Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.9K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 51 General Chatter
- 9 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 560 Fun & Games
- 176 BA Predictor Threads
- 6 Fantasy Football
- 52 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 360 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 143 Current West Ham
- 214 Men's First Team
- 4 Women's Team
- 13 PL2 & Academy
- 36 Management & Board
- 16 Stadium & Training Ground
- 32 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 468 Match Threads
- 138 MOTM
- 12 West Ham Nostalgia
- 37 Former Players and Staff
- 5 Past Games & Glories
- 43 Transfers
- 51 Transfer Speculation
- 88 Completed Transfers
- 59 Internationals
- 52 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 141 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 289 Other Teams & Matches
- 27 Other Players & Staff
Comments
Germany had universal health care and a welfare state under Bismark (not much of a socialist by all accounts) in the 1880s, we had to wait until 1948.
Our output may have done well but as far as employment goes it has been drastically reduced.
Cameron believed the referendum would never actually happen because he thought the result would be a hung parliament and the Lib Dems would veto it.
Where Anarchists differed from more moderate socialists is in the concept of power and governance. Within the socialist movement at that time there were the social democrats who believed that by becoming elected into existing government they could change the system from within. The Anarchists were opposed to this direction, they concluded (and history has justified this opinion) that socialists once in government or opposition would water down their aims and aspirations. They would be likely to appease big business and finance and become part of the establishment. See Blairs New Labour for confirmation.
The second strain of socialism advocated a revolutionary overthrow of the current order. Anarchists were fine (for the most part) with this. What the Anarchists objected to was what came next, I.E. the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Anarchists predicted that one tyranny would be replaced by another. Again, history in the form of Russia, China etc etc has more than justified this position. The Anarchists fought with and supported the Bolsheviks, once the Bolsheviks seized power the Anarchists and all opposition was crushed. You cannot impose socialism.
I agree, socialists got stuff done, but it was the Anarchists that were in the vanguard.
Germany were in a better position to weather the financial crisis, not because of rules and regulations, but because of their manufacturing base. Germany relies on manufacturing for its success, Britain relies on financial services. It is no surprise that in any financial crash, a country that relies predominantly on the financial sector suffers more than one that has a large manufacturing base. That is why I would like us to rely less on financial services and "make more stuff".
And where did Aaron Banks get all that money from?
https://www.zdf.de/politik/frontal-21/drahtzieher-des-brexits-english-version-100.html
A number of so-called independent groups presenting themselves as grassroots campaigns run by 'ordinary' members of the public and pressuring MPs to reject the deal are, in truth a co-ordinated group run by staff from a lobbying company, and have spent over £1m getting people to put pressure on their MPs to vote for no deal.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/03/grassroots-facebook-brexit-ads-secretly-run-by-staff-of-lynton-crosby-firm
And if you had received such a targeted ad, and clicked the link, you would then have received a raft of more specific ads, many containing outright lies.
As one of the guys in the video points out, it is profoundly undemocratic to have campaigns that are 'dark', with information that is not freely published, and therefore can be challenged. And that's without pointing out that they were illegally financed.
https://www.zdf.de/politik/frontal-21/drahtzieher-des-brexits-english-version-100.html
That is truly shocking, but how many people that voted leave would be concerned about the dirty tricks.
How many on here would admit to being swayed to vote leave?
I don't think the issue is even whether or not the tricks worked: it's the fact that they were carried out.
What I find most disturbing is that this blatant disregard for the democratic process has not become a story, outside of the usual media.
We have a group that have deliberately and cynically subverted the democratic process in the UK, and instead of screaming from the housetops, all you see is a 'out means out' or 'they all lied' response.
As Farage is seen saying at the end: 'middle England doesn't care' - and I fear he is right.
Would that be seen as a subversion of democracy? Would people claim that it was thwarting the will of the people?
As I said, for me it is irrelevant as to whether the tactics were successful. They were illegal under electoral law, and the fact that that doesn't trigger an automatic re-run seems scandalous to me, for a decision of such magnitude, when it would be triggered for something comparatively trivial like an MP's seat.
Cuz
'Leave means leave' is the easy bit.
It's the what happens after that is proving tricky.
1. go away from
2. allow or cause to remain
There wasn't any entry meaning "leave". :biggrin:
Definition 2. is interesting though. :whistle:
https://www.ft.com/content/c3cc086e-b031-11e8-87e0-d84e0d934341
The pragmatism (water down their aims and aspirations) of the "social democrats" working with and then later replacing the Liberals gave us pensions, unemployment and disability benefits, council housing, the NHS. things which benefitted millions.
Anarchists might have been "in the vanguard" but they failed to achieve anything substantial because they wouldn't (or couldn't) compromise their ideals.
BTW I think it hysterical that Rees-Mogg described Corbyn as "a known Marxist". Maybe he thinks a Marxist is someone who would only ever have one footman.
NOUN
A general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision.