliament does not represent the electorate. The only people arguing against some form of OR are those benefitting from a rigged system that ensures they are over represented in Parliament and maintain control of the system. Funnily enough those with something to lose are the ones urging caution. I don't strongly disagree with you but do caution against a "rose tinted" view that PR is the solution to the UK's faulty electoral system. The Rochdale result is a prime example of what could happen on a national scale. Coalitions inevitably lead to "dirty deals" behind closed doors. If people choose to vote for a party rather than the individual candidate then that is their democratic choice. There is no ideal system, STV for example can lead to an MP elected who no one wanted as their first choice. You can end up with a coalition government nobody wanted and the mess Italy regularly finds itself. I agree that the main parties are over represented but personally I'd prefer that than extremists getting a foothold in Parliament getting a public platform to spout their poisonous views. Some of the current MPs and ministers are bad enough. Some may disagree but that's my view. I spent 2 decades as a member of a police party and have a healthy contempt for all politicians, which I know does some "good MPs" a disservice.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 2, 2024 18:27:28 GMT
The same problem exists under FPTP - it is the parties who choose who they put up and the majority of people vote for the candidate of their preferred party having had no say in them having been chosen to stand. Also the closed list system is one of many versions of PR some of which, such Single Transferrable Vote, retain a named candidate for each constituency. The people with a vested interest in FPTP are Labour and Conservative diehards because they know it threatens there grip on political power. The fact is Parliament does not represent the electorate. The only people arguing against some form of OR are those benefitting from a rigged system that ensures they are over represented in Parliament and maintain control of the system. Funnily enough those with something to lose are the ones urging caution. I don't strongly disagree with you but do caution against a "rose tinted" view that PR is the solution to the UK's faulty electoral system. The Rochdale result is a prime example of what could happen on a national scale. Coalitions inevitably lead to "dirty deals" behind closed doors. If people choose to vote for a party rather than the individual candidate then that is their democratic choice. There is no ideal system, STV for example can lead to an MP elected who no one wanted as their first choice. You can end up with a coalition government nobody wanted and the mess Italy regularly finds itself. I agree that the main parties are over represented but personally I'd prefer that than extremists getting a foothold in Parliament getting a public platform to spout their poisonous views. Some of the current MPs and ministers are bad enough. Some may disagree but that's my view. I spent 2 decades as a member of a police party and have a healthy contempt for all politicians, which I know does some "good MPs" a disservice. STV means you get the Candidate that is least disliked Pretty much where we're going to end up with under FPTP in next GE
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 2, 2024 18:59:25 GMT
The same problem exists under FPTP - it is the parties who choose who they put up and the majority of people vote for the candidate of their preferred party having had no say in them having been chosen to stand. Also the closed list system is one of many versions of PR some of which, such Single Transferrable Vote, retain a named candidate for each constituency. The people with a vested interest in FPTP are Labour and Conservative diehards because they know it threatens there grip on political power. The fact is Parliament does not represent the electorate. The only people arguing against some form of OR are those benefitting from a rigged system that ensures they are over represented in Parliament and maintain control of the system. Funnily enough those with something to lose are the ones urging caution. I don't strongly disagree with you but do caution against a "rose tinted" view that PR is the solution to the UK's faulty electoral system. The Rochdale result is a prime example of what could happen on a national scale. Coalitions inevitably lead to "dirty deals" behind closed doors. If people choose to vote for a party rather than the individual candidate then that is their democratic choice. There is no ideal system, STV for example can lead to an MP elected who no one wanted as their first choice. You can end up with a coalition government nobody wanted and the mess Italy regularly finds itself. I agree that the main parties are over represented but personally I'd prefer that than extremists getting a foothold in Parliament getting a public platform to spout their poisonous views. Some of the current MPs and ministers are bad enough. Some may disagree but that's my view. I spent 2 decades as a member of a police party and have a healthy contempt for all politicians, which I know does some "good MPs" a disservice. The Tory Party and the Labour Party do exactly the same deals behind closed doors to appease their own internal factions. I'm not saying Pat is perfect but the UK politics has a massive issue with legitimacy. In particular the extremism and lack of faith in democracy is down to the two main parties turning it into an unrepresentative stitch up. I don't agree with Galloway's politics and I don't agree with Tice's politics but both represent the views of a significant number of the electorate who deserve to be represented in Parliament and the fact that their voice isn't heard just stirs up resentment of our appalling bad "democratic" system. If it isn't reformed it will lose all credibility and be in danger of getting replaced by something far worse. And at least as a Tory admit your support for FPTP is down to the fact that you feel that your views mean more than others and your support for an unfair system is down that you directly benefit from it by ensuring that your perspective holds sway far more than you deserve.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 2, 2024 19:16:29 GMT
