Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BillyStubbsTears on May 23, 2022, 09:12:31 pm
-
The Sunday Times just published its list of the richest 250 people in the Uk with a combined wealth of about £0.5trn.
I wonder which party these people support?
-
Anyone got a reason why this should be so?
BobG
-
Bob, it might just be that the most of the richest people vote Conservative because they feel that a government of another type might not suit their circumstances.
-
I would imagine it’s because giving donations to, say, Labour, to help them run the country would be a bit of a waste of money. Perhaps Labour would get more donations if they were running the country.
Does anyone have any comparable data from when Blair was in power, just for context?
-
Have the Labour Party got any morals accepting any money at all from that list.
Is it the disproportional amount of money or the moral taking of any donations at all from these people that bothers you?
If you stop these donations do you stop donations from workers unions to the Labour Party?
Is £2.5 million too much going to the Labour Party just to splash it on Chinese takeaways and beer at parties in Durham?
-
Conservatives are a party that look after business, they have the richest peoples interests at heart.
Labour are a party that usually look after workers, so they tend to get a lot of funding from unions.
-
From The Guardian:
Labour’s biggest funder, Unite, will cut political donations to the party and divert the money to union campaigns, its new general secretary, Sharon Graham, has warned.
In a move that could blow a hole in Keir Starmer’s general election war chest, Graham said that while Unite would still pay £1m in affiliation fees to Labour, “there’s a lot of other money that we use from our political fund where, actually, I’m not sure we’re getting the best value for it”.
Graham, speaking to the Guardian to mark her first 100 days as leader of Britain’s biggest private sector union, said: “The fact that I am being quite robust is because Labour needs to talk about workers, needs to defend workers and needs to defend communities.”
She described the Labour reshuffle, regarded by many at Westminster as a shift to the right, as “white noise” and lamented the lack of a shadow secretary of state for employment rights and protections, saying it was “not a good signal” for the party to send.
Len McCluskey, the previous leader of Unite, was a vehement supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and had already reduced Unite’s financial commitment to Labour since Starmer took over as leader in spring 2020, but Graham made clear she wants Unite to focus less on courting Labour.
-
Anyone got a reason why this should be so?
BobG
Maybe you should ask our benefactor, Terry Bramall, Bob.
Yes, he's given donations to the Tory Party, but he's given far more to DRFC.
-
I have no means of contacting Terry Bramall. Have you?
BobG
-
I have no means of contacting Terry Bramall. Have you?
BobG
I have. Would you like me to PM you next time we have a meet the owners event?
-
If you want to.
BobG
-
I'll put it in my diary. I can't promise to join you though because I might be elsewhere spending my well-earned pension.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjPz-y6-vz3AhVbQUEAHTEIB18QFnoECCAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-380535%2FLabours-rich-list-party-donors.html&usg=AOvVaw3ouCw9AXn59LMabhXAQ-Mb
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjPz-y6-vz3AhVbQUEAHTEIB18QFnoECCAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-380535%2FLabours-rich-list-party-donors.html&usg=AOvVaw3ouCw9AXn59LMabhXAQ-Mb
Looks like the House of Lords appointments commission has been busy again.
So no buying of political favours there then, I wonder if our resident stooges have an oponion on that, I’ll not hold my breath.
-
Conservatives are a party that look after business, they have the richest peoples interests at heart.
Labour are a party that usually look after workers, so they tend to get a lot of funding from unions.
Pardon
-
Conservatives are a party that look after business, they have the richest peoples interests at heart.
Labour are a party that usually look after workers, so they tend to get a lot of funding from unions.
Pardon
What's the issue?
-
Interesting how some think we have a democratic system here in the UK. There's should be zero donations, all funding for parties coming from taxes (on the rich).
-
Interesting how some think we have a democratic system here in the UK. There's should be zero donations, all funding for parties coming from taxes (on the rich).
Agreed, it doesn't mean there isn't democracy in the UK, just not quite the democracy that is needed for a fair society is all.
-
Interesting how some think we have a democratic system here in the UK. There's should be zero donations, all funding for parties coming from taxes (on the rich).
Agreed, it doesn't mean there isn't democracy in the UK, just not quite the democracy that is needed for a fair society is all.
I'm not sure how a society with a large majority of the press that supports the elite and rich, and allows an unfair funding of the pro elitist party - ie information and money is pushing one agenda- can be called democratic. For sure, within that there is a system there that allows for some opposition especially if that elitist side goes too far, but as we have seen over and over, this is limited, the balance of power always returns to the elite and even the opposition become supportive of the elite.
