Voters

[Droppersneck]

Yeah I couldnt care less about social issues though I am generally pretty liberal. I am guessing there are not too many people that follow the Austrian economic ideals that many subscribe to here.

 

[Waterfall]

Yeah I couldnt care less about social issues though I am generally pretty liberal. I am guessing there are not too many people that follow the Austrian economic ideals that many subscribe to here.

You are probably spot-on in your analysis. Neo-liberalism does not have a great following amongst the British population, yet they continue to vote for the tories and, increasingly, UKIP, which in my humble opinion is down to manipulation by the media and the obfuscation of the issues which really matter in favour of xenophobia and racism. Gramsci's writings on cultural hegemony have never had more relevance.

 

[Vurtual]

The economic ideas behind neoliberalism don't even work in practice, but they're very lucrative for a powerful group of people. There are no examples to show neoliberal or structural adjustment policies actually having the positive economic effect they're meant to (they do have positive effects for the capitalists who take advantage of the results, shock doctrine style, but this is yet to trickle down). The best example usually given is britain under thatcher, but that would have been a very different story without north sea oil - plus maggie didn't have the political power to go as far as her masters would have liked, like privatising the NHS - the remaining public sector even she couldn't dismantle probably did more than anything to keep our economy going through the busts her policies brought about.

Pinochet's chile was the first full go at neoliberalism (the first 9/11), and the chicago school's first proof of concept - do we really want that sort of system (stadium executions for unionists and all). Maggie's cosying up to pinochet in later years shows that he was still a 'good sort' even after all that killing (he doesn't half look like prince charles/phillip - i wonder if that's a coincidence). Neoliberalism is imo a con-trick inflicted on us to stave of the evil (in the elite's eyes) of keynesianism (and specifically his prediction that we'd all be working 2 days a week by the year 2000 due to automation and our biggest problem would be finding stuff to do with all our lesiure time)

 

[felix]

why will it never happen that everyone spoils their papers?

Because *I* for one will never do so. So with that data sample of one person, there's your answer.

(And less pedantically, neither will millions of other people.)

I see UKIP gaining many votes and some mps this time round.

*facepalm*

And do you think that spoiling your ballot paper will do much to stem the tide of UKIP's support? Or perhaps, is it possible that it would end up helping them?

 

[ColtDan]

I hope those convictions are water tight?? Fuckin el Dan....

What? If the convictions are watertight then why not test stuff on paedophiles instead of making innocent defenseless animals suffer. humanity and its bullshit moral highground

 

[Vurtual]

The bbc have promoting ukip vigorously since well before the supposed poll surge that they now use to justify shoving them on the telly more than the greens. If the greens had been given the amount of coverage that ukip have had in the last 3 years or so, their polling may well be similar by now. When the media can close down certain policies as verboten (like anti-austerity ideas) there's not a lot you can do with a single vote (you can try and spread ideas among the real people you meet, but you'll be fighting against an entire propaganda system).

Look at scotland - if the entire media establishment hadn't panicked and descended on scotland en masse ('bow down to your imperial masters!'), and if the better together were stopped from breaking the election rules to introduce the Vow after people had done postal voting, the democratic will of the people might have looked different - how can that be democracy? When the free press means 'you're free to own a newspaper and use it to promote politics that suit people who can afford to own newspapers', there is no free press - without a free press our system is not democracy.

The media has a direct effect on politics, to a large extent determining the results, or at least the limits of the debate (like no anti-austerity people in the leaders' debates). We're fighting against a tide, and the game is rigged - we need a new game or we'll never win. I'd probably vote to stop a ukip if there was one likely to win in my constituency, but that sort of negative voting is not democracy either.

