Westminster Politics

SalfordRed18 said:
If at every general election a third of the electorate consistently don't vote, surely it's more beneficial to sway the people that do vote.
Click to expand...
Or you could just appeal to them and make them want to vote. But then you wouldn't get to adopt Tory policies and call it 'pragmatism'.

Idxomer said:
Click to expand...

Something something he'll flip on this after the election something.
 
Walrus said:
So I thought this would be a fun thought experiment as its something ive done loads of times - practically got a full fleshed out manifesto!

Item One - Increased regulation of the business sector.
For me, one of the most pressing issues in western society (probably second only to climate change) is wealth inequality. It is one thing to reward innovation and investment, but what we are seeing in the current incarnation of western capitalism is what I would call extreme, unregulated capitalism. In fact if you look at traditional economic theory, I barely think it meets the criteria for capitalism anymore - I would coin the current economic (and arguably political) model as Monopolism.

So Item One on my manifesto is about tackling wealth distribution. My first, keystone policy on this is that for any corporate entity, the highest paid/remunerated individual cannot receive more than 10x that of the lowest paid. Now clearly, this would require some pretty tight legislation to try to get round the inevitable loopholes and legal sneakiness, but what we are talking about here is the spirit of the law, that we will try to legislate for. This means that successful companies need to bring their employees along with them, and share in the wealth and success that they have helped to create. Note that the "10x" figure is somewhat arbitrary, but I think isnt too far off the mark. If your top CEO is getting 1 mil, everyone at the company needs to be on at least 100k.

Second thing for tacking wealth distribution is going to be significant tax increases on what I call "unproductive capital", and corporate profits. On the latter it is important to note that "profit" means after costs, investments and anything else are taken into account. This is on that pure, bottom line profit that goes into company accounts and/or ends up getting paid out to shareholders. To counteract this, I would also introduce significant tax breaks and incentives on UK investment, so if a company invests X amount in their UK holdings they can claim back lets say 2X off the tax bill (again, exact figure somewhat arbitrary). The point here is to reward companies for reinvesting their money back into the UK or on training, job creation or innovation, and to punish those that instead simply exploit workers and economic conditions and give nothing back (and instead just seek to line their own pockets).
On the "unproductive capital" this is essentially a wealth tax targeted at those with significant, unused landholdings. Too much of the UK consists of simply privately owned land or other assets that sit dormant - this land needs to be made productive, whether development, farming or dedicated and publicly accessible green spaces.


Item Two - Political Reform
My second big manifesto item is political reform, and links somewhat to what was stated above. The justification for this set of policies is that corporations and the media have become far too influential in modern politics, where in fact a clear line should exist between the two. Corporations are able to lobby politicians for their own interests, offer what practically amounts to bribes, and influence legislation as a result. Media meanwhile are uniquely positioned to influence large swathes of the electorate and therefore must have a responsibility for objective, responsible reporting. A few key things here;
  • All sitting MP's pay will be linked directly to the median pay in the UK, with pay rises in line with UK performance on key metrics such as GDP. If the country is doing well, those running it should share in this, and the policy makers should be incentivised to improve national working conditions as it will also affect their own pay.
  • All MPs will be required to declare any and all professional meetings with private sector entities, and for these to be recorded and made publicly available. It is in the national interest to know exactly what MPs and companies are discussing and to help ensure that these companies are not unduly influencing policy.
  • Similarly, MPs will be barred from any kind of secondary employment. Being a member of parliament is a full time job and the pay reflects that. Members should not have the time to be able to act in consultancy or journalistic roles.
  • Media companies will be more closely held to account. This is a trickier one - we want a free and independent media, but we also need limits on lies and biased reporting. Right now the balance is too tolerant - it needs to be shifted.

Thus is the world according to Walrus, and when I am dictator of my own country, this is the sort of thing you peasants can expect.
Click to expand...
I like this.

My idea is a wealth tracker of MPs, if it increase beyond say 7% a year, then they are investigated.
 
Pexbo said:
@Murder on Zidane's Floor

Here is ChatGPT’s answer just to make your blood really boil.

Yes, a political policy can be both popular and radical. Popularity is determined by the level of support or acceptance among the general population, while radicalism is characterized by a departure from the current norms or establishment. So, a policy can gain widespread support while still being considered radical if it significantly challenges or changes existing systems or ideologies.
Click to expand...

An example what is happening in El Salvador currently
 
If that’s Labours position because they need to play it careful politically then feck them for not having a spine.

If that’s Labours position because that’s what they believe in, then feck them for having no morals.
 
Dobba said:
Or you could just appeal to them and make them want to vote. But then you wouldn't get to adopt Tory policies and call it 'pragmatism'.
Click to expand...
But they consistently don't vote. You can't just "make" them vote, if they're consistently non-voters. It's obviously more sensible to target people who do vote (who make up the majority of the population) than those that don't.

Also:

SalfordRed18 said:
What's the party you're voting for offering out of interest? On those specific issues. Genuine question.
Click to expand...
 
If this is the way and Starmer keeps spiraling down, Tory might have time to snatch another term
 
Idxomer said:
Click to expand...

This is a bit sensationalist.

No one from labour has endorsed anything.

The full quote from the article they're using as a source is:

"The Labour Party is understood to believe the proposals are sensible but the PM's language is not."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68429902

And this is quite obviously in-regards to MPs having their homes targeted and death-threats.

This is the type of stuff youd expect from the right, the left can't help themselves.
 
SalfordRed18 said:
This is a bit sensationalist.

No one from labour has endorsed anything.