What our system does very effectively is give the illusion that there is power in the ballot box, that everyday people have power. Keep the masses drugged up on that and all manner of other society instruments from celebs to sertraline, from footy to fashion. It's democracy only from the point of the ballot box, not at any stage prior to that. So sad when it doesn't go all the way.
So many are caught in this belief that is less real than a belief in the magic man in the sky. It's a religious mania we try to spread to the world. And so easy to see past it, but why don't people do that?
-
BRR, I accept pretty much all of that except:
''What our system does very effectively is give the illusion that there is power in the ballot box''
One would have had to be living under a rock not to understand the sycophant and coward that johnson is and for the dimmies moaning that ppl didn't accept the vote in 2016 or 2019 should understand we are here in this position as a direct result of the ballot box choice many made, too many. They need to own every bit of it and grow some.
-
BRR, I accept pretty much all of that except:
''What our system does very effectively is give the illusion that there is power in the ballot box''
One would have had to be living under a rock not to understand the sycophant and coward that johnson is and for the dimmies moaning that ppl didn't accept the vote in 2016 or 2019 should understand we are here in this position as a direct result of the ballot box choice many made, too many. They need to own every bit of it and grow some.
Agreed, the ballot box does have an effect, though my meaning was more that ultimately it does nothing to change the power the elite have. The myth of it only serves to keep things as they are, indeed allow things to get worse - ie inequality rises over time. The mugs suck it up, think that they have real choice there.
Hopefully I took your reply right! :lol:
-
BRR, I accept pretty much all of that except:
''What our system does very effectively is give the illusion that there is power in the ballot box''
One would have had to be living under a rock not to understand the sycophant and coward that johnson is and for the dimmies moaning that ppl didn't accept the vote in 2016 or 2019 should understand we are here in this position as a direct result of the ballot box choice many made, too many. They need to own every bit of it and grow some.
Dimmies? There you go again, resorting to insults, as a replacement for intelligent, articulate conversation.
Your argument against the ballot box, that too many people make the wrong choices, is probably the most anti-democratic thing I've ever heard.
-
Any debate, any democratic party, and voting plan that does not take into account the level of knowledge, intelligence and sophisticatioon of the electorate is not going to get very far at all.... We can see the evidence of that right here in this topic and on this forum!
BobG
-
Any debate, any democratic party, and voting plan that does not take into account the level of knowledge, intelligence and sophisticatioon of the electorate is not going to get very far at all.... We can see the evidence of that right here in this topic and on this forum!
BobG
Would you care to elaborate further on that, Bob?
-
Not really Steve. I've said what I wnated to say. The point I make is quite clear
Cheers
BobG
-
Any debate, any democratic party, and voting plan that does not take into account the level of knowledge, intelligence and sophisticatioon of the electorate is not going to get very far at all.... We can see the evidence of that right here in this topic and on this forum!
BobG
But if we all shared the same level of knowledge, intelligence and sophistication as you Bob, we'd have a Labour party in charge.
That's the problem.
-
It is becoming more prevalent on this forum for Labour supporters to insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn’t also vote Labour.
Only today I have seen non Labour supporters being described as dimmies and fools by SydneyRover.
I have seen a post by bst in which he says he would be happy for Labour to go into a GE with right wing policies then if they were to win, change back to left wing ones.
And yet he criticises Johnson for lying but is prepared to accept the Labour Party conning their supporters.
What was he saying the other day about not being a hypocrite ?
-
Hound, BB. There are more political and philosophical luminaries than you can shake a stick at that support my contention that the level of sophistication of an electorate is crucially important. Right back as far as Plato. He wrote that democracy is dangerous as its typical citizen is shiftless and flighty:
"Sometimes he drinks heavily while listening to the flute; at other times, he drinks only water and is on a diet; sometimes he goes in for physical training; at other times, he’s idle and neglects everything; and sometimes he even occupies himself with what he takes to be philosophy".
It would be much safer, Plato thought, to entrust power to carefully educated guardians. Exemplar No. 1 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....
At the opposite end, Karl Marx made huge play with the level of sophistication, of the intelligence, or lack of, of electorates. Exemplar No. 2 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....
John Stuart Mill in the nineteenth century proposed giving extra votes to citizens with university degrees or intellectually demanding jobs because those with neither did not have the intelligence or experience to contribute sensibly. Mill worried that others would lack knowledge and judgment hence he wanted to give more votes to those better qualified. Exemplar No. 3 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....