Edit: dan - the thing about human rights is that they have to apply to all humans. Hitler tried the other way (which is why we got human rights in the first place). Once you accept that some people aren't human, what's to stop someone getting power and deciding the group you or i belong to aren't human? (eg druggies)

 

[felix]

What? If the convictions are watertight then why not test stuff on paedophiles instead of making other animals suffer. humanity and its bullshit moral highground

I dunno if it's made your local paper yet, but I believe they stopped drowning witches down there recently. Officially, anyway. :D

 

[BigG]

Edit: dan - the thing about human rights is that they have to apply to all humans. Hitler tried the other way (which is why we got human rights in the first place). Once you accept that some people aren't human, what's to stop someone getting power and deciding the group you or i belong to aren't human? (eg druggies)

I would argue that some people forgo their human rights due to their actions i.e. those who rape and kill children. The leap from that to a scenario like Hitlers Germany or one where "druggies" (hate that word) could be also killed is a large one. Especially if it's taking place in a western democracy.

Yes the Nazis did start out with euthanasia of mentally ill and disabled children before graduating to killing Jews wholesale but then again we're not living in Nazi Germany either.

One of the things that puts me off some of the extreme left wing policies of some is the idea that everyone regardless of their actions should be treated equally as oppose to fairly. As I said some people forgo their rights to equal treatment due to their unspeakable actions.

Anyway people can argue politics from behind a computer screen all day long but I've seen abused children first hand and treated them and the people who do such things to a child deserve no mercy. Yes if they happened to injure themselves I would still treat them in the same way as I would treat everyone else but once they enter the judicial system they should be treated as harshly as the law allows if not far harsher (I wouldn't actually go as far as doing medical experiments on them - I think Dan may have been saying that slightly tongue in cheek) but the death penalty for those who do unspeakable things to children...........yes

 

[ScotchMist]

I do understand where you're coming from, I used to have a similar opinion once upon a time. I changed it though.

I have children myself and the thought of someone harming them churns my stomach, if you put a gun in my hand and handed me the person responsible I'd find it hard not to lash out, for sure.. Where has lashing out and being full of hate got the world though??

I'd sooner live in a world with less hate and the occasional sex offender tbh. Put them in jail, yes, kill them, no.. That's a savage way of carrying on. Imo

PM coming Englandz

 

[5StarSquatHotel]

I have to do tactical voting. Round here its either Lib Dem or Conservatives as no others partys come close so I say Lib Dem over Tory. The local Lib Dem MP round here is sound anyway so I don't mind helping the cause if it will stop the Conservatives getting another seat. Its all smoke and mirrors anyway but you have to try or you have no right to complain imo.

 

[BigG]

PM coming Englandz

I'm in trouble now! lol!

Nah seriously I get your point and all but you know if you've ever been called out to see the aftermath of a child who's been raped or beaten it just breaks your heart. Also I used to work in Safeguarding for the Ambulance service as well and would get to read all the safeguarding referrals that crews had made when they had been called out to such things and while obviously I can't go into detail, some were just terrible. Of course we all have different opinions on such things but when you've actually seen them close up it seems different. It's not just an abstract concept anymore it's a bleeding child in front of you and it seems to put things into perspective (for me anyway). I still think that for child abusers then they deserve everything they get....and also newsagents who when they have the same packet of cigarettes on the shelf one with a label on stating a cheaper price and one without that's full price....and they give you the full price one instead...hung drawn and quartered for that definitely.

 

[LosBlancos]

 

[felix]

How utterly predictable of you.

 

[Vurtual]

I would argue that some people forgo their human rights due to their actions i.e. those who rape and kill children. The leap from that to a scenario like Hitlers Germany or one where "druggies" (hate that word) could be also killed is a large one. Especially if it's taking place in a western democracy.

Yes the Nazis did start out with euthanasia of mentally ill and disabled children before graduating to killing Jews wholesale but then again we're not living in Nazi Germany either....

To me if someone can forgo their human rights, they're not human rights - they're supposed to be universal. That's not to say there shouldn't be a justice system; but our current justice system should treat all people equally under the law - justice is supposed to be blind - this means that the understandable feelings of revenge that people who are affected by these things should not influence the process of law, or else it becomes revenge and not justice.

