I absolutely despise Tories a simple yes or no.

Gracchus_Babeuf

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

We need the Labour party to be left wing and the Tory party to be right wing. Then us the voters decide over the years and decades where we are going to swing.

Left and right are meaningless concepts in modern politics; they belong in the 19th century, not in the modern world. Today you can be a leftist social libertarian and a right wing economic monetarist - so where does that put you? Likewise you can be a Keynesian economic interventionist and a social conservative. Again, where does it put you?

The problem is that we need an electoral system that can offer fair parliamentary representation, and that means PR. We need more smaller parties like the Greens, UKIP and even the BNP to be represented, so that all shades of political opinion can have a voice. The current system encourages a 'cartel' of large parties who then agree to go through the motions in parliamentary debates but basically have few differences between them. This is not proper democracy in my view.

homelessskilledworker

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Left and right are meaningless concepts in modern politics; they belong in the 19th century, not in the modern world. Today you can be a leftist social libertarian and a right wing economic monetarist - so where does that put you? Likewise you can be a Keynesian economic interventionist and a social conservative. Again, where does it put you?

The problem is that we need an electoral system that can offer fair parliamentary representation, and that means PR. We need more smaller parties like the Greens, UKIP and even the BNP to be represented, so that all shades of political opinion can have a voice. The current system encourages a 'cartel' of large parties who then agree to go through the motions in parliamentary debates but basically have few differences between them. This is not proper democracy in my view.

Ok, I do get your point. But I did use the left and right analogy because that is a concept that most people understand. I think more importantly I was trying to make the point that the people/voters need parties that offer us choices.
We have a system now where there are three politcal(two really) who basically sing from the same song sheet.

Most of our politicians know what noises to make at the right time to get our vote, but then go on to do whatever they think best(for them or us).

At the end of the day politicians are there to represent US, should we tell them bring back the death penalty, kick every 1st generation immigrant out of the UK(no, I do not want that), tax the rich 99% or get rid of welfare or the NHS, then they go ahead and fight for that wrongly or rightly, and hopefully they can save us from ourselves when needed.

I think the British voter on the whole is intelligent enough to know how and when to vote for a decent life balance, they will vote for someone like Maggie Thatcher when we need to get a grip of this country with a little hard work and a struggle, and I think we are quite capable of saying long hours and bad work practice is getting in the way of social and family issues.

Gracchus_Babeuf

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Ok, I do get your point. But I did use the left and right analogy because that is a concept that most people understand. I think more importantly I was trying to make the point that the people/voters need parties that offer us choices.
We have a system now where there are three politcal(two really) who basically sing from the same song sheet.

True, and that's why we need PR.

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Most of our politicians know what noises to make at the right time to get our vote, but then go on to do whatever they think best(for them or us).

At the end of the day politicians are there to represent US, should we tell them bring back the death penalty, kick every 1st generation immigrant out of the UK(no, I do not want that), tax the rich 99% or get rid of welfare or the NHS, then they go ahead and fight for that wrongly or rightly, and hopefully they can save us from ourselves when needed.

Agreed, but it would be impractical to have a referendum on every single issue, so this is why we have a parliamentary democracy. The large parties have big vested interests backing them, and indeed these same big interests fund both of the two major parties so that they can have a foot in both camps. You are very naive if you think that will ever change. Having a PR electoral system would encourage the growth of smaller parties and make it much more difficult for oligarchs to control the democratic process.

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

I think the British voter on the whole is intelligent enough to know how and when to vote for a decent life balance, they will vote for someone like Maggie Thatcher when we need to get a grip of this country with a little hard work and a struggle, and I think we are quite capable of saying long hours and bad work practice is getting in the way of social and family issues.

Maggie Thatcher?? Are you serious? Decent life balance? Are you having a laugh? :rotfl:Since when did the old witch improve life balance? If anything she destroyed it. And no, the British voter is not intelligent - far from it. The average voter is easily swayed by the tabloid press and has precious little understanding of the issues. How else would Thatcher have won three general elections when unemployment stood at 3 million. It's the Falklands that saved Thatcher.

Sapphire

Froglet wrote: »

There is no limit to caring.I care as much about children, the elderly and all vulnerable people who are abused as i do all the creatures that walk, swim or fly on this earth.

There is no need to cause pain and fear to a living being whatever it is.

Froglet: I really think you will be wasting your time attempting to reply to posts like the one you answered. Some people post such comments as a sort of excuse for their own selfishness and lack of caring for the types of issue you and I (and many other decent people) care about.

For the record, I believe we have a responsibility for the creatures that share the world with us, and which are defenceless against the humans who are wreaking such havoc on the planet in a variety of ways – over-population leading to competition for land and massive depletion of natural resources being the main one.

thistledome

To OP, no I don't hate Tories. I do hate the politics of envy and it's sheep-like followers that have held this country back for the last 100 or so years though.

thistledome

nicko33 wrote: »

So in the ever popular "burning house" scenario, if you can only rescue 1 creature from the burning house, do you choose the baby or the wasp, the snail, or the kitten?

Kitten, because it's the cutest. (ainec)

Froglet

Sapphire wrote: »

Froglet: I really think you will be wasting your time attempting to reply to posts like the one you answered. Some people post such comments as a sort of excuse for their own selfishness and lack of caring for the types of issue you and I (and many other decent people) care about.

For the record, I believe we have a responsibility for the creatures that share the world with us, and which are defenceless against the humans who are wreaking such havoc on the planet in a variety of ways – over-population leading to competition for land and massive depletion of natural resources being the main one.

Thank you Sapphire for your support.Yes I refuse to answer the stupid posts that followed on from mine,or try to justify how i feel,which is along the lines of the above.

Loughton_Monkey

Sapphire wrote: »

......and which are defenceless against the humans who are wreaking such havoc on the planet in a variety of ways – over-population ......

Couldn't agree more!

Like me, you probably blame the benefits culture in which kids=more income. The Chinese got it right. One child only policy. Best thing they ever did, as I'm sure you agree.

vivatifosi

Froglet wrote: »

Thank you Sapphire for your support.Yes I refuse to answer the stupid posts that followed on from mine,or try to justify how i feel,which is along the lines of the above.

Fwiw I'm not sure people expected to see Sapphire's plea for animal rights in the middle of this thread. I didn't. Nor did I know about the petition. I've voted as a result, which I wouldn't have done otherwise, so I'm glad it was brought up.

ILW

Froglet wrote: »

Thank you Sapphire for your support.Yes I refuse to answer the stupid posts that followed on from mine,or try to justify how i feel,which is along the lines of the above.

So where do you draw the line at which animals should be protected and which should not, and why?