I don't strongly disagree with you but do caution against a "rose tinted" view that PR is the solution to the UK's faulty electoral system. The Rochdale result is a prime example of what could happen on a national scale. Coalitions inevitably lead to "dirty deals" behind closed doors. If people choose to vote for a party rather than the individual candidate then that is their democratic choice. There is no ideal system, STV for example can lead to an MP elected who no one wanted as their first choice. You can end up with a coalition government nobody wanted and the mess Italy regularly finds itself. I agree that the main parties are over represented but personally I'd prefer that than extremists getting a foothold in Parliament getting a public platform to spout their poisonous views. Some of the current MPs and ministers are bad enough. Some may disagree but that's my view. I spent 2 decades as a member of a police party and have a healthy contempt for all politicians, which I know does some "good MPs" a disservice. The Tory Party and the Labour Party do exactly the same deals behind closed doors to appease their own internal factions. I'm not saying Pat is perfect but the UK politics has a massive issue with legitimacy. In particular the extremism and lack of faith in democracy is down to the two main parties turning it into an unrepresentative stitch up. I don't agree with Galloway's politics and I don't agree with Tice's politics but both represent the views of a significant number of the electorate who deserve to be represented in Parliament and the fact that their voice isn't heard just stirs up resentment of our appalling bad "democratic" system. If it isn't reformed it will lose all credibility and be in danger of getting replaced by something far worse. And at least as a Tory admit your support for FPTP is down to the fact that you feel that your views mean more than others and your support for an unfair system is down that you directly benefit from it by ensuring that your perspective holds sway far more than you deserve. For me , on a simple level, the EU referendum ( irrespective of the result) showed that people are motivated to vote if they believe that their vote actually counts/ makes a difference. Currently ( although hopefully we are experiencing a period of change because of the total disillusionment with both main parties and the irrelevant LibDems) if you live in a " safe" Tory or Labour seat it is discouraging to try to vote other than the incumbent, so it becomes self fulfilling that many people don't bother. Reform is needed and is probably the only thing that will make any difference in the next 5 or 10 years and beyond. It would be a shock to the comfortable political system.
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Mar 2, 2024 20:03:45 GMT
I don't strongly disagree with you but do caution against a "rose tinted" view that PR is the solution to the UK's faulty electoral system. The Rochdale result is a prime example of what could happen on a national scale. Coalitions inevitably lead to "dirty deals" behind closed doors. If people choose to vote for a party rather than the individual candidate then that is their democratic choice. There is no ideal system, STV for example can lead to an MP elected who no one wanted as their first choice. You can end up with a coalition government nobody wanted and the mess Italy regularly finds itself. I agree that the main parties are over represented but personally I'd prefer that than extremists getting a foothold in Parliament getting a public platform to spout their poisonous views. Some of the current MPs and ministers are bad enough. Some may disagree but that's my view. I spent 2 decades as a member of a police party and have a healthy contempt for all politicians, which I know does some "good MPs" a disservice. The Tory Party and the Labour Party do exactly the same deals behind closed doors to appease their own internal factions. I'm not saying Pat is perfect but the UK politics has a massive issue with legitimacy. In particular the extremism and lack of faith in democracy is down to the two main parties turning it into an unrepresentative stitch up. I don't agree with Galloway's politics and I don't agree with Tice's politics but both represent the views of a significant number of the electorate who deserve to be represented in Parliament and the fact that their voice isn't heard just stirs up resentment of our appalling bad "democratic" system. If it isn't reformed it will lose all credibility and be in danger of getting replaced by something far worse. And at least as a Tory admit your support for FPTP is down to the fact that you feel that your views mean more than others and your support for an unfair system is down that you directly benefit from it by ensuring that your perspective holds sway far more than you deserve. I'm afraid MrCoke continues to confuse me. On the Brexit thread he says time and again that we now have sovereignty and can elect the people we want to run the country. He claims to be extremely optimistic for the future of the UK. And yet he also says time and again that he has no respect for any politicians. FPTP has bred that political class but he seemingly wants to keep it. If freeing the UK from the EU is supposed to lead to a great future for the UK, who is supposed to shape that ?