The full quote from the article they're using as a source is:

"The Labour Party is understood to believe the proposals are sensible but the PM's language is not."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68429902

And this is quite obviously in-regards to MPs having their homes targeted and death-threats.

This is the type of stuff youd expect from the right, the left can't help themselves.
Click to expand...

Starmer believes all these peaceful pro Palestine protests requires any kind of attention? That is not sensational. That's cnutish. That's because he's a cnut.

Doesn't matter what language the other blue cnut used. Starmer is the cnut I'm looking at right now.

Edit: rest in power Aaron Bushnell
 
Dumbstar said:
Starmer believes all these peaceful pro Palestine protests requires any kind of attention? That is not sensational. That's cnutish. That's because he's a cnut.

Doesn't matter what language the other blue cnut used. Starmer is the cnut I'm looking at right now.

Edit: rest in power Aaron Bushnell
Click to expand...
It's in regards to targeting MPs houses and death threats. Neither of those are peaceful.
 
SalfordRed18 said:
The full quote from the article they're using as a source is:
"The Labour Party is understood to believe the proposals are sensible but the PM's language is not."
Click to expand...
So which bit of them endorsing the plans are you questioning, again? I often disagree with things by calling them sensible.

Oh and I'll either vote Green or follow the tried and tested Starmer method on trivial things like undercover cops raping women and abstain.
 
SalfordRed18 said:
It's sensationalist.
Click to expand...
The headline is. But it's true that Labour is agreeing with the Tories. Which is the usual Starmer shit. He only disagrees with how the Tories enact their policies not the policies themselves.

"We're going to be better Tories than the Tories."
 
Dobba said:
So which bit of them endorsing the plans are you questioning, again? I often disagree with things by calling them sensible.

Oh and I'll either vote Green or follow the tried and tested Starmer method on trivial things like undercover cops raping women and abstain.
Click to expand...
I didn't ask who you'll be voting for, I asked what they'll be doing on those issues stated since, as you say, labour were doing nothing for them.

Should the green party get into power, what are they doing for those issues?
 
Wilt said:
Catman wins Rochdale
Click to expand...
think it's the fourth time he's beaten Labour after leaving them to a seat. Pretty impressive, regardless of your views. Farage, meanwhile, struggles to explain why he cannot win a seat at all.
 
neverdie said:
think it's the fourth time he's beaten Labour after leaving them to a seat. Pretty impressive, regardless of your views. Farage, meanwhile, struggles to explain why he cannot win a seat at all.
Click to expand...

Labour disowned their candidate so they didn’t have a candidate in the race officially. That mess didn’t help them. Galloway is always there for a protest vote yet then loses it in the next main election.

Doeant change the fact Galloway is a nasty cnut and he was even supported by Nick Griffin, former leader of the BNP in this election. The man doesn’t give a toss about anyone but himself.
 
TheGame said:
Labour disowned their candidate so they didn’t have a candidate in the race officially. That mess didn’t help them. Galloway is always there for a protest vote yet then loses it in the next main election.

Doeant change the fact Galloway is a nasty cnut and he was even supported by Nick Griffin, former leader of the BNP in this election. The man doesn’t give a toss about anyone but himself.
Click to expand...

If Labour stuck with Azhar Ali then they probably would have won. Might have been close run at least.

The results more embarrassing for the Tories and Reform. Combined they'd still have only made 3rd place behind someone random local business owner who only threw his hat it a few weeks ago!

Tice seems very bitter. This was the sort of election that made UKIP relevant pre-brexit when they targeted working class towns with the promise of milk and honey. Post brexit that sales pitch has gone.
 
TheGame said:
Labour disowned their candidate so they didn’t have a candidate in the race officially. That mess didn’t help them. Galloway is always there for a protest vote yet then loses it in the next main election.

Doeant change the fact Galloway is a nasty cnut and he was even supported by Nick Griffin, former leader of the BNP in this election. The man doesn’t give a toss about anyone but himself.
Click to expand...

So not unentirely like the rest of them.

Obviously a massive cnut, but given Starmer has his entire party gagged, it might not be a bad thing to have another vocal descenting voice in parliament. I just hope the people of Rochdale get their promised Primark.
 
George Galloway:

“Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak are two cheeks of the same backside and they both got well and truly spanked tonight here in Rochdale."
 
Might be a short stay in parliament for George - imagine he’ll do his best to get his voice heard over the coming months.
 
Drainy said:
No, be antisemitic, get kicked out of the Labour party.
Click to expand...

Surely you must know by now that this anti Semitism line has been overplayed. And actually puts Jewish safety at risk.

I wouldn't be surprised if Galloway got some, or more, Jewish votes too. Corbyn is the other victim of Western lies (as already exposed by Al Jazeera investigation).
 
Dumbstar said:
Surely you must know by now that this anti Semitism line has been overplayed. And actually puts Jewish safety at risk.

I wouldn't be surprised if Galloway got some, or more, Jewish votes too. Corbyn is the other victim of Western lies (as already exposed by Al Jazeera investigation).
Click to expand...

Galloway is one of the nastiest piece of shite around. He doesn’t give a toss about anyone apart from himself. The fact the ex BNP leader was backing him in this election says it all. People never learn when it comes to him.
 
TheGame said:
Galloway is one of the nastiest piece of shite around. He doesn’t give a toss about anyone apart from himself. The fact the ex BNP leader was backing him in this election says it all. People never learn when it comes to him.
Click to expand...
He is but Labour need to acknowledge they have become hugely unpopular under certain demographics. Instead of sweeping it under the rug they need to look at it seriously - that's if they even care as they will most likely win the election even without these votes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.