Has anybody considered an amalgamation of ideas left wing and right wing, people want to be patriotic and put the UK first, they also want working people looked after and vital state infrastructure under government control. The party could be known as the National Socialists, what do we all think?
New left wing party
- Thread starter JJpool
- Start date
OneStepBeyond
Well-known member
TSSeasider
Well-known member
Need to work on some branding and logos, nobody else is doing red and black I'll see what i can come up with
JJpool
Well-known member
The left though are responsible for the immigration issues, look at who opened the doors, who is always calling for more, it's the lefties, then then tories got in but are a split party and not a proper RW Tory party, half were basically lib dems. The issue is woke society from the left has infected every institution and the real power behind governments are now woke organisations, it's hard to get anything done.
So the left is completely to balme for where this country is.
It wouldn't happen under a real RW government would it, although you might say there might be different issues.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
Yet again ignoring the elephant in the room which is Brexit. Brexit stopped us sending people back to France under existing arrangements.
14 years of cuts, austerity, corruption and inaction on immigration by the Tories and the Left is to blame.
Only in your world.
JJpool
Well-known member
That's basically called Reform mate, which is why they're called populist.
They have polices like nationalising steel, utilities with 50% government ownership etc.
Basically anything that put this countries people 1st.
That's why for e.g., they say, if they need to leave the ECHR to solve the national emergency of boat arrivals they will.
poolseasider
Well-known member
JJpool
Well-known member
True, however it does help keep out potential voting blocks...
However it's funny isn't it, people say we can't leave the ECHR as Belarus and Russia are the only countries that aren't in it, says a lot they say, yet it's OK to share a voting system with Belarus...
Also the US etc isn't in it...obviously.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
Has this National Socialist stuff gone over everyone's heads, or am I missing the joke?
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
Way too big a subject for an off the cuff comment on a message board.
Last edited:
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
And many are not. Which is why the subject usually becomes immersed in emotive language and bombastic statements.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
A clear example of a muddled and over-emotive response.
TSSeasider
Well-known member
That's disappointing.
Doesn't have to be of the cuff either. You could explain who/which party you think is going to be able to get a handle on the immigration issue.
Perhaps you don't think it's an issue and are happy with the status quo; which is absolutely your preogative of course.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
I have said frequently that it is an issue - a serious issue. At present I don't see any clear and positive improvements from any party. Perhaps it shouldn't be batted around as a party issue. There are no political concepts that deal with this as a principle. It is very much a 21st century issue that requires a consensual response from all impacted nations. Given that, for Britain, there is a pan-European dimension to the problem, it requires a pan-European response.
Wizaard
Well-known member
Have they got 250 candidates who are not about to be arrested or don't have twitter feeds full of racist bile?
JJpool
Well-known member
True though. Can blane the right for woke and open borders can you.
OneStepBeyond
Well-known member
Nope, I wrote above to change the name but it's AVFTT do not taking anything serious on the OT threads.
OneStepBeyond
Well-known member
Won't be changing given the public voted to keep it in the 2011 referendum, remember?
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
Just read it. It's either a faux pas or @gjr is indulging in some sneaky humour.
Sorry, bad joke but i do wonder where we are heading politcally.
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
I think the Conservatives at least "get it", they can't do anything about it because the Civil Service ignores them and most ministerial power has been erased by various well-intentioned but misguided acts of parliament, but at least they "get it".
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
Who knows. It wouldn't be just the same as the 20s 30s because that was a 100 years ago but i think this sort of thing creeps up on a country, they don't burst through the door and shout we're here!
They lean against a door and work it open gradually and then when they're in it's hard to get them out!
Lala
Well-known member
I can see what you are saying. I don’t think we have a solid anchor anymore. We are getting really diverse, and I don’t mean in race, colour or creed. But in our ideals and visions and expected outcomes etc. Leaving room for a once niche brand of politics to get a foot inwards. We need to find a way to pull together, or a party able to pull us together.
It’s a very confusing time politically.
Last edited:
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
Unfortunately, calls for PR would give a serious voice to some bad people.