I happen to think that it's not all that big a leap from classing some people as less than human (paedos, islamic extremists, (and yes to some of the right wing, hippies and druggies or benefit scroungers) and the politics of hitler - or of sections of our right wing for that matter - our elite were being hitlery long before hitler eg churchill was the first politician to try and bring in a eugenics bill in 1908 (the feeble-minded persons control act - it was defeated but no thanks to winny (he was in the 'liberal' party then) (this was before he went on to drop chemical weapons on the iraqis in the 20s - again, quite hitlery really (then there's his comments about india above)).

I don't want to live in a society that shows no mercy - we should be judged by how we treat the worst among us. If the state kills, it's still murder - two wrongs don't make a right, and it's a bad lesson to give our children (and murderers don't care about death penalties when they're about to kill someone so deterrence doesn't work either).

We are all equal (leftie that i am (i don't think particularly extreme, though our country's move to the right in recent years makes me look that way more and more)) - that doesn't mean people get away with anything - if anything, us being equal under the law should lead to better justice; it might mean that torturing them or making them suffer physically isn't allowed, but i'd rather live in that world than one in which the authorities have the power to inflict pain on whoever happens to be the baddie of the day (it could have been homosexuals instead of paedos if these ideas were used a few decades ago).

 

[LosBlancos]

To me if someone can forgo their human rights, they're not human rights - they're supposed to be universal. That's not to say there shouldn't be a justice system; but our current justice system should treat all people equally under the law - justice is supposed to be blind - this means that the understandable feelings of revenge that people who are affected by these things have should not influence the process of law, or else it becomes revenge and not justice.

People are entitled to their human rights so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

 

[BigG]

I do think all people should be treated equally "under the law"...I just think that the law should be that those who rape or kill children should be put to death. You keep stretching it to include a leap to Islamic Extremists, hippies and druggies but that's not my argument. I'm talking about punishment within the framework of the law. It's like saying you shouldn't have mandatory life terms because they could be then abused and used against "druggies and hippies". I'm not suggesting a vigilante free-for-all either.

I also disagree with the term we are all equal. Yes we are all human beings but those who commit utterly heinous crimes are not (in my opinion) "equal".

I also don't think that death sentences for child murderers is mindless revenge either as you suggest. I think it's a fit punishment. I just can't help feel that if people who hold such left wing political views as yourself were actually to see first hand the trauma both physical and mental caused by a 6 year old being raped or nearly beaten to death that you wouldn't be quite so keen for such liberal treatment of those who inflict these unspeakable injuries. I certainly don't buy that stricter punishment for such people is a one way ticket to Heil Hitler salutes and torchlight Nuremburg rallies either.

While I enjoy debating the subject with you I think neither of us is going to changes the other's beliefs on the matter so I'm going to leave it there.

People are entitled to their human rights so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Exactly

 

[ColtDan]

Fully agreed with what you've said englandgz74, spot on.

 

[BigG]

Fully agreed with what you've said englandgz74, spot on.

At least someone does Dan...I was starting to think I was on my own here!

 

[Vurtual]

englandgz: Fair enough, but it's much too facile for you to just think that people like me hold left wing opinions only because we haven't had certain real experiences that you have had (if only politics was that simple) - i won't try and talk about my experience of such things here on the internet for obvious reasons, but my views come as much from that experience as you say yours do.

I just think death penalties are wrong for the same reason i think murder is wrong.

 

[BigG]

That's fine mate. Like I say I enjoy debating but when two people hold opposite opinions, after a brief exchange of views it just goes round in circles. At least both your good self and I are grown up not to resort to name calling and arguing (as some of our elected politicians do).

I understand you don't want to go into personal experiences on the internet in the same way that I can't go into mine (other than in very general broad terms for NHS confidentiality reasons).

Whatever experiences you say you've been through that make you hold your political views, you have my heartfelt sympathy and condolences that you went through such things and I hope that they do not cause you too much pain and distress.