Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
Everyone earns a living. Is a footballer working class?
kids looting vape shops in sunderland = working class. those folk looting the sainsburys = middle class. folks celebrating with champagne in some members club in pimlico and counting their roubles = upper class.
Very
Very few premier league players, especially those towards the end of their career need to work to earn a living for themselves and their family.
Many are millionaires.
But in the lower leagues, yes definitely they are. Some are even part time.
You mentioned footballers not me.
Very few premier league players, especially those towards the end of their career need to work to earn a living for themselves and their family.
Many are millionaires.
But in the lower leagues, yes definitely they are. Some are even part time.
You mentioned footballers not me.
I agree with you but was curious because you're onto something, class is so nefarious because sometimes it based on money, sometimes on family, wealth etc.
So a lot of footballers start working class but do they cease being working class through earnings and wealth? Or do you stay in your class regardless of how much you earn/achieve? Is there any class mobility?
It's an odd concept.
Quite right.
I detest anyone being pigeon holed into a generic slot. Be that by wealth or age or anything like that.
It just creates scope for division by people who see things through a binary perspective.
We are all of us individuals and that should be celebrated.
Totally.
It's down the road from me and I know loads of parents whose kids go there. I know exactly what caused it to go under and as I've said about a hundred times, it was a badly run school and VAT was the straw that broke the camel's back.
How the feck is Jenrick allowed to get away with blatant islamophobic comments?
I mean, when you have been (allegedly) openly corrupt in office with zero repercussions, a bit of race baiting is like water off a fascist duck's back.
Well, well, well...
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...r-was-member-of-conservatives-until-last-week
Reform UK chair was member of Conservatives until last week
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...r-was-member-of-conservatives-until-last-week
Trusting this is accurate without seeing the data, @Maticmaker - Considering you disagree with spoiled ballots, and "none of the above" options, then this is the most representative ballot we have. What do we do now?
Lib Dem government I suppose, no worries on space in Parliament. None of the above means no one is sent to represent your constituency.
It's a way of looking at things I suppose, but it solves nothing, even if the data is correct.
All the people who don't vote, who are entitled to vote, all have their own reasons for not voting. If you want to call it apathy, then perhaps there should be an 'Apathy' Party formed?
None of the above (for me anyway) excuses the deliberate spoiling of an official ballot paper, it is an insult to those who's name is on the paper, it is an insult to those who fought for years to get the vote, it is an insult to those who have to sit in the polling stations all day and to those who count the vote, who work into the wee hours, to deliver a result.
I would sum it up with the words of a friend of mine years ago who regularly helped to count the votes in many elections she said " whenever I come across a spoiled ballot I feel like I could slap the face of the person who did it, it's like they are little kids who crying and stamping their feet because they want something that's not on offer"
Yes, because everyone should be grateful they get to choose between 2 extremely similar options in our massively flawed and outdated FPTP system.
Even Reform, who I despise, got 4 million votes and it barely translated into a Westminster presence. The Lib Dems secured 12% of the vote and 72 seats and Reform took 14%, but only five seats.
We pay £35bn a year to the banks due to quantitative easing and the government paying the Bank of England base rate on that money.
We could just not do that, like other governments do.
Probably a shite idea that I've not thought through, but it just occurred to me that you could assign voting power to each MP in relation to how much of the vote their party won. That way you retain the link between MP and constituency but have votes in the commons which are more representative of the population.
Labour MP's votes could be .5 of a vote (or whatever) and Reform's would be 2.5 (or whatever).
It would certainly encourage people in uncompetitive constituencies to turn out. Their vote would still matter. Might vest too much power in single individuals though. I guess you could have minimum and maximum voting weights to offset this.
Meh, I feel like an American trying to improve football.
Labour MP's votes could be .5 of a vote (or whatever) and Reform's would be 2.5 (or whatever).
It would certainly encourage people in uncompetitive constituencies to turn out. Their vote would still matter. Might vest too much power in single individuals though. I guess you could have minimum and maximum voting weights to offset this.
Meh, I feel like an American trying to improve football.
That would also mean unequal representation for each constituency, which can create its own issues?
Good point. I hadn't thought of that.
I accept that the FPTP system is flawed in many respects, therefore numbers of votes cast do not end with
a proportional representation.... but this has still not got anything to do with defacing ballot papers, which are the very means we have (flawed or not) at the moment, for recording your vote.
Campaign for a change in the voting system by all means, but don't disrespect the process of 'casting a ballot' itself, the rules are needed.
The only time (I would countenance) something other than the names of candidates on the ballot paper, would be if;
a) everybody (eligible) had to vote, i.e. a legal requirement, (thereafter the right to vote taken away if the person did not vote)
and
b) there was provision on the ballot that said 'None of the above'... against which a 'X' could be entered
The process of the act of voting itself has to be both prescribed and proscribed, in order to make it unalterable.
The point is that there is no way to register a conscious abstention without having a "None of the above" box to check. People don't vote for all kinds of reasons. Some people are simply disengaged with politics altogether so don't bother to vote. Others are completely engaged but aren't willing to vote for what's on offer. But by not voting, they are all lumped into the same category. Those that are currently engaged might lose interest without an option to participate in the electoral process in some form.
The only way they can do that currently is to spoil the ballot. Give them a "None of the above option" and have those numbers officially recorded and reported. At a minimum, it encourages participation in the process and gives them a voice. Plus it provides a better indicator of were the public stand.
Sorry, but I cannot agree with the act of deliberately spoiling a ballot paper, because it doesn't have what you want.
I agree that attempts can be made to count the numbers of people who don't want to vote for any of the candidates, with the addition of a 'none of the above' box. Maybe some party or pressure group could be formed to try to bring about that change. However defacing the ballot paper, is not the answer.... just as rioting in the streets isn't either.
Really needs to be IQ tests before voting in this country.
Well I've read her timeline.
Climate change denial, islamophobia, anti free school meals and anti breakfast clubs, pro North Sea drilling, Labour ruined the country in one week after the election, and worst of all we have is self service checkouts, unlike Dubai.
That’s the problem now though, you see one tweet and you’ll be able to guess with 95% certainty their views on:
- benefits
- Brexit
- Trump
- public sector
- Prince Harry
- Education
- Climate Change
And a whole raft of other topics.
125 year contracts
125 year contracts
Giving Chelsea ideas!
125 year contracts
The 125 years reflects the leasehold, but poorly worded by the FT. Pretty standard on projects like this. The Tories have spent £800m on this project so far even before there is a shovel in the ground.
125 year contracts
Absolutely pathetic from Labour.
The Irish government did a similar deal in the late 80s for a key infrastructure project. The same excuses were used.
They ended up buying it back.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news...15bn-bonanza-from-m50-toll-deal/26628381.html
Impeccable timing as well
“It’s the economy, stupid”
Brilliant. This is what she fecking deserves. Crashed the economy and ruined people’s lives with no remorse. Now she thinks she can go on a right wing grifting tour to make money. Feck off Liz!