But if say 10% of the population wanted to be represented by politicians considered by some to be far left or far right shouldn't true democracy allow that?
This insipid, turgid middle of the road stuff that the Conservatives and Labour have been serving up for about 30 years just looks like a career path for people that think they know best.
Badenoch has no substance, she is on a culture war inspired ego trip.
Starmer has power but doesn't know what to do with it other than blag free suits, glasses and football tickets, he has no vision for the nation.
The door has been left wide open for Farage and Reform who will.probably be worse in ways we are yet to see.
At least PR might get the best of all the inadequates who make up our political class to come together somehow for the good of the country.
The current system isn't working so something has to change.
Seasideforever
Well-known member
Just wait till the Islam party get going that will shake everything up massively
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
Democracy should be a means to an end; not an end in itself. It has its limitations in all of its forms. Stable Government might be best served by limiting voter choice to one party - as in China. Expanding choice in order to give every voter a reasonable input to the chosen outcome (PR if you will), can lead to weak and ineffective government.
Perhaps the best way of facilitating both aims - voter influence and government stability - would be to combine PR and FPTP in a Supplementary voting system. Give every voter a first and second choice vote. In constituencies where the winner gains over 50% of the votes cast that candidate would be elected on the FPTP basis. However, where the highest vote falls short of 51%, the top two candidates go into a run off with all constituents' second choices being added to the votes for each of the remaining candidates.
There will be faults with that approach just as they would be with any PR system. My own favourite would be a party list system with half of the seats going to FPTP winners (as now) - those MPs filling the Commons - and the other 50% of seats being filled from party lists as chosen by constituents. Those MPs would populate a reformed, democratic House of Lords - or Senate.
Lots of options, maybe a benign, altruistic dictator would be good but the system we have now isn't working for large parts of the country, more and more people seem to have had enough of it.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
Not really only 6.5% of the population are muslims, some of them are children and some of them wouldn't vote for the Islam party so not a big deal.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
You'd be scared of your own shadow if there wasn't anything else. I wouldn't worry about an 'Islam Party'.
20togo
Well-known member
yet you love to scaremonger about the right.
Costero Poderoso
Well-known member
Why is it a 21st century issue, immigrants in the post war period were often treated obhorently, similarly the Irish immigrants in the industrial era, Jewish and polish immigrants during the war, every time there were the vocal minority stirring up hatred, with their bigoted opinions, appealing to a populace driven to fear of outsiders to the benefit of a few wealthy elites.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
I'm not saying that immigration is a 21st century issue. I'm saying that the economic migrations from the poorer sectors of continents to the wealthier areas has been a very particular characteristic of the early 21st century.
JJpool
Well-known member
So double thay let's say in a decade, with the small boats and birth rates its plausible, already got sectarianism, they can often vote as a block to promote Islamic issues.
Look at the terror watch list already, imagine double that if its in line with the % population.
Not just Muslims though you've got all sorts of other cultures of people here and coming in, at rates which doesn't help integration and a weak identity compared to some nations.
How many would fight for the country? How many put their culture before British? Can you not see how this could lead to a worse country divided and with people with little in common.
You might say. Like the PM said but then backtracked on, an island of strangers...
Religion is a problem I'll agree with that, keep seeing these pentecostal, evangelical churches popping up all over the place, I'm not keen on that one They have strange views and ideas and put their religion above everything, not sure where we draw the line, is it primarily a race thing?
JJpool
Well-known member
Maybe but Christianity built this nation in many ways. I don't believe in God btw.
More cultural, although rapid demographic change, especially without people's consent which they have never given to open door immigration, is bound to wind many up.
If immigration had been kept at the sensible levels pre Blair we wouldn't have nealry as many issues as today.
On a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly or lifelong basis i am yet to have an issue that has happened to me in a negative way that i can attribute to immigration.
Maybe that will change, maybe ive just been lucky but i put negative stuff down to the individual not any sort of larger grouping they might be connected to.
