|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Feb 12, 2018 12:39:45 GMT 1
I find it impossible to feel anything but despair at the state of politics and political leadership in this country.
Brexit is too difficult for the dimwits in the Cabinet to comprehend, the least we should expect of Government is competence and we're a long way from that. The feuding within the Tory party will mean that the Europe issue is never settled and surely the 2 sides cannot be reconciled.
The only comfort for the Tories is the disgraceful lack of opposition from Labour, it is their duty to hold the Government to account but it's in Corbyn's narrow party interests to fudge his position on Brexit. Then what do they offer other than the big state policies that we all know were discredited decades ago? That's why their poll showing is so poor despite the Tory shambles.
How the Lib Dems must be ruing Clegg's misguided coalition with the Tories, a moderate party would be cleaning up in the polls if it had any credibility left.
The sad thing is that there are many good ideas around that are not on the radar of the main political parties, I suspect that Brexit is taking up so much time and energy that no one in Government has the time or inclination to think about anything other than immediate problems and fighting with their party colleagues.
Could I recommend podcasts such as 'Reasons To Be Cheerful', don't be put off by it being presented by Ed Milliband. He's engaging and self deprecating on the podcast. Also 'The New Economics Foundation', both offer fresh thinking and ideas which may, if we are lucky, trickle through to the politicians who appear to be more interested in stabbing each other in the back than working for the benefit of the country.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Feb 13, 2018 11:02:00 GMT 1
Find it curious that 2015-GE 2017 the anti-Corbyn narrative was essentially 'He's unelectable, he's more interested in his principles than winning at the ballot box - and THAT is the point of politics."
And now those very same critics allege he needs to go because he's only interested in winning and isn't principled enough.
Funny old world...
|
|
|
Post by ackeyshrew on Feb 14, 2018 17:23:19 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by ackeyshrew on Feb 14, 2018 17:25:01 GMT 1
I'm still seeing Balaclavas our kid. And a chap seeing the need to put his hood up and wear sunglasses. Indoors. Now why would you need to do that? The guy in the white shirt is clearly a dick but from the one bit of footage I can only assume he took acceptation to what Sunglasses Ron and the Baraclava twins were saying to Mogg and wanted to turn him away. I gather it escalated from there. What the hell are they up to?! Balaclavas?! Acting like pricks. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. And that goes for the daft protest we saw at the cafe in London too. If anyone is still wondering how the hell the Tories can still hold on to power despite being the shower of s**te that they are then you only need look at the events these last couple of weeks. As for that ‘daft protest in the London Cafe’, did anyone realise that the said Blighty Cafe is actually owned by Shrews fan Chris Evans, him of Little Hooliganz and Miss Bimbo infamy...?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Feb 14, 2018 17:41:00 GMT 1
People vote for or against different things at elections of course, but animal welfare and the environment are two of my biggest concerns and this has made me feel more positive about Labour than I have for a while: www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2018/02/a-meaningful-plan-for-animal-welfareI'm disappointed Labour isn't taking a stronger line opposing the government's brexit shambles but these proposals would encourage me to answer "yes" to the O/P's question.
|
|
MEADOWBURY
Midland League Division Two
Blue through and through[Mo0:25]
Posts: 221
|
Post by MEADOWBURY on Feb 14, 2018 18:54:23 GMT 1
People vote for or against different things at elections of course, but animal welfare and the environment are two of my biggest concerns and this has made me feel more positive about Labour than I have for a while: www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2018/02/a-meaningful-plan-for-animal-welfareI'm disappointed Labour isn't taking a stronger line opposing the government's brexit shambles but these proposals would encourage me to answer "yes" to the O/P's question. I see little in that for animal welfare. Just the same old poorly disguised class warfare designed to garner votes from old ladies.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Feb 15, 2018 1:29:38 GMT 1
People vote for or against different things at elections of course, but animal welfare and the environment are two of my biggest concerns and this has made me feel more positive about Labour than I have for a while: www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2018/02/a-meaningful-plan-for-animal-welfareI'm disappointed Labour isn't taking a stronger line opposing the government's brexit shambles but these proposals would encourage me to answer "yes" to the O/P's question. I see little in that for animal welfare. Just the same old poorly disguised class warfare designed to garner votes from old ladies. Perhaps you can explain how banning live exports, labelling meat to show whether the animal was killed with or without stunning, mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses, cutting routine use of antibiotics, ending the use of cages & sow crates and subsidising farmers to move away from factory farming are "class warfare". I'd be interested to read that argument. There can be fewer political topics further removed from class warfare than animal welfare. I'm also wondering why you think there's little in this plan for animal welfare. Compassion In World Farming, a non-partisan charity that has done more for animal welfare than just about any other body in the past 30 years, calls it a "forward-thinking plan" that would "revolutionise conditions for British farm animals". Excuse me if I give that opinion rather more weight than yours. Are you suggesting animal welfare is only of interest to "old ladies", by the way? Do you have a vested interest?