In the United States, élites who feared the ignorance of poor immigrants tried to restrict ballots. In 1855, Connecticut introduced the first literacy test for American voters. New York in 1921 introduced a law requiring new voters to take a test if they couldn’t prove that they had an eighth-grade education. Exemplar No. 4 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....
And, of course, your God, Adam Smith, had a few words to say too.
Here's an idea. If we value the power to make good decisions, why not try a system that’s a little less fair but makes good decisions more often? It's called “epistocracy,” and it means “government by the knowledgeable.” Funny how you went all egalitarian, like all good Socialists, when I made an elitist suggestion! Exemplar No. 5 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....
Get off your righteous hobby horses. Think for once.
This debate has proved my contention beyond any shadow of doubt.
Cheers
BobG
-
There's a bad joke in there somewhere Bob
-
Hound, BB. There are more political and philosophical luminaries than you can shake a stick at that support my contention that the level of sophistication of an electorate is crucially important. Right back as far as Plato. He wrote that democracy is dangerous as its typical citizen is shiftless and flighty:
"Sometimes he drinks heavily while listening to the flute; at other times, he drinks only water and is on a diet; sometimes he goes in for physical training; at other times, he’s idle and neglects everything; and sometimes he even occupies himself with what he takes to be philosophy".
It would be much safer, Plato thought, to entrust power to carefully educated guardians. Exemplar No. 1 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....
At the opposite end, Karl Marx made huge play with the level of sophistication, of the intelligence, or lack of, of electorates. Exemplar No. 2 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....
John Stuart Mill in the nineteenth century proposed giving extra votes to citizens with university degrees or intellectually demanding jobs because those with neither did not have the intelligence or experience to contribute sensibly. Mill worried that others would lack knowledge and judgment hence he wanted to give more votes to those better qualified. Exemplar No. 3 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....
In the United States, élites who feared the ignorance of poor immigrants tried to restrict ballots. In 1855, Connecticut introduced the first literacy test for American voters. New York in 1921 introduced a law requiring new voters to take a test if they couldn’t prove that they had an eighth-grade education. Exemplar No. 4 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....
And, of course, your God, Adam Smith, had a few words to say too.
Here's an idea. If we value the power to make good decisions, why not try a system that’s a little less fair but makes good decisions more often? It's called “epistocracy,” and it means “government by the knowledgeable.” Funny how you went all egalitarian, like all good Socialists, when I made an elitist suggestion! Exemplar No. 5 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....
Get off your righteous hobby horses. Think for once.
This debate has proved my contention beyond any shadow of doubt.
Cheers
BobG
Churchill said similar. Thatcher also commented on the idea of Business people having two votes. Is that what you want? Is that your idea of democracy? Do you actually WANT democracy?
-
Hound, BB. There are more political and philosophical luminaries than you can shake a stick at that support my contention that the level of sophistication of an electorate is crucially important. Right back as far as Plato. He wrote that democracy is dangerous as its typical citizen is shiftless and flighty:
"Sometimes he drinks heavily while listening to the flute; at other times, he drinks only water and is on a diet; sometimes he goes in for physical training; at other times, he’s idle and neglects everything; and sometimes he even occupies himself with what he takes to be philosophy".
It would be much safer, Plato thought, to entrust power to carefully educated guardians. Exemplar No. 1 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....
At the opposite end, Karl Marx made huge play with the level of sophistication, of the intelligence, or lack of, of electorates. Exemplar No. 2 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....
John Stuart Mill in the nineteenth century proposed giving extra votes to citizens with university degrees or intellectually demanding jobs because those with neither did not have the intelligence or experience to contribute sensibly. Mill worried that others would lack knowledge and judgment hence he wanted to give more votes to those better qualified. Exemplar No. 3 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....
In the United States, élites who feared the ignorance of poor immigrants tried to restrict ballots. In 1855, Connecticut introduced the first literacy test for American voters. New York in 1921 introduced a law requiring new voters to take a test if they couldn’t prove that they had an eighth-grade education. Exemplar No. 4 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....
And, of course, your God, Adam Smith, had a few words to say too.
Here's an idea. If we value the power to make good decisions, why not try a system that’s a little less fair but makes good decisions more often? It's called “epistocracy,” and it means “government by the knowledgeable.” Funny how you went all egalitarian, like all good Socialists, when I made an elitist suggestion! Exemplar No. 5 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....
Get off your righteous hobby horses. Think for once.
This debate has proved my contention beyond any shadow of doubt.
