|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Aug 18, 2023 9:21:57 GMT
umm. If both parties line up against a popular choice, then there is no doubt at all that the choice is popular. It's part of the premise. Well yes...back to reality. Orac wrote: How did the British public end up with (choose) that unsavoury compromise? They did so because the other bargain offered looked even worse. Zany wrote: Are you really suggesting the public was offered a choice? Orac wrote: Yes. The British public had a choice between a nationalised provider that might be used to overturn elections and a private-ish approach that would reliably provide electricity. None of your theorising makes your claim true. now i’ll be honest i don’t actually remember being ever asked if i wanted to vote for publicly owned assets being sold off. I remember Callaghan Versus Maggie, i remember ‘Crisis, what Crisis’. I remember 83% income tax, 15% NI and a special 15% tax surcharge on ‘unearned income’ as Healey called it. I remember getting a tax demand for five pounds of income tax - from the huge numbers of hours i put in at a newsagents where the owner died suddenly and i helped out until his widow sold up - three months before i was denied a vote on leaving the EEC because i was then only 17 I remember Maggie versus Foot and the longest suicide note in history. The one where Labour promised to leave the EEC but the price of Marxist rule by Militant Tendency was too great I remember Kinnock standing with Newport East MP Roy Hughes and proclaiming his support for Hughes’ vitriolic condemnation of the Severn Bridge Toll on the estuarial M4 when no such toll was imposed over the equally Estuarial M5 Avon Bridge when it was built over rather more marginal constituencies, which withered to ‘we have more important issues than this’ when he disastrously lost in 1992, to enthusiastic SUPPORT for imposing VAT on the toll when Blair sent him to Brussels to become a multi millionaire and get him out of sight. I recall many other manifesto lies and dodges by all sides, but no, i honestly cannot recall Maggie making Privatisation an isdue to vote for her. Mainly because Foot, Scargill and their pals in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics gave so many others i remember Maggie versus Foot. I remember Screaming Lord David Sutch |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 18, 2023 9:30:54 GMT
Well yes...back to reality. Orac wrote: How did the British public end up with (choose) that unsavoury compromise? They did so because the other bargain offered looked even worse. Zany wrote: Are you really suggesting the public was offered a choice? Orac wrote: Yes. The British public had a choice between a nationalised provider that might be used to overturn elections and a private-ish approach that would reliably provide electricity. None of your theorising makes your claim true. I recall many other manifesto lies and dodges by all sides, but no, i honestly cannot recall Maggie making Privatisation an isdue to vote for her. Mainly because Foot, Scargill and their pals in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics gave so many others i remember Maggie versus Foot. I remember Screaming Lord David Sutch It was in the Tory manifesto , as was privatisation as a generality. My point is that the policy was mirrored in (more or less) converse by their opposition and this at least allowed a selection between options to be made (some choice). When a both parties have manifestos that oppose some sizable portion of the population, there is no option to say yes, no or 'this is more valuable than that' - ie no choice. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 18, 2023 16:00:42 GMT
Well yes...back to reality. Orac wrote: How did the British public end up with (choose) that unsavoury compromise? They did so because the other bargain offered looked even worse. Zany wrote: Are you really suggesting the public was offered a choice? Orac wrote: Yes. The British public had a choice between a nationalised provider that might be used to overturn elections and a private-ish approach that would reliably provide electricity. None of your theorising makes your claim true. now i’ll be honest i don’t actually remember being ever asked if i wanted to vote for publicly owned assets being sold off. I remember Callaghan Versus Maggie, i remember ‘Crisis, what Crisis’. I remember 83% income tax, 15% NI and a special 15% tax surcharge on ‘unearned income’ as Healey called it. I remember getting a tax demand for five pounds of income tax - from the huge numbers of hours i put in at a newsagents where the owner died suddenly and i helped out until his widow sold up - three months before i was denied a vote on leaving the EEC because i was then only 17 I remember Maggie versus Foot and the longest suicide note in history. The one where Labour promised to leave the EEC but the price of Marxist rule by Militant Tendency was too great I remember Kinnock standing with Newport East MP Roy Hughes and proclaiming his support for Hughes’ vitriolic condemnation of the Severn Bridge Toll on the estuarial M4 when no such toll was imposed over the equally Estuarial M5 Avon Bridge when it was built over rather more marginal constituencies, which withered to ‘we have more important issues than this’ when he disastrously lost in 1992, to enthusiastic SUPPORT for imposing VAT on the toll when Blair sent him to Brussels to become a multi millionaire and get him out of sight. I recall many other manifesto lies and dodges by all sides, but no, i honestly cannot recall Maggie making Privatisation an isdue to vote for her. Mainly because Foot, Scargill and their pals in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics gave so many others i remember Maggie versus Foot. I remember Screaming Lord David Sutch Is there a point to all these memories John? |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Aug 18, 2023 17:48:31 GMT
