This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
General Election 2017
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 CambridgeEagle  Sydenham 20 Apr 17 10.11am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Of course we should leave the single market. If we don't we would be subject to all the nonsense that made people vote to Leave in the first place - uncontrollable immigration (aka 'free movement of people), inability to trade with the result of the world, subject to ever increasing EU red tape regulations, not to mention being party to the crippling tariffs that are ruining African farmers. If you think immigration numbers will change significantly if/when we leave the single market then you are much mistaken. I imagine a lot of people will end up feeling betrayed on this point.
|
|
| Penge Eagle Beckenham 20 Apr 17 10.15am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
If you think immigration numbers will change significantly if/when we leave the single market then you are much mistaken. I imagine a lot of people will end up feeling betrayed on this point. It's not really the point. It's who decides the immigration numbers - Westminster or Brussels. If the general public feel it's too high, then they can vote out a government. With the EU, nothing can be done with free movement. Edited by Penge Eagle (20 Apr 2017 10.16am)
|
|
| matt_himself Matataland 20 Apr 17 10.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
When was owning a house illegal? That was just an example of a government making someones life demonstrably better, but I completely disagree that owning property is a greater right than who you chose to spend your life with or have sex with. Allowing people to own their own council houses was one of biggest social and economic changes of the past 50 years. Changing a law which allows, statistically around 5% of the population to live as they wish, whilst the right thing to do, does not compare to the changes home ownership brought to millions. It just highlights to me how the left are so tied up in minority pursuits rather than wanting the better the lives of the majority.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 20 Apr 17 10.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
It's not really the point. It's who decides the immigration numbers - Westminster or Brussels. If the general public feel it's too high, then they can vote out a government. With the EU, nothing can be done with free movement. Edited by Penge Eagle (20 Apr 2017 10.16am) Exactly - was just about to post something similar.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 20 Apr 17 10.19am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
I imagine in 1967 Labour's decision to decriminalise homosexuality made gay peoples' lives better. And again in 2004 the civil partnerships act would have made their lives better. I hardly think either party could be credited with a commendable attitude toward homosexuality and the church even less back then. Many prosecutions still took place after 1967 for various offenses.
|
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 20 Apr 17 10.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
It's not really the point. It's who decides the immigration numbers - Westminster or Brussels. If the general public feel it's too high, then they can vote out a government. With the EU, nothing can be done with free movement. Edited by Penge Eagle (20 Apr 2017 10.16am) Given the numbers won't change losing single market access and our own rights as EU citizens seems like quite a high price to pay for allowing MPs in Westminster to "have control".
|
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 20 Apr 17 10.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I hardly think either party could be credited with a commendable attitude toward homosexuality and the church even less back then. Many prosecutions still took place after 1967 for various offenses.
Again the question was about a government making someone's life better. Not a pro-Labour point necessarily, it just happened those were Labour governments. The coalition brought in same sex marriage so add that to the list.
|
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 20 Apr 17 10.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
When was owning a house illegal? That was just an example of a government making someones life demonstrably better, but I completely disagree that owning property is a greater right than who you chose to spend your life with or have sex with./quote] There have never been any restriction on who you spend your life with and laws against homosexual sex were changed in 1967. There are still some restrictions on those you can have sex with - children and animals for example, despite the efforts of the likes of the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 1970s (supported by the left wing National Council for Civil Liberties at the time). Edited by hedgehog50 (20 Apr 2017 10.23am)
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 20 Apr 17 10.26am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Allowing people to own their own council houses was one of biggest social and economic changes of the past 50 years. Changing a law which allows, statistically around 5% of the population to live as they wish, whilst the right thing to do, does not compare to the changes home ownership brought to millions. It just highlights to me how the left are so tied up in minority pursuits rather than wanting the better the lives of the majority.