Cheers
BobG
I was reading your post until you mentioned Adam Smith and referred to him as my god.
First and foremost those words were very condescending and secondly, I had never heard of him and had to look him up.
After the “your god” comment I stopped reading your post.
-
That's what type of response you get from someone who believes in their own superiority, Hound. Someone who is actually convinced that their level of knowledge, intelligence and sophistication is greater than those who don't share their views.
I reckon you could add "deluded" at the end of their self-appraisal.
-
Bob thinks the French Revolution was all about the wrong flavour of cake!!
Power and delusion, a very un Labour/Socialist trait they would have you believe.
In a few short paragraphs Bob has just explained exactly why the electorate of this country would rather trust an awful Tory party then a Labour government ever again.
-
another spoof?
-
‘Think for once’
Condescending Kitson.
-
I want people with intelligence, experience and compassion.
Cheers
BobG
-
Oh look! The foul mouthed illiterate Belton is back!!
How are you?? I suppose a discussion about J S Mill and Plato is way outside youir competance so we can expect nothing better from you. Try getting an education.
BobG
-
Oh look! The foul mouthed illiterate Belton is back!!
How are you?? I suppose a discussion about J S Mill and Plato is way outside youir competance so we can expect nothing better from you. Try getting an education.
BobG
So you think that because you are, in my opinion, a Kitson, I am uneducated and illiterate?
However, you described me as a village idiot before that.
Do you actually know what illiterate means?
-
Any debate, any democratic party, and voting plan that does not take into account the level of knowledge, intelligence and sophisticatioon of the electorate is not going to get very far at all.... We can see the evidence of that right here in this topic and on this forum!
BobG
So, let's get this right. If Tory voters were more knowledgeable, intelligent and sophisticated they'd vote Labour?
Now, in my experience, I wouldn't say that all Labour supporters I know are unknowledgeable, unintelligent and unsophisticated people, but I would say that all unknowledgeable, unintelligent and unsophisticated people I know are Labour supporters.
What makes you think that if unknowledgeable, unintelligent and unsophisticated Labour voters became knowledgeable, intelligent and sophisticated they wouldn't become Tory voters?
-
It has to be universal suffrage.
Each individual has their own experience of life. Each should have an understanding of what is best for them, like no other individual could.
The problem with the notion that the knowledgeable know best, is it assumes they will want what's best for society as a whole.
They may not.
They may well just use their power to selfishly improve their own circumstances further.
I think there is enough evidence in our own flawed system to assume that would be true.
-
There are plenty of knowledgeable and wealthy people, with power, who do much good with their money.
Our very own Terry Bramall for a starter.
-
There are plenty of knowledgeable and wealthy people, with power, who do much good with their money.
Our very own Terry Bramall for a starter.
There are indeed. But there are some I would not trust as far as I could throw 'em.
-
And there are plenty of wealthy powerful people, who really aren't very knowledgeable. Donald Trump for instance.
Conversely there are very smart people who live frugal lifestyles. The head Buddhist monk for instance.
It's all too fraught with difficulty trying to identify the great and the good who know best.
-
BRR, I accept pretty much all of that except:
''What our system does very effectively is give the illusion that there is power in the ballot box''
One would have had to be living under a rock not to understand the sycophant and coward that johnson is and for the dimmies moaning that ppl didn't accept the vote in 2016 or 2019 should understand we are here in this position as a direct result of the ballot box choice many made, too many. They need to own every bit of it and grow some.
Dimmies? There you go again, resorting to insults, as a replacement forr intelligent, articulate conversation.
Your argument against the ballot box, that too many people make the wrong choices, is probably the most anti-democratic thing I've ever heard.
Can you explain your take on how having a media that is overwhelmingly pro establish, pro increasing the money in the pockets where it is, and a system that allows vast sums of political funding, ie bribes, from self interested individuals is pro democracy?
These are factors that skew public opinion, especially the masses, as is only too evident. These are things that can be changed, but they're not, why?
-
There are plenty of knowledgeable and wealthy people, with power, who do much good with their money.
Our very own Terry Bramall for a starter.
Terry isn't a bad example. I know when he was in business he developed a piece of land next to Sprotbrough vicerage.
I know the old rector wanted an attractive mews with smaller more affordable homes for families.
Terry put up larger detached homes because it was more profitable for him.
So who was making the best decision there? Who should have been the bloke getting additional votes?
Thatcher would say Terry. I guess Bob would say the rector.
