The Politics Thread

[TANGODANCER]

I've often wondered what would happen if the government gave in to all the demands of all the protesters. Would all those protesting about unemployment rush out and get jobs? If we banned all warlike and nuclear activities, would the protesters all pack up and go home? If all the soldiers all came home and all the armed forces were disbanded, would some faction complain their jobs were at risk bcause of all the unemployed forces personel who now needed a living? Would our trade traffic and fishermen be allowed to carry on unprotected and unmolested by foreign nations, with their occupations? If all the homeless were re-housed, would the streets clear of drug-addicts and alcholics? If the animal rights lot got their way on eveything would the country suddenly become overcome by rats, gerbils, foxes etc, and the medical industry grind to a halt because of lack of experimentation?

Some folk ( rather a lot) seem to make a living/existence from protesting about one thing or another. Would squatters start to live like model, law abiding citizens, or is the truth that they'd rather doss about, not work and live a life of complete anarchy using protestation against all and everything as an excuse?

See, even in the best of worlds, shit happens. It's just that we deal with it and don'tlook for somebody/something to blame all the time. Coud somebody justify all this protesting to me? I'd be obliged.

[thebish]

I think you're making the rather ludicrous assumption that the protestors over any particular issue are the same people.

have you ever been on a protest march or demonstration of any kind, Tango? if so - what was the issue?

[bobo the clown]

I think you're making the rather ludicrous assumption that the protestors over any particular issue are the same people.

have you ever been on a protest march or demonstration of any kind, Tango? if so - what was the issue?

Bish, you aren't actually going to claim that there isn't a central core of 'Protest-U-Like' campaigners who simpy join this weeks protest are you ?

[thebish]

I think you're making the rather ludicrous assumption that the protestors over any particular issue are the same people.

have you ever been on a protest march or demonstration of any kind, Tango? if so - what was the issue?

Bish, you aren't actually going to claim that there isn't a central core of 'Protest-U-Like' campaigners who simpy join this weeks protest are you ?

indeed not. but tango seemed to be bemused by the fact that if you answered one group of protesters grievances then why would another set every appear?

and there is only a central "core" (I entirely agree with you) of protesters for a sub-set of protests.

the central core i think you are speaking of was probably not highly in evidence when the Save Fox-hunting brigade held up half of London with their trumpets and beagles - nor when hordes of protesters protested high petrol duties...

[TANGODANCER]

I think you're making the rather ludicrous assumption that the protestors over any particular issue are the same people.
have you ever been on a protest march or demonstration of any kind, Tango? if so - what was the issue?

A: No I'm not. That's your assumption again.

B: Ive always been too busy trying to earn a living Bish. I saw my dad, an ex-soldier, die at 52 whilst working as a labourer, and my mother spend most of her life in a cotton mill. Both died whilst living in the same two-up, two-down terraced house with no bathroom that they spent their entire lives in. There were millions like them. They didn't protest, just got on with it. I followed suit. Protesting was a pastime I could never afford.

[Lord Kangana]

Interesting point Tango, but having once had this discussion (about Maclibel as it happens), my mate said "would you do it". I said "of course not, but I thank my lucky stars every day that there are people in this world prepared to give up everything on our behalves"

[thebish]

I think you're making the rather ludicrous assumption that the protestors over any particular issue are the same people.
have you ever been on a protest march or demonstration of any kind, Tango? if so - what was the issue?

A: No I'm not. That's your assumption again.

B: Ive always been too busy trying to earn a living Bish. I saw my dad, an ex-soldier, die at 52 whilst working as a labourer, and my mother spend most of her life in a cotton mill. Both died whilst living in the same two-up, two-down terraced house with no bathroom that they spent their entire lives in. There were millions like them. They didn't protest, just got on with it. I followed suit. Protesting was a pastime I could never afford.

ok Tango....

let's just take ONE of your questions for clarity's sake...

If all the homeless were re-housed, would the streets clear of drug-addicts and alcholics?

why you expect a successful campaign against homelessness to result in no alcoholism and no drug taking?

