Rayvin

You mean because it's politically convenient for your side? No. Let's wait until they're blocking something left wing and then abolish it.

Yep, quite possibly true. Still though, Labour can't be allowed to go back to the centre without reform first.

All that's going to happen is that Labour will do less well than whatever anyone thought they should, and we'll descend into distraction from Tory incompetence once again.

It's a local election, just vote for whoever is likely to do the best job.

I can see them lacking the competence to avoid such a thing, yes.

Has to be a wind up. Has to be.

Are you still confident it'll be "brino"..?

So it's good news then.

Renton isn't a socialist man Why does the right think that anyone left of Thatcher is a socialist? As far as I know, no one on here is a socialist. Not even me Also, wait, are you claiming that Neoliberalism hasn't been royally fucked in the past few years? With idk, Brexit for instance? Neoliberalism being the ideology of Thatcher.

Is that good news or bad news? I get that it's been thwarted by the psychos, but have they made it a more even run between sanity and lunacy now?

Why would you get banned for this? I recall us having banned some heavily pro-Thatcher guy some years back but it was all he talked about and came up across the forum, so that the whole general chat section was arguing with him. He got about 200 posts in 48 hours.

Venezuela The strawman resorted to by the internet right wing 'thinkers' who can't actually challenge Labour's current policy direction with anything of substance.

I would like Alex's response to CT a thousand times if I could. I didn't have it in me to reference Scandinavia for the nth time.

...

The IQ bit? I guess maybe.

They do have a Boris Johnson though. An openly racist foreign secretary with an IQ of about 10.

And yet we are entering into an age where automation and robotics will make job creation for the individual even more difficult. Surely in the end, we need some kind of universal income or we will simply have to start a cull. I was also under the impression that claiming benefits was such a degrading and inhumane process now that very few who are capable of getting a job would actually want to go through with it.

How about thinking of society this way - by giving poor people welfare, you are in effect paying them not to kill you and take everything you own by force. So I could argue that the rich are being allowed to keep the manmade concept of wealth under a system they do very well within, on the proviso that they give those at the bottom enough to justify their continued apathy to the concept of change. So they're being 'handed' stability in which to make money and enjoy their lives, by paying out welfare. The lower the welfare payment, the lower the stability.

What if reducing tax for businesses comes at the cost of reducing spending on welfare? There's an argument that reducing tax on business allows for more job creation, but at the same time surely you would accept that a lot of this will also just be pocketed by those who are already extremely wealthy. Why do they deserve to be given handouts and not those at the bottom?

Essembee, as a total aside - any chance you could get an avatar? I'm curious as to what you would choose. Tempted to suggest that the forum could post suggestions, but I don't know if there are enough creative people on here for that

Well aye, he might well be in that camp but I really don't care about the personal beliefs of politicians as long as they're not openly hostile to any particular section of society. I'm far more interested in their openly hostile policy positions. Even as an atheist I won't attack a politician for their religious positions unless they're actually making a concerted attempt to justify policy with them.

I mostly posted for my own catharsis.

At the risk of defending someone whose politics are a long way from my own, my view on Mogg concerning his faith is that he has actually made it clear that religion is personal and politics should be kept free from it. I watched the interview on Piers Morgan's latest vehicle for self-fellating (whatever it's called) with him and I respect that he at least just said what he thinks; and also that he made clear that Parliament makes the laws of the country and that any government under his leadership would not be influenced by personal religious philosophies. I don't really have an issue with him on that basis if this is the sum total of the 'muddle' you refer to. My problem is more the policies he stands for.

I don't care if he did or not, he voted for Cameron and that's where this latest waterfall of ever-cascading shit came from. The Tories record for the past 10 years has been one of barely managed decline.

Nah you woulda been fine with Miliband in charge too tbh. Corbyn has energised a lot of non-voters in a way that Miliband wouldn't have, so while yeah, you would have retained the Rentons and ewerks of the world under Miliband (although I believe both still voted Labour last time out), you woulda lost the youth. The Tories are in control of this right up until Brexit collapses IMO - where they go from there is anyone's guess frankly. I'm not sure who is supposedly waiting in the wings to revitalise them. Mogg maybe although you would think his appeal is limited.