JJpool
Well-known member
Terrorism on British soil was more of a regular event when we had issues with the IRA. Assuming most of them were Roman Catholic we didn't seem to have the same national paranoia about that religion unless you were a fan of Scottish football.
I put terrorist atrocities down to deluded psychopaths and you will never get rid of all of them, look at the USA most of the people who cause terror are white and born there.
As for housing if every recent immigrant left the country there would still be issues in a year or two because the housing market always brings about issues with availability and affordability.
Costero Poderoso
Well-known member
Thats just not true, economic migration has been a factor globally for centuries, the irish to america, poor commonwealth nations to the UK, the chinese to america and europe, south americans to Spain, the southern europeans to northern europe and the US, etc etc. On top of that were those escaping conflicts, the Irish escaping to the US, Muslims and Sikhs escaping the conflicts after india pakistan separation. There were greater migrations in the 19th century than today.
The problem that has been created is that very large global corporations in pursuit of maximal profit have created a need for very low cost labour, either with imported labour or outsourcing labour and productive capacity to foreign countries. Public service provisions have adopted "big business" practices in the pursuit of efficiency because the top 1% don't want to pay taxes and that top 1% is setting government spending agendas and has been for half a century, and there isn't the funding to pay local people living wages, or with the Blair strategy cut the availability of training and simply bring in immigrants who are already trained who are also often prepared to work for lower salaries.
The UK has been involved in conflicts, with the US that has created many of the migratory issues from countries in conflict (Syria, afghanistan, Iraq etc) and has to bear responsibility for radicalising a large part of the population of Islamic countries and / or giving credence and sometimes actual support to radical Islamic and highly corrupt governments, legitimate or not.
I'm not convinced the UK has an immigration problem (neither does the US or Spain or other European countries). Is the NHS overloaded because of immigrants? No, its overloaded because of 50 years of governments treating the NHS as a business, and having the wrong priorities. Is the housing crisis caused by immigration? No, it has been caused by a massive sell off of social housing as a once in a lifetime bribe, which has led half of that housing to now be in corporate hands, and that banks have been manipulating the housing market since deregulation in the mid eighties. Migrants commit crime at a lower rate per capita than the indigenous population, and immigrants also provide more economic benefits than the indigenous population over time. Where a problem now exists is that because normal migration has been demonised and made inaccessible criminal gangs now have a strong foothold on the process.
It saddens me that someone who generally makes intelligent and thoughtful posts is now also buying into the gaslighting.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
And don't forget the Israelites to Palestine. Yes, I am aware of all of those episodes and don't deny them. My choice of expression was, perhaps misleading. In nearly all the cases you quote, the receiving country was receptive to the immigrants - the authorities, if not always the citizens. The difference now is that the countries in which the economic imigrants want to settle are either not equipped to handle them, or unwilling to receive them - hence the boats.
I make no comment here about people escaping violent and authoritarian states in the Middle East. We should always be open to legitimate asylum seekers.
Finally, I have not been gaslit as you seem to think. I believed that the Starmer Government would extinguish the problem of boats through a combination of fighting the gangs and ensuring sufficient, well staffed legal entry points where applicants could be properly assessed. I am still waiting to see this strategy in action.
Last edited:
Costero Poderoso
Well-known member
Is left and right even a valid point of view anymore. Reform UK ltd, is proposing what might be considered leftist ideas, nationalisation, increasing wages, committing to the NHS etc. but the actions of Reform leadership (along with the majority of their membership) shows them to be pro-corporate, pro wealthy elites and racists.
The labour party has wholeheartedly adopted rentier biased market led capitalism, chasing growth, low tax, lowish regulations for corporations and the very wealthy. The Green party(s) are largely socialist in agenda but the type of socialism that is fundamentally destructive and most of their green policies are also destructive - an unsustainable economy is as destructive and dangerous to the planet as unsustainable energy.
What is obvious is that the current capitalist ideas dont work (for anyone other than the mega wealthy), and never will work, because you cannot keep extracting opportunity and money from the lower economic tiers of society and giving it to the richest without the whole thing collapsing, and it is on that road.