Equality is not a minority pursuit.
|
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 20 Apr 17 10.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Again the question was about a government making someone's life better. Not a pro-Labour point necessarily, it just happened those were Labour governments. The coalition brought in same sex marriage so add that to the list. And taking that point on face value, it could be argued that the Left are more interested in the rights of minorities than the majority. Although I would maintain that homosexuality has little effect on wider society and therefore has no disadvantage to the majority, the fact that you highlight these particular Acts as an example of Labour making lives better suggests that they only make minorities lives better. Commendable in itself perhaps but not necessarily serving the rest of us very well.
|
|
| Penge Eagle Beckenham 20 Apr 17 10.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Given the numbers won't change losing single market access and our own rights as EU citizens seems like quite a high price to pay for allowing MPs in Westminster to "have control". Like I said, if the public don't feel the numbers have been sufficiently controlled, they can vote out the government!! Presently, nobody can control the numbers - whether it's super high or super low! You obviously feel Brussels should control our laws and not the UK. Thank God your ilk lost the referendum. Edited by Penge Eagle (20 Apr 2017 10.43am)
|
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Apr 17 10.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Allowing people to own their own council houses was one of biggest social and economic changes of the past 50 years. Changing a law which allows, statistically around 5% of the population to live as they wish, whilst the right thing to do, does not compare to the changes home ownership brought to millions. It just highlights to me how the left are so tied up in minority pursuits rather than wanting the better the lives of the majority. The problem wasn't selling off council housing, but the failure to compensate and control the housing market and rental booms that followed. Which now result in people spending around half their salary on rent or mortgages. The consequences of the housing boom (not just the selling off of council property) was to effectively create a situation where people struggle to afford accommodation, on a scale that original generation who benefited never experienced. This really has been the failure of Conservatism of the 80s, it allowed a lot of people to 'get a leg up' but then in doing so kicked away that ladder, trusting far to much in the free market economics and trickle down effect, rather than taxation (of the new markets) and regulation of those markets (rent control). Ending Mining, for example, wasn't necessarily the wrong move, it was abandoning those communities that were dependent on the income from that industry. The longer they (and Labour) left it, the more problematic the impact of introducing that kind of compensatory measures of control have become with key voters that both parties court. Governments aren't just responsible to the people who will go out and vote for them, but each and every person within a nation, and the generations that will follow. Short termism of modern politics (including Labour) and not making 'unpopular' decisions is damaging the cohesion and 'equality of opportunities' within the nation. Popularism is a social dead end, because you always end up making gestures rather than change.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 20 Apr 17 10.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
The problem wasn't selling off council housing, but the failure to compensate and control the housing market and rental booms that followed. Which now result in people spending around half their salary on rent or mortgages. The consequences of the housing boom (not just the selling off of council property) was to effectively create a situation where people struggle to afford accommodation, on a scale that original generation who benefited never experienced. This really has been the failure of Conservatism of the 80s, it allowed a lot of people to 'get a leg up' but then in doing so kicked away that ladder, trusting far to much in the free market economics and trickle down effect, rather than taxation (of the new markets) and regulation of those markets (rent control). Ending Mining, for example, wasn't necessarily the wrong move, it was abandoning those communities that were dependent on the income from that industry. The longer they (and Labour) left it, the more problematic the impact of introducing that kind of compensatory measures of control have become with key voters that both parties court. Governments aren't just responsible to the people who will go out and vote for them, but each and every person within a nation, and the generations that will follow. Short termism of modern politics (including Labour) and not making 'unpopular' decisions is damaging the cohesion and 'equality of opportunities' within the nation. Popularism is a social dead end, because you always end up making gestures rather than change. 100%. I suggest that in an earlier post. Blatant profiteering by landlords and banks at the expense of ordinary people.
