Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
No you don't. At every general election in my lifetime there was been at least a third of the electorate that didn't vote at all, why don't you try appealing to them? So they and what, another 20-25% of the electorate already have a Tory party they don't vote for, why do they need two?
You're always trying to get them to vote but given they don't vote, that's a higher bar than recurring voters.
The only British politician I've ever seen actually trying to get non-voters to vote was labelled a cult leader and the voters cultists.
And he didn't get elected.
I've absolutely no idea what you're on about I'm afraid. You're plucking arguments/conclusions from thin air because no where there does it say the conclusion you think it does.
You're either purposefully avoiding the point or being a troll.
And it all it took was an all-out assault from within his own party and national media. Don't worry though, those scum antisemite cultists know to stay out of the polling stations now.
Not sure Starmer will oversee turnouts as low as Blair's tenure but he'll come close. But as long as Tories vote for him, that's great.
Literally quoted your own post. Clearly you're on a wind up.
Yeah, let's keep the Tories.
Don't be daft. Let's get rid of the Tories but keep their policies.
What fecking policies?! I've asked so many times and you can't name them.
The two child benefit cap will be staying, the top rate of tax will be staying, he's already said the Public Order Act will be given 'time to bed in', the NHS will be further bent over the privatisation barrel.
Admittedly we'd have a Starmer Party Chancellor who thinks the Tories are too soft on welfare, so I guess that counts as a change.
You're right. I'm going to abstain from voting.
Vote for Labour, its your democratic right, and I can even sympathise with the urge to bin the Tories at any cost. But ridiculing those of us who will opt this one out or voting third party isn't the play here my guy, nor is it particularly helpful in getting us onboard.
You asked. Sorry you don't like the answer.
To be honest, Tories aren't materially affecting my life and the tax cuts have benefited me.
I'll abstain and we can keep them in, no point frying pan, fire and all that tbh.
"I'm alright, Jack!"
What's the party you're voting for offering out of interest? On those specific issues. Genuine question.
If at every general election a third of the electorate consistently don't vote, surely it's more beneficial to sway the people that do vote.
So I thought this would be a fun thought experiment as its something ive done loads of times - practically got a full fleshed out manifesto!
Item One - Increased regulation of the business sector.
For me, one of the most pressing issues in western society (probably second only to climate change) is wealth inequality. It is one thing to reward innovation and investment, but what we are seeing in the current incarnation of western capitalism is what I would call extreme, unregulated capitalism. In fact if you look at traditional economic theory, I barely think it meets the criteria for capitalism anymore - I would coin the current economic (and arguably political) model as Monopolism.
So Item One on my manifesto is about tackling wealth distribution. My first, keystone policy on this is that for any corporate entity, the highest paid/remunerated individual cannot receive more than 10x that of the lowest paid. Now clearly, this would require some pretty tight legislation to try to get round the inevitable loopholes and legal sneakiness, but what we are talking about here is the spirit of the law, that we will try to legislate for. This means that successful companies need to bring their employees along with them, and share in the wealth and success that they have helped to create. Note that the "10x" figure is somewhat arbitrary, but I think isnt too far off the mark. If your top CEO is getting 1 mil, everyone at the company needs to be on at least 100k.
Second thing for tacking wealth distribution is going to be significant tax increases on what I call "unproductive capital", and corporate profits. On the latter it is important to note that "profit" means after costs, investments and anything else are taken into account. This is on that pure, bottom line profit that goes into company accounts and/or ends up getting paid out to shareholders. To counteract this, I would also introduce significant tax breaks and incentives on UK investment, so if a company invests X amount in their UK holdings they can claim back lets say 2X off the tax bill (again, exact figure somewhat arbitrary). The point here is to reward companies for reinvesting their money back into the UK or on training, job creation or innovation, and to punish those that instead simply exploit workers and economic conditions and give nothing back (and instead just seek to line their own pockets).
On the "unproductive capital" this is essentially a wealth tax targeted at those with significant, unused landholdings. Too much of the UK consists of simply privately owned land or other assets that sit dormant - this land needs to be made productive, whether development, farming or dedicated and publicly accessible green spaces.
Item Two - Political Reform
My second big manifesto item is political reform, and links somewhat to what was stated above. The justification for this set of policies is that corporations and the media have become far too influential in modern politics, where in fact a clear line should exist between the two. Corporations are able to lobby politicians for their own interests, offer what practically amounts to bribes, and influence legislation as a result. Media meanwhile are uniquely positioned to influence large swathes of the electorate and therefore must have a responsibility for objective, responsible reporting. A few key things here;
- All sitting MP's pay will be linked directly to the median pay in the UK, with pay rises in line with UK performance on key metrics such as GDP. If the country is doing well, those running it should share in this, and the policy makers should be incentivised to improve national working conditions as it will also affect their own pay.
- All MPs will be required to declare any and all professional meetings with private sector entities, and for these to be recorded and made publicly available. It is in the national interest to know exactly what MPs and companies are discussing and to help ensure that these companies are not unduly influencing policy.
- Similarly, MPs will be barred from any kind of secondary employment. Being a member of parliament is a full time job and the pay reflects that. Members should not have the time to be able to act in consultancy or journalistic roles.
- Media companies will be more closely held to account. This is a trickier one - we want a free and independent media, but we also need limits on lies and biased reporting. Right now the balance is too tolerant - it needs to be shifted.
Thus is the world according to Walrus, and when I am dictator of my own country, this is the sort of thing you peasants can expect.
Or you could just appeal to them and make them want to vote. But then you wouldn't get to adopt Tory policies and call it 'pragmatism'.
Something something he'll flip on this after the election something.
I like this.
My idea is a wealth tracker of MPs, if it increase beyond say 7% a year, then they are investigated.
Or he's flipping now.
He's a longstanding opponent of protest. And that's actual longstanding not the fortnight that usual passes as such with him.
An example what is happening in El Salvador currently
Hopefully one of his sons is having a wedding on a yacht soon.
If that’s Labours position because they need to play it careful politically then feck them for not having a spine.
If that’s Labours position because that’s what they believe in, then feck them for having no morals.
If that’s Labours position because that’s what they believe in, then feck them for having no morals.
But they consistently don't vote. You can't just "make" them vote, if they're consistently non-voters. It's obviously more sensible to target people who do vote (who make up the majority of the population) than those that don't.
Also:
If this is the way and Starmer keeps spiraling down, Tory might have time to snatch another term
This is a bit sensationalist.
No one from labour has endorsed anything.
The full quote from the article they're using as a source is:
"The Labour Party is understood to believe the proposals are sensible but the PM's language is not."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68429902
And this is quite obviously in-regards to MPs having their homes targeted and death-threats.
This is the type of stuff youd expect from the right, the left can't help themselves.
But they're wildly different from the Tories, and will definitely pivot once in power.
It's sensationalist.
This is exactly how Nazi Labour started
Starmer believes all these peaceful pro Palestine protests requires any kind of attention? That is not sensational. That's cnutish. That's because he's a cnut.
Doesn't matter what language the other blue cnut used. Starmer is the cnut I'm looking at right now.
Edit: rest in power Aaron Bushnell