Next UK Labour Leader - post Brexit

[NotThePars]

I couldn't disagree with this view more strongly. I think the main reason people become disengaged with politics is that politicians do not listen to their concerns. Or if they do listen they don't take the correct action to address those concerns.

The politicians should not be there just to serve their own wee pet projects, while generally ignoring the people who put them there. If the majority of people think it's right, then it's right.

Minority groups shouldn't have to fear the tyranny of the majority and it's troubling that you think they should.

[WaffenThinMint]

1 hour ago, pandarilla said:

It matters not a f**k when what I was actually doing is pointing out that sometimes politics rightly involves going against the majority opinion. The public are not always right.

You've thrown this into a long-winded rant about labour and their relationship with homosexuality.

There's more than a touch of ad lib about this post.
 

It does matter when you are twisting the facts to hyperinflate your faulty premise of damn the swinish multitudes.

And I quote: "Labour introduced some major liberal reforms on homosexuality in the 60s."

They didn't. End of. Get over it.

I could also have pointed out that your other part used to illustrate your premise about scrapping the death penalty being against the majority opinion (again bullshit, after the Derek Bentley, Ruth Ellis and Timothy Evans cases the public tide turned decided in favour of Violet Van der Elst's campaign to scrap the death penalty), but I guessed most knew that anyway.

"The public are not always right."

Neither are politicians. But it is the politicians who are the servants and employees of the public, not the other way around.

[Scary Bear]

Is it actually possible to talk about female politicians without their looks coming into it?

I don't think so. I am drawn to the female form.

[pandarilla]

It does matter when you are twisting the facts to hyperinflate your faulty premise of damn the swinish multitudes.

And I quote: "Labour introduced some major liberal reforms on homosexuality in the 60s."

They didn't. End of. Get over it.

I could also have pointed out that your other part used to illustrate your premise about scrapping the death penalty being against the majority opinion (again bullshit, after the Derek Bentley, Ruth Ellis and Timothy Evans cases the public tide turned decided in favour of Violet Van der Elst's campaign to scrap the death penalty), but I guessed most knew that anyway.

"The public are not always right."

Neither are politicians. But it is the politicians who are the servants and employees of the public, not the other way around.

Have recent polls not suggested the British public would reintroduce the death penalty?

[pandarilla]

I couldn't disagree with this view more strongly. I think the main reason people become disengaged with politics is that politicians do not listen to their concerns. Or if they do listen they don't take the correct action to address those concerns.

The politicians should not be there just to serve their own wee pet projects, while generally ignoring the people who put them there. If the majority of people think it's right, then it's right.

What if their concerns are that black people are getting a bit uppity (as in the deep south in 60s America?).

[Peppino Impastato]

Cherry picking irrelevant examples,  it would only be relevant if all of America thought that.

 

 

For example,  if most people think we should not have nuclear weapons we shouldn't have them, it's the job of politicians to represent the views of the public they serve and who elect them, that's what they're there for.  With your example you touch on the role of a free and professional press in a democracy but I don't have time to gie you a lesson on democratic functions.

 

 

The death penalty is a commonly cited exception to this rule, and ironic given we exist in a partly Christianity based system of laws and Christianitypreaches an aye for an eye, but nobody rreally cares enough to make a big issue out of it.

[pandarilla]

Cherry picking irrelevant examples,  it would only be relevant if all of America thought that.

 

 

For example,  if most people think we should not have nuclear weapons we shouldn't have them, it's the job of politicians to represent the views of the public they serve and who elect them, that's what they're there for.  With your example you touch on the role of a free and professional press in a democracy but I don't have time to gie you a lesson on democratic functions.

 

 

The death penalty is a commonly cited exception to this rule, and ironic given we exist in a partly Christianity based system of laws and Christianitypreaches an aye for an eye, but nobody rreally cares enough to make a big issue out of it.

I think there's probably a few more examples.

I'm very much a believer in the Churchill philosophy that democracy is an awful way to run a country..

[pandarilla]

Cherry picking irrelevant examples,  it would only be relevant if all of America thought that.

 

 

For example,  if most people think we should not have nuclear weapons we shouldn't have them, it's the job of politicians to represent the views of the public they serve and who elect them, that's what they're there for.  With your example you touch on the role of a free and professional press in a democracy but I don't have time to gie you a lesson on democratic functions.

 

 

The death penalty is a commonly cited exception to this rule, and ironic given we exist in a partly Christianity based system of laws and Christianitypreaches an aye for an eye, but nobody rreally cares enough to make a big issue out of it.

In those African countries where views towards gay people are quite extreme - is it right that their politicians stand up and represent those views?

[Peppino Impastato]

Of course it is, same in Saudi Arabia where the majority hold all sorts of views we find disgusting though it's not a democracy anyway.   It's not for you or the west as a whole to decide how every country in the world governs itself and does so to your arbitrary moral standards.   

It's also a very juvenile argument made by a 12 year old to attempt to get me to defend the indefensible,  which I'm not doing but ultimately it isn't mine or your business what happens innuganda it's only the business of ugandans and if a majority hold a particular view that view should be reflected in its governance as far as possible.   Those that disagree with that view can make their case within Uganda and win the argument,  which brings must back to role of a free press in in a democracy. 

 

I imagine many in these countries think we are savages for wreaking death and destruction on millions of people for centuries right up to today in order to steal their natural resources everywhere from Iraq to empire, but i wouldn't imagine you'd be delighted if they tried to impose their standards on us by force if necessary.   The world is a big place and societies are very different. 

[John Lambies Doos]

Is it actually possible to talk about female politicians without their looks coming into it?