|
|
MEADOWBURY
Midland League Division Two
Blue through and through[Mo0:25]
Posts: 221
|
Post by MEADOWBURY on Feb 15, 2018 10:28:14 GMT 1
This will not revolutionise conditions for any farm animals. We have some of the best welfare standards in the world already. It will only serve to increase the cost of Home reared livestock and open the floodgates to cheap imports to satisfy the demand. It’s ill thought out jingoistic tosh designed to garner votes from those who think thier Sunday roast grew up in a polystyrene tray. I’d be the first to support any proposal that improved welfare as that’s where my interest lies.
Then there’s the proposals in this so called welfare bill that you neglected to link to. The ones that seek to stop those nasty Toffs chasing foxes and shooting pheasants. Or make those awful landlords allow their tenants to build a menagerie in their properties whilst having the tax payer pick up the vets bill?
There are as many if not more animal welfare issues in domestic situations as there are in agriculture. Where is this addressed? It isn’t because it would upset to many voters to have them look after Fido properly. Far better to provide them with subsidised veterinary care! Forward thinking don’t make me laugh.
I have no vested interest and in answer to the op No. he’s still unelectable
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Feb 15, 2018 10:36:28 GMT 1
This will not revolutionise conditions for any farm animals. We have some of the best welfare standards in the world already. It will only serve to increase the cost of Home reared livestock and open the floodgates to cheap imports to satisfy the demand. It’s ill thought out jingoistic tosh designed to garner votes from those who think thier Sunday roast grew up in a polystyrene tray. I’d be the first to support any proposal that improved welfare as that’s where my interest lies. Then there’s the proposals in this so called welfare bill that you neglected to link to. The ones that seek to stop those nasty Toffs chasing foxes and shooting pheasants. Or make those awful landlords allow their tenants to build a menagerie in their properties whilst having the tax payer pick up the vets bill? There are as many if not more animal welfare issues in domestic situations as there are in agriculture. Where is this addressed? It isn’t because it would upset to many voters to have them look after Fido properly. Far better to provide them with subsidised veterinary care! Forward thinking don’t make me laugh. I have no vested interest and in answer to the op No. he’s still unelectable That gets my vote. And jingoistic?
|
|
MEADOWBURY
Midland League Division Two
Blue through and through[Mo0:25]
Posts: 221
|
Post by MEADOWBURY on Feb 15, 2018 11:49:57 GMT 1
Of course it does and all in the name of animal welfare!
jingoistic? Perhaps not the best choice of words but I was in a rush and it was early in the morning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 11:56:11 GMT 1
The Tory animal welfare policy consisted of hiring a load of idiots running around trying to shoot as many badgers as possible . We all know that that did the trick .
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Feb 15, 2018 12:23:25 GMT 1
This will not revolutionise conditions for any farm animals. We have some of the best welfare standards in the world already. It will only serve to increase the cost of Home reared livestock and open the floodgates to cheap imports to satisfy the demand. It’s ill thought out jingoistic tosh designed to garner votes from those who think thier Sunday roast grew up in a polystyrene tray. I’d be the first to support any proposal that improved welfare as that’s where my interest lies. Then there’s the proposals in this so called welfare bill that you neglected to link to. The ones that seek to stop those nasty Toffs chasing foxes and shooting pheasants. Or make those awful landlords allow their tenants to build a menagerie in their properties whilst having the tax payer pick up the vets bill? There are as many if not more animal welfare issues in domestic situations as there are in agriculture. Where is this addressed? It isn’t because it would upset to many voters to have them look after Fido properly. Far better to provide them with subsidised veterinary care! Forward thinking don’t make me laugh. I have no vested interest and in answer to the op No. he’s still unelectable As I said earlier, I give a lot of weight to the views of CIWF and their welcoming of it counts for a lot. Their primary concern is with farm animals, not hunting. You've ranted a bit but haven't explained why you believe a single one of those proposals is tosh. We do have comparatively good welfare standards but that's not saying a lot when the demand for cheap meat means global standards of animal welfare are so low. A lot of people oppose killing without stunning - mandatory labelling enables them to give real effect to that opposition. Cutting routine antibiotic use is better for the animals and the people who eat them. CCTV in slaughterhouses would make it harder for cruel and unhygienic practices to be carried out. Eliminating cages and sow crates - how does that not benefit those animals? Subsidising farmers to move away from factory farming - again, how does that not benefit the animals? Practical measures to improve the lot of farm animals are tosh, are they? You claim your interest lies in animal welfare while complaining these measures would increase the price of British meat. Two things about that. First, is animal welfare really your prime concern or does that come second to the price of meat? And second, you dismiss these plans as making no difference at the same time as saying they would increase meat prices. Why would prices increase if these steps make no difference? I don't understand why you make it an either/or between domestic and farm animals. Is there a competition for compassion? Of course I'd oppose all forms of animal abuse, whether wild, farmed or domestic. But if you're talking numbers, the treatment of the millions of animals slaughtered for food every year in this country is a good place to make a start. You seem more concerned about subsidised vets' bills, which again suggests your priorities lie elsewhere. You can't change the world overnight but most progress proceeds in incremental steps.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Feb 15, 2018 12:34:14 GMT 1
Of course it does and all in the name of animal welfare! jingoistic? Perhaps not the best choice of words but I was in a rush and it was early in the morning. Yep, I believe not hunting foxes and shooting pheasants would be in the interests of those animals' welfare, regardless of the social class of the loser involved. You don't? Please, I'm all ears...