I have no idea at all how you think that would follow - or why you think it is a logical step to think it might. (unless you are assuming that homelessness, alcoholism and drug taking are all pretty much one and the same thing?)

as for campaigning - it is not a choice between working and campaigning - that is a crass thing to say. You have had time for many hobbies in your free time. many people who campaign also work - I'm staggered i'd need to point this out. just because you choose to listenn to music, drink wine, go on holiday, dance, read and write novels in YOUR free time does not mean that someone choosing to do summat different in theirs is therefore workshy.

[William the White]

I think you're making the rather ludicrous assumption that the protestors over any particular issue are the same people.
have you ever been on a protest march or demonstration of any kind, Tango? if so - what was the issue?

A: No I'm not. That's your assumption again.

B: Ive always been too busy trying to earn a living Bish. I saw my dad, an ex-soldier, die at 52 whilst working as a labourer, and my mother spend most of her life in a cotton mill. Both died whilst living in the same two-up, two-down terraced house with no bathroom that they spent their entire lives in. There were millions like them. They didn't protest, just got on with it. I followed suit. Protesting was a pastime I could never afford.

Being active in the struggle against poverty, lousy pay and working conditions is no crime.

Passivitiy in the face of them is no virtue.

[Puskas]

I think you're making the rather ludicrous assumption that the protestors over any particular issue are the same people.
have you ever been on a protest march or demonstration of any kind, Tango? if so - what was the issue?

A: No I'm not. That's your assumption again.

B: Ive always been too busy trying to earn a living Bish. I saw my dad, an ex-soldier, die at 52 whilst working as a labourer, and my mother spend most of her life in a cotton mill. Both died whilst living in the same two-up, two-down terraced house with no bathroom that they spent their entire lives in. There were millions like them. They didn't protest, just got on with it. I followed suit. Protesting was a pastime I could never afford.

Except, of course, that many of them did protest, which is why conditions improved.

But never mind, eh?

[TANGODANCER]

You have had time for many hobbies in your free time. many people who campaign also work - I'm staggered i'd need to point this out. just because you choose to listenn to music, drink wine, go on holiday, dance, read and write novels in YOUR free time does not mean that someone choosing to do summat different in theirs is therefore workshy.

Don't forget the ship modelling Bish.

After working eleven hour days till I was seventy ( and sometimess more) I think earned the right to do as I wish with my free time. Oh, and do stop isolating one liners from a post that contains content. It's a sign of a weak argument.

Don't remember mentioning any specific working class protestors. I think you know my questions (questions, note, and hardly serious ones at that as none of these things is ever likely to happen) were aimed at full-time bodies of the likes of those who aquire erm, fame, by digging tunnel under airports etc. I'll ask you this: Of those who protest against say, unemployment, you know, the ones with the masks who do the stone and bottle throwing. If it were possible to get them to actually listen and if I owned a decent-sized business, and I said "Right, you first thirty, turn up tomorrow and I'll give you all a job", exactly how many do you think would turn up? My guess would be not many, if any at all. This was the theme of my argument: Those who protest just for the sake of it. Of course, since I asked the question, I'll listen to your answers.

[Bruce Rioja]

So, where do you think democracy village should be hosted?

I'd like to be straight with you, William, (no gratuitous insults, promise ) then I'd like to ask you a question requiring your total honesty. See, I usually only ever see people support the rights of others to protest when they themselves agree with the cause, and I'd say that there's no small measure of that here.
If it were, say, a bunch of fascists, peacefully (unlikely I know, but for the purposes of the excercise) campaigning to be given a fair hearing in the belief that their views are as valid as yours or mine, would you be as supportive of their right to occupy public land?
What if a bunch of Gypo's pitched up on the same plot and decided to bang on about harsh treatment. Again, would you support their rights so to do?
Be honest.

[William the White]

I think you're making the rather ludicrous assumption that the protestors over any particular issue are the same people.
have you ever been on a protest march or demonstration of any kind, Tango? if so - what was the issue?

A: No I'm not. That's your assumption again.