Jmo. U've been around P&B long enough to know that the female form is often discussed; sometimes accompanied with the term 'Wid' and the mandatory 'pics or gtf'. The politics threads are no different

[Peppino Impastato]

Do i agree the treatment of gay people in Uganda is wrong of course, but do i agree because that view is completely accepted in the west we then have the right to impose that standard on other countries don't be ridiculous,  imagine they did that to us, i don't remember Uganda lying to the entire world and killing half a million people inaanother country in order to steal their oil any time recently.   Perhaps they think we shouldn't have done that.

 

 

You're speaking from a state that has invaded 95% of the world at one point in history,  we're sitting in the biggest glass house on the funking planet and you're arrogantly throwing stone

[pandarilla]

Of course it is, same in Saudi Arabia where the majority hold all sorts of views we find disgusting though it's not a democracy anyway.   It's not for you or the west as a whole to decide how every country in the world governs itself and does so to your arbitrary moral standards.   

It's also a very juvenile argument made by a 12 year old to attempt to get me to defend the indefensible,  which I'm not doing but ultimately it isn't mine or your business what happens innuganda it's only the business of ugandans and if a majority hold a particular view that view should be reflected in its governance as far as possible.   Those that disagree with that view can make their case within Uganda and win the argument,  which brings must back to role of a free press in in a democracy. 

 

I imagine many in these countries think we are savages for wreaking death and destruction on millions of people for centuries right up to today in order to steal their natural resources everywhere from Iraq to empire, but i wouldn't imagine you'd be delighted if they tried to impose their standards on us by force if necessary.   The world is a big place and societies are very different. 

I want politicians with a bit of conviction, a bit of principle, and some backbone.

I don't want them pandering to opinion polls and following the majority in society just because that's the majority.

Your post has a lot in it, a lot I actually agree with, but on the whole it's a bit all over the shop. At no point am I suggesting we should be telling other countries how to run their affairs. I'm not really sure where you got that from.

[DrewDon]

If any country holds same-sex sexual contact to be a criminal offence, or that being gay or bisexual to be punishable by death or violence, for example, we absolutely have a right - or, perhaps more accurately, a duty - to make it 'our business' and tell them that they are wrong and actively campaign for change. If some wish to condemn that as forcing our 'arbitrary moral standards' on others, then fine. This shouldn't even be a contentious point; it should be a position shared by every half-decent human being. 

[Peppino Impastato]

Well labour actively suckmoff Saudi Arabia who are the most vile regime on the planet,  we sell them weapons,  we make sure they can't be overthrown by forces from within Saudi.   They are attacking other countries right now with our support and our weapons.   They stone gay people to death.   We are the biggest hypocrites on the planet and don't give a shit about human rights when it suits us, Blair welcomed Gaddafi and as sad to downing St. 

 

As for imposing our standards on others suggesting we have a duty to do so is very dangerous,  and is actually exactly what isis are doing right now.  You might want to think about that,  but you are a naive labour drone on a moral crusade in lie so are incapable of doing that. 

 

Tony Blair was complicit Inn the murder of hundreds of t thousands of people illegally in their own country in order to steal their natural resources.   We're not in a position to be imposing our Values and standards on anyone until we have some worth imposing. 

[DrewDon]

I suppose, when you phrase it like that, it is entirely reasonable to equate the promotion of protections and rights for minority groups with "exactly what ISIS are doing right now". Don't let anybody tell you that your line of argument is absolutely absurd or that you are a f***ing idiot.

[Scary Bear]

What if their concerns are that black people are getting a bit uppity (as in the deep south in 60s America?).

You would hope that isn't the case. Even if it was, you'd have to have a political party putting that in their manifesto.

This ignoring the people is unacceptable.

[Granny Danger]

6 hours ago, jmothecat said:

Is it actually possible to talk about female politicians without their looks coming into it?

 

4 hours ago, John Lambies Doos said:

 

Jmo. U've been around P&B long enough to know that the female form is often discussed; sometimes accompanied with the term 'Wid' and the mandatory 'pics or gtf'. The politics threads are no different

 

Poor argument.  Because something is the norm doesn't make it right.  Anyone posting about politics should take that as a given.

 

[Loondave1]

Is it actually possible to talk about female politicians without their looks coming into it?

If they have big hooters i very much doubt it.

[WaffenThinMint]

9 hours ago, pandarilla said:

Have recent polls not suggested the British public would reintroduce the death penalty?

Dear oh dear.

The British Social Attitudes Report of 2014 said 48% were in favour of capital punishment. More damningly, Guido Fawkes' attempt to trigger a debate in the Commons on the topic resulted in him barely scraping a quarter of the 100 000 petition signatures required.

As Albert Pierrepoint pointed out (excuse the pun), opinion polls in favour of capital punishment always appeared to be taken after some brutal well publicised murder, & always by newspapers looking to sell extra copies. There was a notorious MORI poll back in 2000 after the Sarah Payne murder when the Sun was milking it for all it was worth. 58% in favour - but the second a year later in December 2001 saw support had fallen to 41%.

UKIP - that ever reliable barometer of blatant populism - have refused to touch the policy with a bargepole, the nearest they've come was approving referendums that at least 100 000 people petitioned Parliament for whether the Commons approved or not. Even then, Farage made it clear he'd campaign vociferously against any reintroduction.

There's a difference, a big difference between what people would like in a fleeting survey & what they care enough about to be prepared to campaign for or vote for in an election.

[Scary Bear]

Minority groups shouldn't have to fear the tyranny of the majority and it's troubling that you think they should.

Which particular tyranny are we talking about? Which particular minority?