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Mar 2, 2024 20:45:00 GMT
The same problem exists under FPTP - it is the parties who choose who they put up and the majority of people vote for the candidate of their preferred party having had no say in them having been chosen to stand. Also the closed list system is one of many versions of PR some of which, such Single Transferrable Vote, retain a named candidate for each constituency. The people with a vested interest in FPTP are Labour and Conservative diehards because they know it threatens there grip on political power. The fact is Parliament does not represent the electorate. The only people arguing against some form of OR are those benefitting from a rigged system that ensures they are over represented in Parliament and maintain control of the system. Funnily enough those with something to lose are the ones urging caution. I don't strongly disagree with you but do caution against a "rose tinted" view that PR is the solution to the UK's faulty electoral system. The Rochdale result is a prime example of what could happen on a national scale. Coalitions inevitably lead to "dirty deals" behind closed doors. If people choose to vote for a party rather than the individual candidate then that is their democratic choice. There is no ideal system, STV for example can lead to an MP elected who no one wanted as their first choice. You can end up with a coalition government nobody wanted and the mess Italy regularly finds itself. I agree that the main parties are over represented but personally I'd prefer that than extremists getting a foothold in Parliament getting a public platform to spout their poisonous views. Some of the current MPs and ministers are bad enough. Some may disagree but that's my view. I spent 2 decades as a member of a police party and have a healthy contempt for all politicians, which I know does some "good MPs" a disservice. Dirty deals are done behind closed doors anyways, thatâs what lobbying (bribing) is. Coalition govts still have to answer to their voters in the next election. Businesses will invariably find it much harder to do a dirty deal with multiple political parties of varying persuasion than a solo one.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 2, 2024 22:22:13 GMT
The Tory Party and the Labour Party do exactly the same deals behind closed doors to appease their own internal factions. I'm not saying Pat is perfect but the UK politics has a massive issue with legitimacy. In particular the extremism and lack of faith in democracy is down to the two main parties turning it into an unrepresentative stitch up. I don't agree with Galloway's politics and I don't agree with Tice's politics but both represent the views of a significant number of the electorate who deserve to be represented in Parliament and the fact that their voice isn't heard just stirs up resentment of our appalling bad "democratic" system. If it isn't reformed it will lose all credibility and be in danger of getting replaced by something far worse. And at least as a Tory admit your support for FPTP is down to the fact that you feel that your views mean more than others and your support for an unfair system is down that you directly benefit from it by ensuring that your perspective holds sway far more than you deserve. I'm afraid MrCoke continues to confuse me. On the Brexit thread he says time and again that we now have sovereignty and can elect the people we want to run the country. He claims to be extremely optimistic for the future of the UK. And yet he also says time and again that he has no respect for any politicians. FPTP has bred that political class but he seemingly wants to keep it. If freeing the UK from the EU is supposed to lead to a great future for the UK, who is supposed to shape that ? It's called hedging your Bets You Champion the Policy and when it turns to Crap you blame the implementation of the the Policy. Its very similar to The Wrong Type of Brexit. It's a foolproof Get out clause, many have embraced it.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Mar 2, 2024 22:25:26 GMT
The Tory Party and the Labour Party do exactly the same deals behind closed doors to appease their own internal factions. I'm not saying Pat is perfect but the UK politics has a massive issue with legitimacy. In particular the extremism and lack of faith in democracy is down to the two main parties turning it into an unrepresentative stitch up. I don't agree with Galloway's politics and I don't agree with Tice's politics but both represent the views of a significant number of the electorate who deserve to be represented in Parliament and the fact that their voice isn't heard just stirs up resentment of our appalling bad "democratic" system. If it isn't reformed it will lose all credibility and be in danger of getting replaced by something far worse. And at least as a Tory admit your support for FPTP is down to the fact that you feel that your views mean more than others and your support for an unfair system is down that you directly benefit from it by ensuring that your perspective holds sway far more than you deserve. I'm afraid MrCoke continues to confuse me. On the Brexit thread he says time and again that we now have sovereignty and can elect the