now i’ll be honest i don’t actually remember being ever asked if i wanted to vote for publicly owned assets being sold off. I remember Callaghan Versus Maggie, i remember ‘Crisis, what Crisis’. I remember 83% income tax, 15% NI and a special 15% tax surcharge on ‘unearned income’ as Healey called it. I remember getting a tax demand for five pounds of income tax - from the huge numbers of hours i put in at a newsagents where the owner died suddenly and i helped out until his widow sold up - three months before i was denied a vote on leaving the EEC because i was then only 17 I remember Maggie versus Foot and the longest suicide note in history. The one where Labour promised to leave the EEC but the price of Marxist rule by Militant Tendency was too great I remember Kinnock standing with Newport East MP Roy Hughes and proclaiming his support for Hughes’ vitriolic condemnation of the Severn Bridge Toll on the estuarial M4 when no such toll was imposed over the equally Estuarial M5 Avon Bridge when it was built over rather more marginal constituencies, which withered to ‘we have more important issues than this’ when he disastrously lost in 1992, to enthusiastic SUPPORT for imposing VAT on the toll when Blair sent him to Brussels to become a multi millionaire and get him out of sight. I recall many other manifesto lies and dodges by all sides, but no, i honestly cannot recall Maggie making Privatisation an isdue to vote for her. Mainly because Foot, Scargill and their pals in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics gave so many others i remember Maggie versus Foot. I remember Screaming Lord David Sutch Is there a point to all these memories John? Well, can you point me at where vote for privatisation was a manifesto thing? I remember the things i spoke of being spouted as reasons to vote for or against one or other party from 74 onwards which is when activists began targeting me. But i really don’t remember anyone before Corbyn standing up and saying ‘vote for me and i’ll renationalise’ and i certainly don’t recall a tory saying ‘vote for me and i’ll privatise’ That’s the point. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 18, 2023 17:59:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 18, 2023 18:07:21 GMT
Is there a point to all these memories John? Well, can you point me at where vote for privatisation was a manifesto thing? I remember the things i spoke of being spouted as reasons to vote for or against one or other party from 74 onwards which is when activists began targeting me. But i really don’t remember anyone before Corbyn standing up and saying ‘vote for me and i’ll renationalise’ and i certainly don’t recall a tory saying ‘vote for me and i’ll privatise’ That’s the point. Ah right. Then we agree John. We were never asked, it just happened. For me what's worse is Tory governments running services down until privatisation looks attractive. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 18, 2023 19:28:33 GMT
Privatisation was in the Tory manifesto and the policy was mirrored by labour, in that they were not going to privatise.
the Tories won.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 18, 2023 20:18:44 GMT
Privatisation was in the Tory manifesto and the policy was mirrored by labour, in that they were not going to privatise. the Tories won. Because of that manifesto promise or in spite of it? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 18, 2023 20:42:42 GMT
Privatisation was in the Tory manifesto and the policy was mirrored by labour, in that they were not going to privatise. the Tories won. Because of that manifesto promise or in spite of it? Because the two political platforms offered a choice |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 18, 2023 20:44:50 GMT
Because of that manifesto promise or in spite of it? Because the two political platforms offered a choice If it was in spite of it, then something else was a higher priority - ie 'I don't care as much about this as i do about this' However, if both parties line up against some substantial option, then there is no choice |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 18, 2023 20:58:11 GMT
Because of that manifesto promise or in spite of it? Because the two political platforms offered a choice Many choices. full circle. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 19, 2023 8:45:52 GMT
Because the two political platforms offered a choice Many choices. full circle. A system can only sensibly offer a choice between two options because of the way the world is. This is why the whole pr thing is a bit of a flop and doesn't in reality release the choices people feel it should. My point is that, unless the choice is offered it can't be taken - ie it can only sensibly be taken if one of the two parties who is likely to take power offers it. The main parties should (theoretically) be motivated to tessellate their policies, so that if one party has a policy which makes (say) 40% happy and 60% unhappy, the other party should choose the converse policy to attract that 60%. I say should because obviously the system can be gamed so that both parties agree to stick to a policy which makes 60% of the population unhappy. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 19, 2023 9:00:27 GMT
Many choices. full circle. A system can only sensibly offer a choice between two options because of the way the world is. This is why the whole pr thing is a bit of a flop and doesn't in reality release the choices people feel it should. My point is that, unless the choice is offered it can't be taken - ie it can only sensibly be taken if one of the two parties who is likely to take power offers it. The main parties should (theoretically) be motivated to tessellate their policies, so that if one party has a policy which makes (say) 40% happy and 60% unhappy, the other party should choose the converse policy to attract that 60%. I say should because obviously the system can be gamed so that both parties agree to stick to a policy which makes 60% of the population unhappy. I think with modern technology (The internet) it should be possible to have more direct democracy. Want to re-nationalise the energy supply. Go to Haveyoursay.Gov and put your reasons. Show costs and methodology. Allow 3 months of debate and hold a vote. If nothing else it might stop the moaning if people were presented with the potential bill for the things they feel they want. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 19, 2023 22:05:23 GMT
Well personally I'm all up for direct democracy - I do feel however that your love of it might diminish once its in action..
..but if your happy - sounds good.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 20, 2023 7:51:14 GMT
Well personally I'm all up for direct democracy - I do feel however that your love of it might diminish once its in action.. ..but if your happy - sounds good. I'm all for considering what the people want (Not just old Tories ofcourse) I think it might get different results to that you think if people were well informed of the consequences of their desires. |
|
