No, it would be radical. Because it would be a fundamental and extreme deviation from both international norms and current domestic practice and norms. If 95% supported it, it would still be radical. Sometimes, a lot of people support radical policies.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
No, it would be radical. Because it would be a fundamental and extreme deviation from both international norms and current domestic practice and norms. If 95% supported it, it would still be radical. Sometimes, a lot of people support radical policies.
That’s what the meme is about…
Do you see the words "unpopular" or "misguided" anywhere on that list?
Yes, thank you, I realise that. But your meme is bullshit.
Anyway, do you really think this is the aspect of this that is most worth discussing? The semantics of "radical"?
I mean, it’s a meme backing up your argument but you do you.
Wow, these are incredibly niche. Ok let's play along if I was the Tories with a complicit right wing media:
So how are you going to pay for this homelessness furlough scheme? By raising taxes. Same old Labour, always throwing other people's money at the problem rather than approaching the root causes of homelessness. But then again, this is a party that doesn't care for honest, hard working people, this is the party who wants to raise taxes on working people, to fund schemes that won't work.
We must protect our allies in the region and we are working closely with the relevant governments to guide them in line with international law. But it seems the focus isn't on helping the British people, it seems the focus is on weakening our partners in the region and playing petty international politics, trying to police the world than providing for the British people.
I appreciate your sentiment. They are two admirable goals. But if your those are the two core policies on your manifesto and that you'd discuss, are to do with arms sales and homeless people, then you're in serious trouble.
An example?
Sorry, isn't my contention that Corbyn's policies were not radical? As in nationalisation of rail were popular?
Am I getting confused? I don't think a majority opinion can really be radical.
Am I getting confused? I don't think a majority opinion can really be radical.
Oh. Well. In that case. I'm sorry, it can be hard to tell irony from straightfaced argument around here!
And mine is that this part of Corbyns policies were both radical and popular. Because yes, a majority opinion can most certainly be radical.
Well that's where we differ. I think something ceases to be radical once it's popular.
Radical in this context is a position in contrast with the status quo. Popularity has nothing to do with it. It’s a comparison of what the current position is and the degree of change that is proposed.
Ok, but the poster said they polled as "very popular"
So in that context, a policy polling as very positive, such as nationalising railways, can't be defined as radical, well at least on my mind.
No that’s the context you are insisting on applying to it.
@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.
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.
Niche? The homelessness epidemic and the biggest two foreign policy issues on the planet that you can have actual impact on overnight?
Is it? What a misreading.
How do these help the majority of British people?
These are what YOU want to do, now while I agree with them and would enact the same things, I just wouldn't make them the corner stone of my manifesto.
They're not something you even need to campaign or promote, just do them when you've gotten into power.
Jesus fecking Christ.
Yeah, Christ indeed.
How does knowing there's a safety net, should you ever have the misfortune of finding yourself homeless, help people.
Any luck with the radical, life changing policy Starmer is going to do if that doesn't meet it's lofty standards?
You think creating a homelessness furlough for current homeless people and a safety net that if you become homeless, the state will pay for your rent, is better than policies trying to address the root causes of homelessness?
It won't be seen as help because it's not immediate to the vast majority of people.
NHS/Doctors appointment/waiting times/standard of care.
Cost of living, food, inflation etc.
Energy bills, fuel bills.
Elderly care
While nice, the above in my opinion are much more immediate and required.
As I said, I kinda like your proposal in general and the direction of it FFS.
My radical policy is to buy all the buy to let's in the country. Reckon £30bn would do it. Now renters can mortgage/buy the property from the government at super low interest.
So now you have a lot more home owners - who now have more security. Homelessness is sometimes created by landlords/evictions etc.
No more huge rent profit, so long as they can make their mortgage (which when I moved from rented, my mortgage was £300 less per.month than my rent)
I'd also tax vacant properties, especially in major cities to stop large international conglomerates from buying units and holding them like shares. They're homes, not financial vehicles.
There's no confidence in the Government that they will improve things for Joe Public. And it's the same for Labour.
Good news, the party you're voting for is offering absolutely nothing for fixing any of these issues. Apart from lying about what GB Energy is, I guess.
I don't know why people think that Labour won't shift, 5 years is a decent amount of time and circumstances and priorities change constantly. At least with Labour that shift is likely to be to the Left as opposed to the Tories, who will only shift Right
Offering where? Have they discussed the NHS?
Completely agree. Far easier to set out your agenda from a position of power than while in opposition while everyone is sceptical about you, driven by the right wing media
Starmer will spend his entire 5 years twerking for Murdoch only for Murdoch to laugh in his face and back the Tories at the next GE
Well, 5 years is hopefully enough time for Murdoch to finally pop his clogs
That blokes got 20 years left in him
Murdoch will most likely be dead soon.
Wes is going to open it up to private health. Unless he's unemployed after the next election in which case he'll be doing I'm A Celebrity to pay those donors back.
I'll have to add it to the list although I want to read Yanis Varoufakis' Technofeudalism first.
No you don't understand politics. Wes is only accepting political donations from private healthcare companies because that's what you need to do to get into power. He's definitely not going to turn around and help them once in power. I know this because he said he wouldn't.
I very much doubt that Starmer will last 5 years. Three tops.
It doesn't make sense because your reasoning for your beliefs don't reconcile. Hence why every post of yours is filled with absurd exaggerations
If Labour has to chase centre-right votes and lean in a policy direction to get elected, that stands true when in government.
They've no reason to suddenly change their policy profile, it's nothing but wishful thinking on your part.
You keep saying there's no point having policies if you don't get power, fine, but that reasoning stands true for maintaining power. A single term is nothing and the Tories can quickly undo everything so re-election is as important as being elected in the first place. Hence they'll more or less maintain this Tory light position.
There's no trojan horse, they are what they're showing.
This is an absurd exaggeration.
The fact you need the centre right, ex Tory voters to get elected, you propose to not market to them at all, just ignore them?
I'm only really interested in what I wrote, not some random argument you've imagined.