(I prefred the mews idea but I don't think they would have remained affordable in such a desirable location)
-
It has to be universal suffrage.
Each individual has their own experience of life. Each should have an understanding of what is best for them, like no other individual could.
The problem with the notion that the knowledgeable know best, is it assumes they will want what's best for society as a whole.
They may not.
They may well just use their power to selfishly improve their own circumstances further.
I think there is enough evidence in our own flawed system to assume that would be true.
This is very true, why a supposedly "intelligent and sophisticated man" could not see this for himself tells you all you need to know about him and how a cohort of like minded people think and would like to treat the general populous.
Never heard such nonsense from true Labour supporters, but then again they didn't consider themselves high handed or pompous, above and beyond what passes as decent behavior.
Can you imagine taking his musings to their logical conclusions, there would be more than just Emily Pankhurst turning in their grave, unbelievable, even for this forum.
-
Really when people say clever people should rule the world, what they mean is people who think like me should rule the world.
It doesn't work
Flawed as it is, it's difficult to beat one man/woman one vote.
-
Out of interest - does anyone know Ken Richardson’s political views?
-
Here's an idea. If we value the power to make good decisions, why not try a system that’s a little less fair but makes good decisions more often? It's called “epistocracy,” and it means “government by the knowledgeable.” Funny how you went all egalitarian, like all good Socialists, when I made an elitist suggestion! Exemplar No. 5 of the level of sophistication being thought to be massively important....
Get off your righteous hobby horses. Think for once.
This debate has proved my contention beyond any shadow of doubt.
Cheers
BobG
Bob
In 1850 the UK was the richest country in the world, thanks to the industrial revolution which started several decades earlier, and yet the majority of the population lived in what we'd now consider abject poverty. A high proportion of people in today's Western democracies back then still worked in agriculture and were not much better off than their ancestors had been 500 years earlier.
Then we embraced democracy and an economic miracle ensued. Today, only a few generations later, people in the West are infinitesimally better off than our forebears 100-sum years ago.
Yes improvements in science and technology have helped this process but democracy is the key to our vastly improved prosperity and happiness.
Today the majority of non-democratic countries (in spite of modern technology) are exceptionally poor compared to the West with many people still not much better of than their ancestors 500 years ago.
Before democracy we were ruled by an elite whose "sophistication" far out stripped that of the majority of the population as they had access to education and books the rest of us didn't. Yet little progress was made in the general human condition until the "unsophisticated" majority got the right to vote.
It is telling that the eminent men you quote all pre deceased the economic miracle democracy has wrought. If they had today's information on the benefits of democracy they would I'm sure change their opinion - if not they are hardly worthy of the intellectual eminence in which they are held.
I'm not saying democracy is perfect and by it's very definition the outcomes it prescribes will lead to a sense of frustration and annoyance with those whose opinions conflict with the majority.
However we owe our priveleged, wealthier and happier lives to democracy - the sweetest, fairest, most successful political concept ever devised.
-
Not at all saying I agree with their system, but THE biggest mass transition from rural abject poverty, to urban, reasonable standard of living has occurred in a profoundly undemocratic country.
China has overseen the lifting out of poverty of around half a billion people in the past 30 years.
Democracy is far from the only way to see a transition out of poverty.
-
Not at all saying I agree with their system, but THE biggest mass transition from rural abject poverty, to urban, reasonable standard of living has occurred in a profoundly undemocratic country.
China has overseen the lifting out of poverty of around half a billion people in the past 30 years.
Democracy is far from the only way to see a transition out of poverty.
BST, true but look at the price they pay every day for this transition, i know i could not live in a society like that. I'm sure most in China don't see it this way but we are aware that millions of rural peasants had been removed from their localities to allow urbanisation to take effect, some will of benefited from this, i bet a great many of the older ones didn't.
-
DD
You couldn't live in a society like that because you live in one where the heavy lifting of dragging people out of utter abject poverty was done many years ago.
You're setting a false question. The question isn't whether some comfortable Westerner whose great-great-grandparents lived in abject poverty approves of the Chinese model. It's whether a peasant farmer who moved from a dirt poor village in the sticks and now works in a factory in Tianjin, lives in a small, basic but serviceable apartment and has kids at state school with the possibility of going to University approves of it.
-
Not at all saying I agree with their system, but THE biggest mass transition from rural abject poverty, to urban, reasonable standard of living has occurred in a profoundly undemocratic country.
China has overseen the lifting out of poverty of around half a billion people in the past 30 years.
Democracy is far from the only way to see a transition out of poverty.