people we want to run the country. He claims to be extremely optimistic for the future of the UK. And yet he also says time and again that he has no respect for any politicians. FPTP has bred that political class but he seemingly wants to keep it. If freeing the UK from the EU is supposed to lead to a great future for the UK, who is supposed to shape that ? Firstly to pick up the comment in the post you were replying to, I have never been a Tory and was an active member of the Liberal Party in the 70s and 80s, opposing people like Thatcher, Foot, and the loony left. I packed in politics in disgust at the duplicity of politicians who will make any promise and tell any lie to get your vote. The Liberals were amateurs at duplicity compared with the other parties. I think it is vital to retain control of politicians by the people being able to vote out politicians they don't want. I think it is crazy to hand over law making and governance and judicial decisions to a "pooled sovereignty" and get trapped into "ever closer union" in the EU. I believe this country has a great future because of the great people who make up the nation. Politicians come and go and they do very little "shaping". The shaping is done by the leaders in society and the talents of the general population. Tell me what leading politicians have done shaping this country. The UK is the second most influential country in the world and 6th largest economy despite the politicians, not because of them.
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Mar 2, 2024 22:55:27 GMT
I'm afraid MrCoke continues to confuse me. On the Brexit thread he says time and again that we now have sovereignty and can elect the people we want to run the country. He claims to be extremely optimistic for the future of the UK. And yet he also says time and again that he has no respect for any politicians. FPTP has bred that political class but he seemingly wants to keep it. If freeing the UK from the EU is supposed to lead to a great future for the UK, who is supposed to shape that ? Firstly to pick up the comment in the post you were replying to, I have never been a Tory and was an active member of the Liberal Party in the 70s and 80s, opposing people like Thatcher, Foot, and the loony left. I packed in politics in disgust at the duplicity of politicians who will make any promise and tell any lie to get your vote. The Liberals were amateurs at duplicity compared with the other parties. I think it is vital to retain control of politicians by the people being able to vote out politicians they don't want. I think it is crazy to hand over law making and governance and judicial decisions to a "pooled sovereignty" and get trapped into "ever closer union" in the EU. I believe this country has a great future because of the great people who make up the nation. Politicians come and go and they do very little "shaping". The shaping is done by the leaders in society and the talents of the general population. Tell me what leading politicians have done shaping this country. The UK is the second most influential country in the world and 6th largest economy despite the politicians, not because of them. Not wanting to turn this into another Brexit discussion, 'Law making and governance' is done by governments ( politicians) . For the UK to prosper it will need good law making and governance . If you think all politicians are as bad as each other, how do you hope to achieve that environment for the UK to prosper? The shit in the rivers is not going to go away without laws and governance. Health , education, energy , transport etc - cornerstones of creating the conditions needed for the UK to prosper, are not miraculously going to happen. If all politicians from the traditional parties are as bad as each other, but we need to keep FPTP , surely the UK is stuffed?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 4, 2024 12:33:24 GMT
I'm afraid MrCoke continues to confuse me. On the Brexit thread he says time and again that we now have sovereignty and can elect the people we want to run the country. He claims to be extremely optimistic for the future of the UK. And yet he also says time and again that he has no respect for any politicians. FPTP has bred that political class but he seemingly wants to keep it. If freeing the UK from the EU is supposed to lead to a great future for the UK, who is supposed to shape that ? Firstly to pick up the comment in the post you were replying to, I have never been a Tory and was an active member of the Liberal Party in the 70s and 80s, opposing people like Thatcher, Foot, and the loony left. I packed in politics in disgust at the duplicity of politicians who will make any promise and tell any lie to get your vote. The Liberals were amateurs at duplicity compared with the other parties. I think it is vital to retain control of politicians by the people being able to vote out politicians they don't want. I think it is crazy to hand over law making and governance and judicial decisions to a "pooled sovereignty" and get trapped into "ever closer union" in the EU. I believe this country has a great future because of the great people who make up the nation. Politicians come and go and they do very little "shaping". The shaping is done by the leaders in society