Who will win the UK election ?

padington

cepheus wrote: »

http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/04/the-tories-are-beginning-to-panic/

I think they intend on making cuts of equal size. Just such massive cuts (or a fire sale of the family silver) that it would be hugely politically stupid to spell out just how much is going to be removed from where.

http://youtu.be/7VbZ_khbkFs

cepheus

CLAPTON wrote: »

socialists have always disliked democracy and people having their own viewpoint, possessions and interests

no change here then

Is that the most inaccurate and hypocritical statement from a Conservative, a party who has for centuries attempted to restrict the vote to rich men who owned property?

Neo-liberals in general don't like democracy of any form. Nowadays they use the same trick by demonising unions and restricting state power in favour of corporations, granting them greater legal powers to sue governments and workers if things don't go their way. These are - at best - controlled by a few dominant shareholders.

padington

cepheus wrote: »

Is that the most inaccurate and hypocritical statement from a Conservative, a party who have for centuries attempted to restrict the vote to rich men who owned property?

Neo-liberals in general don't like democracy of any form, so they restrict state power in favour of corporations, and grant legal powers for them to sue governments if things don't go their way. These at best are controlled by a few dominant shareholders.

So true. Any belief systems about capatalists and democracy being natural bedfellows is simply an example of the propaganda created to misinform the public.

Inequality (whether that comes from capitalism or a fascist form of state 'communism' ) is a direct challenge to democracy, it's not a guardian.

Democratic market socialism, is however as close to a healthy democracy as you can get and is clearly a better way of proceeding if only we didn't have a world currently unable to adopt a good idea globally across the board, which sadly makes enforcing things like a global minimum and maximum wage, untenable.

Either way, to not appreciate the hugely undemocratic nature of capital is to be rather foolish.

Generali

cepheus wrote: »

Is that the most inaccurate and hypocritical statement from a Conservative, a party who has for centuries attempted to restrict the vote to rich men who owned property?

Neo-liberals in general don't like democracy of any form. Nowadays they use the same trick by demonising unions and restricting state power in favour of corporations, granting them greater legal powers to sue governments and workers if things don't go their way. These are - at best - controlled by a few dominant shareholders.

Utter twaddle from beginning to end. When was the last time the Tories tried to reduce the franchise?

Women were given the vote in 1928 under the Conservative Government led by Stanley Baldwin. The Reform Act of 1832 was passed under the Tory Wellington Government. The third great extension of the franchise was the 1867 Reform Act which was passed under the Earl of Derby. A Conservative of course.

The Thatcher Government, reviled by Socialists as the archetypal Tory Government of modern times, did more than any other to move power from corporations and unions to individuals.

Trades Unions have never had the interests of the workers at heart. They've had the interests of a narrow subset of workers at heart, their members. Who really suffers when a group of workers pushes up their wages? It's not the capitalists, it's the customers of that business; other workers.

It's all very well spouting this stuff that you've got from goodness knows where but there is no truth behind the rhetoric.

antrobus

cepheus wrote: »

Is that the most inaccurate and hypocritical statement from a Conservative, a party who has for centuries attempted to restrict the vote to rich men who owned property? ...

Apart from the second Reform Act in 1867. And the Representation of the People Act in 1918.

History isn't your strong subject is it?:)

padington

Generali wrote: »

Utter twaddle from beginning to end. When was the last time the Tories tried to reduce the franchise?

Women were given the vote in 1928 under the Conservative Government led by Stanley Baldwin. The Reform Act of 1832 was passed under the Tory Wellington Government. The third great extension of the franchise was the 1867 Reform Act which was passed under the Earl of Derby. A Conservative of course.

The Thatcher Government, reviled by Socialists as the archetypal Tory Government of modern times, did more than any other to move power from corporations and unions to individuals.

Trades Unions have never had the interests of the workers at heart. They've had the interests of a narrow subset of workers at heart, their members. Who really suffers when a group of workers pushes up their wages? It's not the capitalists, it's the customers of that business; other workers.

It's all very well spouting this stuff that you've got from goodness knows where but there is no truth behind the rhetoric.

It was the British that ended the slave trade but it was also the British that globalised the slave trade for many years previously.

Just because you divorce from a woman you once used to beat, doesn't make you a saint.