|
|
MEADOWBURY
Midland League Division Two
Blue through and through[Mo0:25]
Posts: 221
|
Post by MEADOWBURY on Feb 15, 2018 12:56:13 GMT 1
My last word on the subject as we’ll never agree. Animal Welfare is driven by compassion and not political bias. Step away from the ballot box and look at the big picture. I’ve never stated my belief regards hunting foxes etc but jump to as many conclusions as you wish. There’s losers on both sides of this argument.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Feb 15, 2018 19:21:50 GMT 1
Animal Welfare is driven by compassion and not political bias. Of course it is. But without political backing it's just compassion without a realistic prospect of change. Labour have provided some firm proposals for change that have been welcomed enthusiastically by the main farm animal welfare group in the UK, so pardon me if I'm not as dismissive about that as you. I hope the Tories do the same. It's definitely a political issue but that doesn't mean it has to be a party political issue.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Feb 15, 2018 20:37:37 GMT 1
The Conservative Party remains ahead in the polls because nonsense like: Students in balaclavas ====> Jeremy Corbyn has traction. And it has traction because political views are much more polarised than for some time.
Compare this to the period prior to the 1997 General Election, when the Labour Party last faced an exhausted Conservative Party: both parties had an unspoken policy compact on things like public sending, the role of markets, the hegemony of business, the sidelining of trade unions.
Today, such that the Conservative party can be said to have a political programme it is one of defending class privilege whereas Labour offers something that can renew the British economy.
Things to consider are:
1) Prices are rising faster than wages; 2) Low wage inseucre work is the norm. particularly for younger people; 3) Thatcherite policies aimed at creating a property owning democracy has fostered a speculative caste of landlords blocking people from the housing market. 4) Public Ssevices are defunded. 5) Social security is a system of victimisation and bullying rather than support. 6) Profits are doing alright. 7) A homegrown oligarchy has interred its cash offshore. 8) social mobility has seized up. 9) Only consumer credit and cheap imports have prevented a crash in living standards.
And it is precisely because the Labour manifesto provided an anti-dote to the hate-mongering and beggar-thy-neighbour stuff that we get:
students in balaclavas =======> Jeremy Corbyn
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on Feb 15, 2018 21:02:44 GMT 1
[quote author=" SeanBroseley" source="/post/1345534/thread" timestamp="1518723457" Today, such that the Conservative party can be said to have a political programme it is one of defending class privilege whereas Labour offers something that can renew the British economy. [ [/quote] That old left wing chestnut! Tories only look after their rich friends blah blah and you're right, labour will offer something new for the economy. A record level of debt!!! £90 billion just to nationalise the water industry 😂😂😂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 21:11:21 GMT 1
Why are Labour not on the offensive? The government is lurching along at best, faces deep divisions on Brexit and yet there is little opposition from Labour. They should be holding the government to account or am I missing something? As an aside, I heard Vince Cable on the radio the other day....he's been so quiet I thought that he had emigrated
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Feb 15, 2018 21:51:49 GMT 1
[quote author=" SeanBroseley " source="/post/1345534/thread" timestamp="1518723457" Today, such that the Conservative party can be said to have a political programme it is one of defending class privilege whereas Labour offers something that can renew the British economy. [ That old left wing chestnut! Tories only look after their rich friends blah blah and you're right, labour will offer something new for the economy. A record level of debt!!! £90 billion just to nationalise the water industry 😂😂😂 [/quote] Tabloid nonsense. And securing the revenues that currently go to private companies. The stock of government debt is the amount of money (net of taxes) that it has spent into the economy. Perhaps you would prefer it to take money out of the economy? I can't think why. In the meantime holders of the debt get a secure fixed income.
|
|