and the talents of the general population. Tell me what leading politicians have done shaping this country. The UK is the second most influential country in the world and 6th largest economy despite the politicians, not because of them. A good number of "British" businesses are foreign owned and have the best interests of their owners and shareholders at heart, not the British people. Just look at the state of our rivers - do you really think the water companies give a toss and will do anything about it without government intervention? Your concept of "sovereignty" is fundamentally elitist - you believe in the great and the good running this country on behalf of the plebs. And you naively believe the great and the good have the best interests of the plebs at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth. Real "sovereignty" for me is the actual power and influence vested in us plebs and from that perspective we have less actual "sovereignty" than the citizens of every other country in Europe and Brexit hasn't changed that one iota. If you actually believe in democracy you would be arguing for PR. The thing you are advocating is a nostalgic patrician version of "sovereignty" that disappeared in the sixties. Our future prospects are abysmal because the vision we've adopted is from the rear view mirror and not what is actually in front of us. As a nation our politics needs to grow up and we need to take ownership, not leave it to the great and the good.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 4, 2024 13:13:46 GMT
Firstly to pick up the comment in the post you were replying to, I have never been a Tory and was an active member of the Liberal Party in the 70s and 80s, opposing people like Thatcher, Foot, and the loony left. I packed in politics in disgust at the duplicity of politicians who will make any promise and tell any lie to get your vote. The Liberals were amateurs at duplicity compared with the other parties. I think it is vital to retain control of politicians by the people being able to vote out politicians they don't want. I think it is crazy to hand over law making and governance and judicial decisions to a "pooled sovereignty" and get trapped into "ever closer union" in the EU. I believe this country has a great future because of the great people who make up the nation. Politicians come and go and they do very little "shaping". The shaping is done by the leaders in society and the talents of the general population. Tell me what leading politicians have done shaping this country. The UK is the second most influential country in the world and 6th largest economy despite the politicians, not because of them. A good number of "British" businesses are foreign owned and have the best interests of their owners and shareholders at heart, not the British people. Just look at the state of our rivers - do you really think the water companies give a toss and will do anything about it without government intervention? Your concept of "sovereignty" is fundamentally elitist - you believe in the great and the good running this country on behalf of the plebs. And you naively believe the great and the good have the best interests of the plebs at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth. Real "sovereignty" for me is the actual power and influence vested in us plebs and from that perspective we have less actual "sovereignty" than the citizens of every other country in Europe and Brexit hasn't changed that one iota. If you actually believe in democracy you would be arguing for PR. The thing you are advocating is a nostalgic patrician version of "sovereignty" that disappeared in the sixties. Our future prospects are abysmal because the vision we've adopted is from the rear view mirror and not what is actually in front of us. As a nation our politics needs to grow up and we need to take ownership, not leave it to the great and the good. Excellent post.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 4, 2024 13:30:50 GMT
I'm afraid MrCoke continues to confuse me. On the Brexit thread he says time and again that we now have sovereignty and can elect the people we want to run the country. He claims to be extremely optimistic for the future of the UK. And yet he also says time and again that he has no respect for any politicians. FPTP has bred that political class but he seemingly wants to keep it. If freeing the UK from the EU is supposed to lead to a great future for the UK, who is supposed to shape that ? Firstly to pick up the comment in the post you were replying to, I have never been a Tory and was an active member of the Liberal Party in the 70s and 80s, opposing people like Thatcher, Foot, and the loony left. I packed in politics in disgust at the duplicity of politicians who will make any promise and tell any lie to get your vote. The Liberals were amateurs at duplicity compared with the other parties. I think it is vital to retain control of politicians by the people being able to vote out politicians they don't want. I think it is crazy to hand over law making and governance and judicial decisions to a "pooled sovereignty" and get trapped into "ever closer union" in the EU. I believe this country has a great future because of the great people who make up the nation. Politicians