B: Ive always been too busy trying to earn a living Bish. I saw my dad, an ex-soldier, die at 52 whilst working as a labourer, and my mother spend most of her life in a cotton mill. Both died whilst living in the same two-up, two-down terraced house with no bathroom that they spent their entire lives in. There were millions like them. They didn't protest, just got on with it. I followed suit. Protesting was a pastime I could never afford.

Except, of course, that many of them did protest, which is why conditions improved.

But never mind, eh?

More than protest - they organised themselves into trade unions and built the Labour Party, won the NHS in the face of Tory opposition, and altered Britain for the better in many, many ways. and, of course, and rightly so, this benefited Tango's parents, and Tango himself, and his children, and grandchildren and lots of other people who hadn't had time to protest, organise, build, work for a fairer and more decent society but just got on with working hard for lousy pay.

Robert Tressell famously called these people 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists'. They work for poverty wages to enable the owners of the means of production to grow rich and then richer and are grateful! What self-sacrifice these philanthropists are capable of, in their passivity. Truly, much more admirable than the Morgans, Rockefellers, Hoovers etc, with their libraries, pillaged art collections and funded universities, for their philanthropy was easy and self-serving.

[William the White]

So, where do you think democracy village should be hosted?

I'd like to be straight with you, William, (no gratuitous insults, promise ) then I'd like to ask you a question requiring your total honesty. See, I usually only ever see people support the rights of others to protest when they themselves agree with the cause, and I'd say that there's no small measure of that here.
If it were, say, a bunch of fascists, peacefully (unlikely I know, but for the purposes of the excercise) campaigning to be given a fair hearing in the belief that their views are as valid as yours or mine, would you be as supportive of their right to occupy public land?
What if a bunch of Gypo's pitched up on the same plot and decided to bang on about harsh treatment. Again, would you support their rights so to do?
Be honest.

I got halfway through answering this when the whole screen froze (possibly in horror!). You ask me to be honest. It's true that I've been polemical many times on this thread - but do you think I've been dishonest? I think - and hope - you probably feel that you've asked me some difficult questions and you want straight answers. OK - will try - let's see how far honesty gets me...

First I haven't said there is a right to occupy public land by anybody - I've asked a series of questions of the resident legal expert because I wanted to know the answers... Because there has been an anti-war protest there for several years and it's only yesterday (?) that it's been possible to try to shift it lawfully.

However, i don't want to use that as a 'get out of gaol free' card, but I'll try to honestly address what i think is the underlying question... But for that we need to get away from the 'public land' bit...

Fascists produce their own version of 'democracy village' - heaven knows what that might look like(!)... Is that all right with me? Repellant, of course. But you say they are peaceful. As I said in the EDL thread, yes I support their right to speak, protest, demonstrate... I would want to feel sure that a group of Moslems holding the evening prayer in the village would be allowed to do so without protest or insult or attack. That Jewish people would be allowed to sit there and have a picnic without any kind of interference. That American tourists would be able to take photographs. You see, consistently on this forum I have spoken up for free speech. Free speech is only really tested when it's for people you disagree with. I detest and despise these people. If they can express their ideas without threatening others for their race or creed then so be it.

I don't use the word 'Gyppo' which i think is offensive and I'm sorry you think it's ok to do so. I'm a strong supporter of the rights of Roma people to live according to their culture provided it doesn't transgress the rights of others. I think the major legal scandal is the failure of local councils to provide as, I think, perhaps mummy can help here, the places where travellers can park their caravans/vehicles (I don't know what this act was called nor if it has been repealed). Do I support their illegal - and always temporary - occupation of public or private land? No. Do i understand it? Yes. Is it hard to understand? Puzzlingly, for me, it seems to be so...

OK - was honest.

[thebish]

You have had time for many hobbies in your free time. many people who campaign also work - I'm staggered i'd need to point this out. just because you choose to listenn to music, drink wine, go on holiday, dance, read and write novels in YOUR free time does not mean that someone choosing to do summat different in theirs is therefore workshy.