|
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Apr 17 10.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
Like I said, if the public don't feel the numbers have been sufficiently controlled, they can vote out the government!! Presently, nobody can control the numbers! Well its generally a choice between two increasingly similar political parties (taking the Corbyn blip out of the equation). The pro-EU Conservative party and the Pro-EU Labour Party. The outsider, Liberal Democrats, are Pro-EU. Now that we're out of the EU, most of the work will be about remaining 'as close to the EU as possible' - especially on Freedom of Movement. Unless UKIP survive the fact that their core issue has been resolved, then there isn't really any party that isn't a pro-corporate party. And the EU is very much a Pro-Corporate body. And that's why they want to just 'change freedom of movement' rather than regulate migration, because economically, its massively beneficial to government and UK corporations. If you removed the 500,000 or so EU citizens over night, the UK economy would collapse.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 20 Apr 17 10.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Well its generally a choice between two increasingly similar political parties (taking the Corbyn blip out of the equation). The pro-EU Conservative party and the Pro-EU Labour Party. The outsider, Liberal Democrats, are Pro-EU. Now that we're out of the EU, most of the work will be about remaining 'as close to the EU as possible' - especially on Freedom of Movement. Unless UKIP survive the fact that their core issue has been resolved, then there isn't really any party that isn't a pro-corporate party. And the EU is very much a Pro-Corporate body. And that's why they want to just 'change freedom of movement' rather than regulate migration, because economically, its massively beneficial to government and UK corporations. If you removed the 500,000 or so EU citizens over night, the UK economy would collapse. You summed it up in one post.
|
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Apr 17 10.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Again the question was about a government making someone's life better. Not a pro-Labour point necessarily, it just happened those were Labour governments. The coalition brought in same sex marriage so add that to the list. Thatcher voted for and supported the decriminalisation of homosexuality, launched a monumentally effective policy against the threat of AIDs - They're not all social monsters. The conservatives also implemented a lot of social reform in mental health (maybe too much). They also reformed domestic violence and sex offence issues with policy, removed 'rape in marriage being legal', improved divorce regulations for women etc. The problem generally hasn't been the conservatives not making life better for people, but their failure to compensate for shifts in economic change in society and to rely on the free market, and that maybe sometimes they're too slow to react to the 'pulse of social change'. But the criticism of Labour is really that sometimes they are far to quick to react with policy and laws, rather than letting social issues resolve themselves and engaging in social change rather than legislation.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 20 Apr 17 11.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Equality is not a minority pursuit. Housing affects 100% of the population. Gay rights circa 5%. In this instance, equality is a minority pursuit.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 20 Apr 17 11.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Housing affects 100% of the population. Gay rights circa 5%. In this instance, equality is a minority pursuit. You can add bat rights to that. People incur thousands of pounds in extra expense to fix their roofs to house f'in bats.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 20 Apr 17 11.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
Like I said, if the public don't feel the numbers have been sufficiently controlled, they can vote out the government!! Presently, nobody can control the numbers - whether it's super high or super low! You obviously feel Brussels should control our laws and not the UK. Thank God your ilk lost the referendum. Edited by Penge Eagle (20 Apr 2017 10.43am) I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion. I certainly don't want the Tories in control that much is true. The impact of EU laws on the UK was massively blown out of all proportion by the Leave Campaign. I'm largely ambivalent about the points made about control over the law. The more important points for me are around the economy and basic rights enjoyed as EU citizens, both of which will suffer post Brexit.
|
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 20 Apr 17 11.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
The problem wasn't selling off council housing, but the failure to compensate and control the housing market and rental booms that followed. Which now result in people spending around half their salary on rent or mortgages. The consequences of the housing boom (not just the selling off of council property) was to effectively create a situation where people struggle to afford accommodation, on a scale that original generation who benefited never experienced. This really has been the failure of Conservatism of the 80s, it allowed a lot of people to 'get a leg up' but then in doing so kicked away that ladder, trusting far to much in the free market economics and trickle down effect, rather than taxation (of the new markets) and regulation of those markets (rent control). Ending Mining, for example, wasn't necessarily the wrong move, it was abandoning those communities that were dependent on the income from that industry. The longer they (and Labour) left it, the more problematic the impact of introducing that kind of compensatory measures of control have become with key voters that both parties court. Governments aren't just responsible to the people who will go out and vote for them, but each and every person within a nation, and the generations that will follow. Short termism of modern politics (including Labour) and not making 'unpopular' decisions is damaging the cohesion and 'equality of opportunities' within the nation. Popularism is a social dead end, because you always end up making gestures rather than change. I agree with your points here. It will be interesting to see if any party's manifesto offers real long term policies rather than platitudes.
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.