come and go and they do very little "shaping". The shaping is done by the leaders in society and the talents of the general population. Tell me what leading politicians have done shaping this country. The UK is the second most influential country in the world and 6th largest economy despite the politicians, not because of them. Having a "Pooled Sovereignty" is what every Nation does that Trades Globally.... I realise UK is desperately trying to reduce this activity Democracy is of far more importance, to be able to freely elect those that represent us and that they follow instructions In countless different reports that measure Democracy UK comes out about 20th in the World and about 15th in Europe I think you may be fundamentally confusing Sovereignty with Democracy www.idea.int/gsod/2023/countries/wisevoter.com/country-rankings/most-democratic-countries/www.democracymatrix.com/rankingourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiuwww.civicus.org/
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Mar 4, 2024 16:19:31 GMT
Back on topic I see George has launched an attack on Israel immediately this afternoon, comparing it to Nazi Germany...
bit far that
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 4, 2024 16:24:34 GMT
Back on topic I see George has launched an attack on Israel immediately this afternoon, comparing it to Nazi Germany... bit far that He is a massive anti semite. A big fan of Hezbollah.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 4, 2024 17:41:16 GMT
Back on topic I see George has launched an attack on Israel immediately this afternoon, comparing it to Nazi Germany... bit far that He is a massive anti semite. A big fan of Hezbollah. Anti-zionist. Fantastic speech here from 10 years ago The line "this didn't start on the 27th december" is quite poignant given these last few months.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 4, 2024 18:34:14 GMT
He is a massive anti semite. A big fan of Hezbollah. Anti-zionist. Fantastic speech here from 10 years ago The line "this didn't start on the 27th december" is quite poignant given these last few months. Was that the one he made in 1994 to Saddam Hussein, who had just gassed thousands of Iraqi Kurds to death using chemical weapons, âSir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability ... I can honestly tell you that there was not a single person to whom I told I was coming to Iraq and hoping to meet with yourself who did not wish me to convey their heartfelt, fraternal greetings and support.â
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Mar 4, 2024 19:11:25 GMT
Anti-zionist. Fantastic speech here from 10 years ago The line "this didn't start on the 27th december" is quite poignant given these last few months. Was that the one he made in 1994 to Saddam Hussein, who had just gassed thousands of Iraqi Kurds to death using chemical weapons, âSir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability ... I can honestly tell you that there was not a single person to whom I told I was coming to Iraq and hoping to meet with yourself who did not wish me to convey their heartfelt, fraternal greetings and support.â Absolutely. People have short memories.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 4, 2024 19:13:42 GMT
Anti-zionist. Fantastic speech here from 10 years ago The line "this didn't start on the 27th december" is quite poignant given these last few months. Was that the one he made in 1994 to Saddam Hussein, who had just gassed thousands of Iraqi Kurds to death using chemical weapons, âSir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability ... I can honestly tell you that there was not a single person to whom I told I was coming to Iraq and hoping to meet with yourself who did not wish me to convey their heartfelt, fraternal greetings and support.â Watch the speech and you'll find out Oggy. As for your quote above, did he not say that was directed at the Iraqi people? I'm not here to defend all of George Glloways actions because I don't agree with all of his actions. For the antisemitism though. Find me someone who has actively campaigned for palenstine since the 80s who isn't an antisemite? There lies the problem. I agree with Galloway on opposing the Iraq invasion in the 2000s though and I think with hindsight alot of people in the country do too - yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/45444-iraq-war-20-years-later-what-do-britons-think-abouHe's no saint though and he is wrong on many things too. I'll take a vocal imperfect wolf now though over another nodding buster to sit in labour or conservative back benches on a lease; voting, saying and doing what they're told. Nevermind labours gaza position, I'm still appalled at Starmers lack of support for strikers and disciplining MPs who stood on picket lines. He's not perfect but he's not in bad company and there are many much worse than him already sitting in the house of commons.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 4, 2024 19:18:54 GMT
He also bottled a debate at the Oxford Union as he was too racist/scared to debate with an Israeli. He was sacked from a radio station for tweeting that there would be no âIsrael flags on the Cup.â After Spurs lost to Liverpool in the Champions League.