Don't forget the ship modelling Bish.

After working eleven hour days till I was seventy ( and sometimess more) I think earned the right to do as I wish with my free time. Oh, and do stop isolating one liners from a post that contains content. It's a sign of a weak argument.

I don't think it is at all. you write such a swank of sweeping generalisations that it is very difficult to focus on what you are saying. so I picked out one. I don't think that is unreasonable.

if it was a misprint or an error on your behalf - fine - just say so
if you didn't mean it but got carried away - fine - we all get carried away now and again
but if you wrote summat that you can't explain and won't discuss - then I wonder what the point of writing it at all is.

you wrote..

If all the homeless were re-housed, would the streets clear of drug-addicts and alcholics?

believe it or not I am actually interested to know what on eart that means. Are only homeless people alcoholics or drug addicts? I really cannot make any sense of it.

[TANGODANCER]

More than protest - they organised themselves into trade unions and built the Labour Party, won the NHS in the face of Tory opposition, and altered Britain for the better in many, many ways. and, of course, and rightly so, this benefited Tango's parents, and Tango himself, and his children, and grandchildren and lots of other people who hadn't had time to protest, organise, build, work for a fairer and more decent society but just got on with working hard for lousy pay.

Robert Tressell famously called these people 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists'. They work for poverty wages to enable the owners of the means of production to grow rich and then richer and are grateful! What self-sacrifice these philanthropists are capable of, in their passivity. Truly, much more admirable than the Morgans, Rockefellers, Hoovers etc, with their libraries, pillaged art collections and funded universities, for their philanthropy was easy and self-serving.

Whoa, there Billy.

We really are getting caried away here aren't we? Were did I ever claim that nobody ever did anything worthwhile for society by standing against the machine? Didn't this topic start about full-time unlawful occupancy of a public site by certain protestors right now? Tango's grandfather was an Irish smallholder and his dad when't to school with no shoes. It was of the times, and World War II had much to do with things then. This is about now and the hordes of so called protestors who are quite happy to protest about anything and everything without really knowing much about anything..There is a difference.

[William the White]

More than protest - they organised themselves into trade unions and built the Labour Party, won the NHS in the face of Tory opposition, and altered Britain for the better in many, many ways. and, of course, and rightly so, this benefited Tango's parents, and Tango himself, and his children, and grandchildren and lots of other people who hadn't had time to protest, organise, build, work for a fairer and more decent society but just got on with working hard for lousy pay.

Robert Tressell famously called these people 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists'. They work for poverty wages to enable the owners of the means of production to grow rich and then richer and are grateful! What self-sacrifice these philanthropists are capable of, in their passivity. Truly, much more admirable than the Morgans, Rockefellers, Hoovers etc, with their libraries, pillaged art collections and funded universities, for their philanthropy was easy and self-serving.

Whoa, there Billy.

We really are getting caried away here aren't we? Were did I ever claim that nobody ever did anything worthwhile for society by standing against the machine? Didn't this topic start about full-time unlawful occupancy of a public site by certain protestors right now? Tango's grandfather was an Irish smallholder and his dad when't to school with no shoes. It was of the times, and World War II had much to do with things then. This is about now and the hordes of so called protestors who are quite happy to protest about anything and everything without really knowing much about anything..There is a difference.

think it's pretty fair to say that you posted approvingly of your parents just getting on with things and not doing any of this protesting stuff, and you seemed proud of the fact that you'd worked hard and raised a family without doing it either. (I recognise that working hard and raising a family is a wonderful thing to do!). I was only saying that you benefited seriously from the ones that did all that agitating and building and stuff. Seems reasonable enough to me. Where am I carried away?

I think that now there are things worth protesting about - if you have the time.

[TANGODANCER]

I don't think it is at all. you write such a swank of sweeping generalisations that it is very difficult to focus on what you are saying. so I picked out one. I don't think that is unreasonable.

if it was a misprint or an error on your behalf - fine - just say so
if you didn't mean it but got carried away - fine - we all get carried away now and again
but if you wrote summat that you can't explain and won't discuss - then I wonder what the point of writing it at all is.

