Do I believe we should funnel billions of pounds of our money into the pockets of arms manufacturers, just so we can have independent control of a weapon whose entire point is to never be fired?
Sure, why not? But can we please sort out some of the more important shit first?
No, I understand that. My point is that it’s a bad thing for society, despite the fact that you personally might be fine.
Actually the argument is blindingly obvious, and I’ve alluded to it. But to spell it out:
A government granting themselves, and all future ministers, the ability to control and log who uses what websites opens the door to all sorts of possible future abuses, while practically solving very little.
Also, your opening “argument” was that this is good because too many people are morons. It’s an interesting one from someone who claims to want substance over belittlement.
Quite right, I assumed naïvety when I should have seen edginess.
How cute.
You think this will just be used to silence the people you dislike?
How cute.
Luckily for us, it seems the Greens have proven that Labour’s grasp on the duopoly isn’t quite as firm as they thought. I’m praying that Labour get completely wiped out at the next General Election and slip off into the quiet obscurity of history.
It’s exciting isn’t it? If Starmer had any sense at all, he’d see the writing on the wall and introduce PR. Otherwise I think there’s a decent possibility that we’ll see a few high profile defections from Labour to Green and then electoral wipeout. At the moment I’d still expect Reform to win, but we can always hope.
Sure, but I’d argue that Corbyn was divisive enough that he drove more right wingers to vote. And we can argue his potential electability, but when it came down to it he was leader of a Labour party which failed to win an election.
It’s not that there isn’t a large progressive bloc in the UK, it’s that it’s just not big enough to win elections.
Are progressives or real, avowed socialists so unelectable today that the Labour party has come to this?
Yes.
my thought was that they need more Tony Benn or Ken Livingstone than Tony Blair
Blair undoubtedly did some awful things, and moved the party economically to the right. But also he was the only Labour PM to get elected for a generation. And he did it 3 times. So yeah, I’d say that real economic progressives have been unelectable for a long time. Hopefully that’s starting to change, but who knows.
deleted by creator
Labour have been clamping down on immigration and spouting off Reform style rhetoric since getting to power. What more could you idiots want?
I want Labour to actually fucking discuss the issue, rather than pandering to Reform cunts, or sticking their fingers in their ears and going “lalala”. I want to hear them shout about why we actually want and need immigrants in this country. I don’t want them to clamp down on immigration in stupid performative ways without ever justifying why it needs to come down.
If the rate needs to come down I want to hear adults talking about why and how. If we need higher immigration to sustain our economy and get us through the demographic timebomb we’re entering, I want to hear adults talking about why and how.
Maybe if they started doing live executions of immigrants to appease Reform voters and saps like you?
This is exactly the issue. You can’t discuss it without someone literally accusing you of wanting live executions. It’s fucking childish and I’m sick of it.
The thing is, an awful lot of people would still think that more than 10% of new GP registrations being from immigrants is too high. And no-one disputes letting doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals come here.
What is a sensible immigration rate? Why? If it’s not what we have, what are we doing about it? And given how loudly Reform are crying about immigrants, and how well it’s working, why is no-one from government shouting this stuff from the fucking rooftops?!
(I know, the answer is a mixture of “we need the cheap labour or the economy is fucked” and “we couldn’t fix this if we tried”)
children should have autonomy over their own bodies … overriding parental lack of consent to get immunisations, etc
This is interesting. Everything you’ve said I agree with, but I wonder if that’s just because I agree with those things.
For example, I don’t believe that children should be able to override their parents’ wishes and skip immunisations. And I’m not sure at what age it is appropriate to allow a child to opt to be circumcised for decorative or religious reasons.
The only winners would be the populist parties of the right and left, and the nationalist fringe.
That’s what the author said, what you were quoting was something which a subeditor has distilled from the text. You may still disagree but it’s a lot more specific about who would benefit.
Sure. But is billions on something we already have (but need the USA to help maintain) really the best use of defence spending? Because I bet there are a hundred other areas in defence where disentangling ourselves from the USA would be wise.