Worst of all, he said Tucker Carlsonâs interview with Putin would show the world he isnât Vlad the Bad or Mad, and that we have been lied to about the type of person Putin is.
He hates Jews and anything Jewish and holds Israel to a standard that he doesnât hold his friend Saddam Hussein to, or Vladimir Putin to.
Israelâs invasion of Gaza gives him an excuse to get back in the limelight and to attack Labour. He holds Labour to a different standard than the Tories, who have the same policy of wanting a ceasefire respected by both sides, which for some reason would be awful for Palestinians!? Yet he only attacks the opposition for their policy and not the government. Our government has a great deal more influence than our opposition! If Galloway cared about Gaza he would be looking to change the Ukâs position (the governmentâs position) and not the opposition partyâs position.
He is a massive hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 4, 2024 19:23:38 GMT
The bloke is a very divisive and dangerous prick to put it mildly and anyone saying itâs a good thing needs their head looking at
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 4, 2024 19:25:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 4, 2024 19:27:10 GMT
Was that the one he made in 1994 to Saddam Hussein, who had just gassed thousands of Iraqi Kurds to death using chemical weapons, âSir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability ... I can honestly tell you that there was not a single person to whom I told I was coming to Iraq and hoping to meet with yourself who did not wish me to convey their heartfelt, fraternal greetings and support.â Watch the speech and you'll find out Oggy. As for your quote above, did he not say that was directed at the Iraqi people? I'm not here to defend all of George Glloways actions because I don't agree with all of his actions. For the antisemitism though. Find me someone who has actively campaigned for palenstine since the 80s who isn't an antisemite? There lies the problem. I agree with Galloway on opposing the Iraq invasion in the 2000s though and I think with hindsight alot of people in the country do too - yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/45444-iraq-war-20-years-later-what-do-britons-think-abouHe's no saint though and he is wrong on many things too. I'll take a vocal imperfect wolf now though over another nodding buster to sit in labour or conservative back benches on a lease; voting, saying and doing what they're told. Nevermind labours gaza position, I'm still appalled at Starmers lack of support for strikers and disciplining MPs who stood on picket lines. He's not perfect but he's not in bad company and there are many much worse than him already sitting in the house of commons. He is a liar then. Who calls a nationâs people âSirâ? Why use the singular âyourselfâ if he was talking to millions of people? And the words make no sense if being said to a nation in a civil war. He had taken sides (as he likes to do) and blindly follows that side regardless of the actions of the side he has picked. The reason so many who actively campaign for either side of the Israel/Gaza debate gets accused of racism is because it is so obviously both are at fault. Neither has clean hands. Both make the situation worse. Both have behaved abominably. So to only side with one side absolutely to the extent where he justifies what happened on 7th Oct has to be motivated by either extreme ignorance (he isnât ignorant) or something else, and given his other comments it is clear he hates jews. Our politics is worse for people like him. But he deserves his place and his voice as he was elected fair and square. He will certainly offer something different (not a bad thing) and if he can temper his worst tendencies, he may do some good.