Bish. I understand only too well your modus operandum. You throw out insults or accuse me of misprints, errors, or not meaning something I wrote like I'm some sort of simpleton.. Then we have the bit in bold, again a smokescreen. Read my post in its entirity. It meant exactly what it said on the tin. Next you pick out something trivial from the post and demand explanations claiming it's difficult to focus on what I'm saying. Now, I reply in this vain, and your next post (if it's true to form) will accuse me of being victimised. Wrong again buddy. You're wuffling and even after explaining you still carry on.

Oh, I forgot. Don't you forget to start your reply with "Calm down Tango". I'm calm Bish, even in good humour.

[thebish]

I don't think it is at all. you write such a swank of sweeping generalisations that it is very difficult to focus on what you are saying. so I picked out one. I don't think that is unreasonable.

if it was a misprint or an error on your behalf - fine - just say so
if you didn't mean it but got carried away - fine - we all get carried away now and again
but if you wrote summat that you can't explain and won't discuss - then I wonder what the point of writing it at all is.

Bish. I understand only too well your modus operandum. You throw out insults or accuse me of misprints, errors, or not meaning something I wrote like I'm some sort of simpleton.. Then we have the bit in bold, again a smokescreen. Read my post in its entirity. It meant exactly what it said on the tin. Next you pick out something trivial from the post and demand explanations claiming it's difficult to focus on what I'm saying. Now, I reply in this vain, and your next post (if it's true to form) will accuse me of being victimised. Wrong again buddy. You're wuffling and even after explaining you still carry on.

Oh, I forgot. Don't you forget to start your reply with "Calm down Tango". I'm calm Bish, even in good humour.

can I try a third time then - with no flourishes or additions.

could you please explain what on earth this means?

If all the homeless were re-housed, would the streets clear of drug-addicts and alcholics?

(I'm not sure I have ever "accused you of being victimised" - what kind of an accusation would that be for anyone to make - can you give me an example of where i ever made that "accusation"? - I suspect not - but if it is true to form and typical it shouldn't be too hard to find.)

[TANGODANCER]

can I try a third time then - with no flourishes or additions. could you please explain what on earth this means?

If all the homeless were re-housed, would the streets clear of drug-addicts and alcholics?

(I'm not sure I have ever "accused you of being victimised" - what kind of an accusation would that be for anyone to make - can you give me an example of where i ever made that "accusation"? - I suspect not - but if it is true to form and typical it shouldn't be too hard to find.)

.

Did you actually bother reading the post Bish? Are you deliberately ignoring the rest of it?

Okay then: Have you ever been down Manchester's Oxford Road and seen the beggars (some women with babies in tow) who get money and then some guy comes along and collects it? Have you ever seen the winos and the guys wearing new trainers with a dog in tow who always seem to have cigarettes going despite their poverty?
Have you seen the white-faced addicts out there? 'm sure you've seen similar, maybe even worse in our own area, so what can't you understand in me saying if they were all offered homes would they all change and become model citizens?

Ref the "accusations" of victimisation. If I looked hard enough I'd find some post or other where you claimed I was claiming being so because I had the audacity to indicate you were talking a load of bollox. I don't intend looking, but it isn't an idle claim. I never feel or claim to be victimised. I've been a big lad for a long time. I just argue back, which is anyone's right....Erm, I think? Now calm down Bish.

[Bruce Rioja]

I'm a strong supporter of the rights of Roma people to live according to their culture provided it doesn't transgress the rights of others.

Do they ever though? When do they not transgress the rights of others by pitching up on land either privately or commonly owned? Also, if you don't have this lot down as being anything other than a bunch of lawless, thieving bunch of trespassing tossers then you want to try owning a field that they've decided to set up camp on. Then go through the rigmarole of having them moved, only to see them move on to someone else who'd then be landed with the same problem. You'd soon find yourself in the real world. It's easy to support them from your 'this'll-never-actually-affect-me' Roma people supporting idealogical highground.