The electoral system is basically rigged, 30 to 40% of people don't vote in major elections meaning many MP's are getting in with 20ish % of their electorate, local elections are winning candidates are often getting less than ten percent of the electorates votes. Its also rigged through the media firstly because the media most leans to corporate self interest and specifically the owners self interest, and the media has dumbed down so far that political debate is non existent (as is cultural or any other type of debate). Question Time the UK's biggest political show is simply a procession of sound bites and entertainment, and hence viewer numbers, are prioritised. Its the same with other political programmes, debates on the economics of leaving the EU prior to Brexit which involved Farage or Reece Mogg or a host of other pro brexit campaigners were not debates about the potential economic benefits or risks. They were soundboards, an assessment of economic risks on one side countered by "get it done", "brexit is Brexit", "no deal", "project fear" etc etc.
There isnt sensible debate in Parliament, its all about one-upmanship and playing to the cameras, but its hardly surprising with the kind of people that currently run the main and even the minor political parties. When you get sight of the selection processes for candidates across the main parties, its evident that knowledgeable, thoughtful candidates will not rise through the system. It favours loud, opinionated, media friendly (entertainment biased) corporate and political shills.
Several things have to change in order to fix what are now and will be in the future I think permanent problems under the current system or variations of it. First is electoral reform, MPs need to be constituency representatives, they also need to get a majority of the electorate they are going to represent, PR doesn't fix that, neither does secondary votes, What will fix it is a lottery system, if none of the candidates get 50% and / or non voters make up a bigger proportion of the electorate and jury selection type lottery is used. Political party funding should also be centralised and get the lobby groups out of parliament. I also think there is a good argument for the UK to be broken into 6 or seven political regions with about 10 to twelve million people in each region.
Economically we need to stop chasing growth, and try a system such as maximising economic participation. Since the mid eighties on average just under 1% of the population per annum has been taken out of full economic participation into effectively needs based economic activity, and it is growing more rapidly in recent years. Consumerism doesn't work when you exclude 20 to 25% of the population from consumptive activities.
The two national priorities should be health and education, research has shown that when those issues are prioritised many of the other issues fall in line, its a complex argument but seems to be valid.
A long term plan to move away from rentier biased economic activities to actual productive economic activities, whether services or manufacturing, id also say a move towards a standard 4 day 30/32 hour week would give productivity benefits as well as massive benefits to the population through better work life balance, reduce stress, reduce psychological issues etc. The cost of going green is stated at trillions of pounds but that is almost all economic activity.
Reduce the priority given to the city and financialisaton in general. Make the financial systems wholly responsible for their activities, no more government bailouts, and re-regulate the banking system, prioritise intermediary banking (savings and loan) for consumer activity, and properly regulate the proportional reserve banking model and put regulations in place for credit creation banking systems. Completely separate and ring fence consumer banking from corporate banking and break up the big banks.
Treat national infrastructure, energy, water and at the very minimum as protected national resources and as a economic support mechanisms not market led profit generators. Id also add consumer finance and data to that list, but I'm at odds at the moment with even my colleagues on that one.
Im out there i know it, but something has to change radically.
Costero Poderoso
Well-known member
i apologise if i misinterpreted your words but it seemed a bit gas lit, and it surprised me from you.
Your last paragraph i wholeheartedly agree with, i dont think starmer will fix it because a) he deosnt have the ideas or the political capability and B) hes still trying to appeal to the daily Mail and the other tory rags for validation. Targetting the gangs and their basic criminality would seem to be a relatively simple idea and application, if the press can get to talk directly to these people, why cant the police and security services.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
The gang tackling absolutely requires a pan-European approach. I doubt there is a pan-European willingness to do it. The establishing and staffing of efficient border control points is fully within Starmer's gift. He seems reluctant to do it though. As you say he seems to be controlled by the foibles of Daily Mail readers.
Costero Poderoso
Well-known member
I think there may be state actor elements within the criminal immigration gangs. The Russian government through proxies were playing silly buggers on the polish and Georgian borders not that long ago.