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Mar 4, 2024 19:29:04 GMT
He also bottled a debate at the Oxford Union as he was too racist/scared to debate with an Israeli. He was sacked from a radio station for tweeting that there would be no âIsrael flags on the Cup.â After Spurs lost to Liverpool in the Champions League. Worst of all, he said Tucker Carlsonâs interview with Putin would show the world he isnât Vlad the Bad or Mad, and that we have been lied to about the type of person Putin is. He hates Jews and anything Jewish and holds Israel to a standard that he doesnât hold his friend Saddam Hussein to, or Vladimir Putin to. Israelâs invasion of Gaza gives him an excuse to get back in the limelight and to attack Labour. He holds Labour to a different standard than the Tories, who have the same policy of wanting a ceasefire respected by both sides, which for some reason would be awful for Palestinians!? Yet he only attacks the opposition for their policy and not the government. Our government has a great deal more influence than our opposition! If Galloway cared about Gaza he would be looking to change the Ukâs position (the governmentâs position) and not the opposition partyâs position. He is a massive hypocrite. He's a massive self-serving arsehole.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 4, 2024 19:29:18 GMT
More hate speech bollocks that fuels the fire Sunak is happy to stoke because it suits Galloway. For the vast majority of people, the next election will be about the cost of living and the NHS above anything else.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 4, 2024 19:32:00 GMT
He also bottled a debate at the Oxford Union as he was too racist/scared to debate with an Israeli. He was sacked from a radio station for tweeting that there would be no âIsrael flags on the Cup.â After Spurs lost to Liverpool in the Champions League. Worst of all, he said Tucker Carlsonâs interview with Putin would show the world he isnât Vlad the Bad or Mad, and that we have been lied to about the type of person Putin is. He hates Jews and anything Jewish and holds Israel to a standard that he doesnât hold his friend Saddam Hussein to, or Vladimir Putin to. Israelâs invasion of Gaza gives him an excuse to get back in the limelight and to attack Labour. He holds Labour to a different standard than the Tories, who have the same policy of wanting a ceasefire respected by both sides, which for some reason would be awful for Palestinians!? Yet he only attacks the opposition for their policy and not the government. Our government has a great deal more influence than our opposition! If Galloway cared about Gaza he would be looking to change the Ukâs position (the governmentâs position) and not the opposition partyâs position. He is a massive hypocrite. Ive got a massive self-serving arsehole. Thanks for that mateđđ»
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 4, 2024 19:32:34 GMT
The bloke is a very divisive and dangerous prick to put it mildly and anyone saying itâs a good thing needs their head looking at Are you talking about Farage or Galloway here Badger? I've made my thoughts clear many times on this forum that I support the right to a voice and a seat in the house for Mr Farage who many in this country would consider both divisive and dangerous. Let's not forget his comments on a Mr Putin being his idol. And I say that with the knowledge that if we had a different electoral system Farage would likely have got a seat, democratically, a long time ago. How is Galloway any different? Except for having a different view than you on some topics? I thought you'd be chuffed to have someone who can "define a woman"?
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 4, 2024 19:33:54 GMT
The bloke is a very divisive and dangerous prick to put it mildly and anyone saying itâs a good thing needs their head looking at Are you talking about Farage or Galloway here Badger? I've made my thoughts clear many times on this forum that I support the right to a voice and a seat in the house for Mr Farage who many in this country would consider both divisive and dangerous. Let's not forget his comments on a Mr Putin being his idol. And I say that with the knowledge that if we had a different electoral system Farage would likely have got a seat, democratically, a long time ago. How is Galloway any different? Except for having a different view than you on some topics? I thought you'd be chuffed to have someone who can "define a woman"? It obviously wasnât a go at your opinion
|
|