In regards to the 'what did trade unions ever do for us' rhetoric, they were central to helping bring about the welfare state, the NHS and most of the legislation that makes us a civilised country. Let's not forget.

It was only the other day when the Tories and big business were arguing that the introduction of a minimum wage was a bad thing. A minimum wage is actually an essential part of the economic franchise of a democracy. If people earn so little they have no time to vote, it's not a proper democracy. History is riddled with examples like this.

Generali

padington wrote: »

It was the British that ended the slave trade but it was also the British that globalised the slave trade for many years previously.

Just because you divorce from a woman you once used to beat, doesn't make you a saint.

What does that have to do with anything we're discussing?

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

..Women were given the vote in 1928 under the Conservative Government led by Stanley Baldwin. The Reform Act of 1832 was passed under the Tory Wellington Government. ....

On a point of order.

Women over 30 were given the vote in 1918 under the Liberal-Conservative coalition government led by Lloyd George. What Baldwin did in 1928 was extend the franchise to women under 30.

The Great Reform Act of 1832 was passed under the Whig government led by the Earl Grey (of tea fame.) Although as was the commonly the case in those days, it was really a Whig led coalition government that included the Tory Ultras.

The old Tory Party split over the issue of Catholic emancipation in 1829. The pro-emancipation faction went on to form what we now know as the Conservative Party. The die-hard anti-catholics, the Tory Ultras, joined with the Whigs, because they favoured an extension of the franchise, believing that this would favour them due to the popularity of anti-Catholic sentiments within the wider population.

See, I paid attention in History class.:)

antrobus

padington wrote: »

...Either way, to not appreciate the hugely undemocratic nature of capital is to be rather foolish.

And the "hugely undemocratic nature of capital" is at its most evident when the state seeks to monopolise capital for itself.

Moby

Generali wrote: »

Utter twaddle from beginning to end. When was the last time the Tories tried to reduce the franchise?

Women were given the vote in 1928 under the Conservative Government led by Stanley Baldwin. The Reform Act of 1832 was passed under the Tory Wellington Government. The third great extension of the franchise was the 1867 Reform Act which was passed under the Earl of Derby. A Conservative of course.

The Thatcher Government, reviled by Socialists as the archetypal Tory Government of modern times, did more than any other to move power from corporations and unions to individuals.

Trades Unions have never had the interests of the workers at heart. They've had the interests of a narrow subset of workers at heart, their members. Who really suffers when a group of workers pushes up their wages? It's not the capitalists, it's the customers of that business; other workers.

It's all very well spouting this stuff that you've got from goodness knows where but there is no truth behind the rhetoric.

I come from a Welsh mining background. Father, grandfather etc. So the 'stuff I spout' comes from direct personal experience from childhood to the age I am now, 50's. So from that I can inform you that although there is institutionalised corruption and self interest, (as there is everywhere in life), the purpose of unions is to help all workers. It's far more wide ranging than 'wages'. it's about conditions of service etc. I saw the working conditions of my family in the mines improve dramatically through union pressure. The mine owners were forced to improve conditions, health and safety, install showers etc etc. Those changes were brought about by direct action. The mine owners were purely concerned with profit not the working conditions of the men. That's why the mines were nationalised. I am a union activist in my own area of work. Part of my job is to represent workers in grievances or disciplinary matters against management. All sorts of issues are raised, including racism, diversity, health and safety, working conditions etc etc. To talk about unions as simply being motivated by pushing up the wages at the expense of other workers is simplistic in the extreme. Your historical references are also highly selective and fail to mention that reforms took place only because of pressure from the workers, (eg the Chartist movement). Marx was convinced that Britain as the first industrialised country was the state most ripe for revolution. However the theory goes that those in power always gave away just enough to avoid revolution....but never forget the extension of the franchise from landowners only to universal male suffrage, the extension of the vote to women, universal healthcare, insurance etc had to be fought for. None of it was given up willingly. Wellington was an aristocrat who gunned down workers demonstrating in the streets of London. The Reform Act of 1832 was forced on him because he feared revolution as was taking place all over Europe at the time, France, Germany, Italy and finally in Russia.. he didn't give a toss for workers rights, notr did his party.

The fight continues! There is very poor equality of opportunity in this country and the gap between the poor and rich is getting bigger. Different times but same old tories!