Billy this is fundamentally incorrect. The lifting of half a billion people in China out of poverty is purely off the back of democracy (just not Chinese democracy sadly).
The US under Clinton sponsored China joining the WTO in the early 90s and Western companies flooded into China to take advantage of cheap labour rates from a seemingly ceaseless supply of Chinese workers.
China has become richer (not rich per capita) off the back of the spending power of people in established, rich Western democracies over 30 years.
This would simply not have been achieved if the Chinese under Communist rule had continued it's isolationism or democracy hadn't taken hold in the West leading to the establishment of said rich Western democracies.
Democracy is either the route to, or the root cause of, all the significant economic expansion throughout history which has been to the benefit of ordinary folk.
-
DD
You couldn't live in a society like that because you live in one where the heavy lifting of dragging people out of utter abject poverty was done many years ago.
You're setting a false question. The question isn't whether some comfortable Westerner whose great-great-grandparents lived in abject poverty approves of the Chinese model. It's whether a peasant farmer who moved from a dirt poor village in the sticks and now works in a factory in Tianjin, lives in a small, basic but serviceable apartment and has kids at state school with the possibility of going to University approves of it.
Hm'm, great grandad was, how should we put it, "self employed working in the community" in Ercolano, Naples so i'm assuming he worked in the "family business" with his dad.
-
It has to be universal suffrage.
Each individual has their own experience of life. Each should have an understanding of what is best for them, like no other individual could.
The problem with the notion that the knowledgeable know best, is it assumes they will want what's best for society as a whole.
They may not.
They may well just use their power to selfishly improve their own circumstances further.
I think there is enough evidence in our own flawed system to assume that would be true.
This is very true, why a supposedly "intelligent and sophisticated man" could not see this for himself tells you all you need to know about him and how a cohort of like minded people think and would like to treat the general populous.
Never heard such nonsense from true Labour supporters, but then again they didn't consider themselves high handed or pompous, above and beyond what passes as decent behavior.
Can you imagine taking his musings to their logical conclusions, there would be more than just Emily Pankhurst turning in their grave, unbelievable, even for this forum.
With your comments about women maybe you need a spell an a re-education camp, you evoking what Emily Pankhurst would think ffs
-
It has to be universal suffrage.
Each individual has their own experience of life. Each should have an understanding of what is best for them, like no other individual could.
The problem with the notion that the knowledgeable know best, is it assumes they will want what's best for society as a whole.
They may not.
They may well just use their power to selfishly improve their own circumstances further.
I think there is enough evidence in our own flawed system to assume that would be true.
This is very true, why a supposedly "intelligent and sophisticated man" could not see this for himself tells you all you need to know about him and how a cohort of like minded people think and would like to treat the general populous.
Never heard such nonsense from true Labour supporters, but then again they didn't consider themselves high handed or pompous, above and beyond what passes as decent behavior.
Can you imagine taking his musings to their logical conclusions, there would be more than just Emily Pankhurst turning in their grave, unbelievable, even for this forum.
With your comments about women maybe you need a spell an a re-education camp, you evoking what Emily Pankhurst would think ffs
It’s noticeable how even you, someone who could talk bulls*it to cows all day could not even defend your pals comments, instead you come back with some facile crap about women!
Weak, even for you, come back when you have something worth saying.
-
Maybe you should sprinkle breadcrumbs to remember where you've been dd, you talk that talk but don't do the walk. You can't just draw on any convenient prop to support your argument if you don't believe it, because as you have shown you've already forgotten what you previously said.
-
Obviously didn't have anything of substance to say, like backing up some pretty extreme and fascist beliefs from your likeminded pal.
Its apparent that you can't interact unless its on your own terms and if you do you come back with childish bubble, expected from a political extremist,
I can't be bothered with you.
-
Obviously didn't have anything of substance to say, like backing up some pretty extreme and fascist beliefs from your likeminded pal.
Its apparent that you can't interact unless its on your own terms and if you do you come back with childish bubble, expected from a political extremist,
I can't be bothered with you.
...... from: danumdon on May 12, 2022, 02:49:44 pm Quote from: ............ for someone to "bump"into her. Just not sure about her, sitting there in the commons with her grans ............ undies on her face, she just has something about he i can't quite put my finger on it, is she ............ . There's defiantly "something of the the night" about her! this recurring problem you have with ............ , is it something you wish to talk about, does it make you angry, a psychologist ......
this is one of your recent post and you want to invoke Pankhurst to support your argument ......... you're a funny guy