• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

The Rugby Forum - Global Rugby Union News, Six Nations & RWC Discussion

Help Support The Rugby Forum:

The backbenchers need to know who's in charge. If they don't like it, a simple email: Dear colleague, there is a GE in 6 weeks, enjoy your holiday. Yours Andy.

The problems this country faces need a huge majority and it needs MPs to stop p***ing about. I'm a fan of Labour but it's time for the centre left to stand up and govern

Ye... i think your underestimating public pressure, Starner made noises regarding social programs and he was on the back foot from the off.
 
Ye... i think your underestimating public pressure, Starner made noises regarding social programs and he was on the back foot from the off.
I don't think I am. Most people the world over just want to get on with their lives in a world that is pretending to be vaguely fair. Almost every one agrees there should be a safety net, almost everyone agrees there are too many people currently taking advantage of it. Most people want or at least wanted to work hard and get paid a fair wage, that is broken. Better to fix it in an at least nominally caring way than let the Tories or even worse Farage just grift it for themselves
 
I don't think I am. Most people the world over just want to get on with their lives in a world that is pretending to be vaguely fair. Almost every one agrees there should be a safety net, almost everyone agrees there are too many people currently taking advantage of it. Most people want or at least wanted to work hard and get paid a fair wage, that is broken. Better to fix it in an at least nominally caring way than let the Tories or even worse Farage just grift it for themselves

Jesus you sound like a far right Nazi with ideals like 'there are too many people taking advantage' of the UKs social care system.
 
Jesus you sound like a far right Nazi with ideals like 'there are too many people taking advantage' of the UKs social care system.
Think of it more of a modification of Marx: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. If someone genuinely needs something the state should absolutely provide, if someone is a bit anxious about going out today they can starve.
 
Think of it more of a modification of Marx: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. If someone genuinely needs something the state should absolutely provide, if someone is a bit anxious about going out today they can starve.

That quote wasnin the context of goods and services though, Marx would certainly eradicate all means tested benefits surely, he would understand capitolism creates poverty, and a strong robust benefit system would be necesary in such a bad system, well until he could change the system.

I think your aligned with people like Tommy Robinson in this.
 
That quote wasnin the context of goods and services though, Marx would certainly eradicate all means tested benefits surely, he would understand capitolism creates poverty, and a strong robust benefit system would be necesary in such a bad system, well until he could change the system.

I think your aligned with people like Tommy Robinson in this.
Wash your mouth out.

Like I think most others I just would like fairness. We aren't going to get equality but we can endeavour for equality of opportunity while protecting those who most need it. We have a whole generation that feels the world owes them something and when they don't get it easily, they refuse to strive for it. That bizarrely opens the way for your Yaxley-Lennon's to provide a convenient scapegoat.
 
Particularly with the heavy rotation of PMs and cabinets, long term thinking has just gone out the window at a time we need it most.
... and its particularly galling given the house of lords is so utterly useless.

Replace it with a cross section of academic economists, professional bodies etc and then you've at least one part of the government that can think toward the long term.
 
Wash your mouth out.

Like I think most others I just would like fairness. We aren't going to get equality but we can endeavour for equality of opportunity while protecting those who most need it. We have a whole generation that feels the world owes them something and when they don't get it easily, they refuse to strive for it. That bizarrely opens the way for your Yaxley-Lennon's to provide a convenient scapegoat.

Listen i dont necesarily disagree, but the modern day left would, equality is a dirty word today, equity is far more on point. Especially when it comes to social care.

Equality of opportunity, a generationnof entitled lazy kids, these are right wing talking points today
 
Listen i dont necesarily disagree, but the modern day left would, equality is a dirty word today, equity is far more on point. Especially when it comes to social care.

Equality of opportunity, a generationnof entitled lazy kids, these are right wing talking points today
That's just depressing. They were the core of "the third way". The idea you could embrace aspiration and ambition while maintaining a safety net for those that truly need it. To me it's neither left nor right but basic humanity.
 
That's just depressing. They were the core of "the third way". The idea you could embrace aspiration and ambition while maintaining a safety net for those that truly need it. To me it's neither left nor right but basic humanity.
Where did that idea on basic humanity come from? Hint: It wasn’t the government.
 
Your definition of basic humanity. Where did it come from? Were you born with it? Of course not. So where did your concept of basic humanity come from? Did you invent it?
Well mine came from my parents who I imagine got it in a similar way. It is probably evolutionary to an extra in that in order to survive we had to cooperate and in order to do that we have to act with shared values.
 
Well mine came from my parents who I imagine got it in a similar way. It is probably evolutionary to an extra in that in order to survive we had to cooperate and in order to do that we have to act with shared values.
It’s a purely Christian idea.

The problem with the EU welfare system is it was created through a Judea-Christian society. That society is gone.

Fortunately in the US we still have a strong religious foundation and parishioners. And our recent southern American immigrations are strong believers as well.
 
It’s a purely Christian idea.

The problem with the EU welfare system is it was created through a Judea-Christian society. That society is gone.

Fortunately in the US we still have a strong religious foundation and parishioners. And our recent southern American immigrations are strong believers as well.
Tosh. It's not a Christian idea, it existed long before christianity. Most of what organised religions ascribe to their leaders is a rehash of what existed at the time. It's a core principle of Buddhism, how did they pick it up from a religion that didn't exist at the time?
 
Tosh. It's not a Christian idea, it existed long before christianity. Most of what organised religions ascribe to their leaders is a rehash of what existed at the time.
These people genuinely think morality and decency didn't exist before Christianity. That nobody cared for each other or were altruistic until Jesus came along.

Oh and they ignore all the very non-Christian things Christian people and nations have got up to. But hey ho, refusing to recognise hypocrisy is at the core of most religions.
 
Tosh. It's not a Christian idea, it existed long before christianity. Most of what organised religions ascribe to their leaders is a rehash of what existed at the time. It's a core principle of Buddhism, how did they pick it up from a religion that didn't exist at the time?
It’s such a long standing idea that it doesn’t materialize in any substantial way until western civilization emerges from the dark ages.

But I don’t blame your lack of faith, the Anglican Church is a weird historical oddity.

Should have stuck with the Holy Roman Church.
 
It’s such a long standing idea that it doesn’t materialize in any substantial way until western civilization emerges from the dark ages.

But I don’t blame your lack of faith, the Anglican Church is a weird historical oddity.

Should have stuck with the Holy Roman Church.
You've not really answer the question about how an Eastern religion has it as a core principle from before the Western world had progressed as far as empire. And I'm in no way saying the Buddhists were the first. I

And I have nothing to do with the Anglican Church.
 
Tosh. It's not a Christian idea, it existed long before christianity. Most of what organised religions ascribe to their leaders is a rehash of what existed at the time. It's a core principle of Buddhism, how did they pick it up from a religion that didn't exist at the time?
Buddism is a spin off from Hinduism isn't it?
 
You've not really answer the question about how an Eastern religion has it as a core principle from before the Western world had progressed as far as empire. And I'm in no way saying the Buddhists were the first. I

And I have nothing to do with the Anglican Church.
Oh, I didn’t realize Buddhism is older than Judaism? Oh wait. It isn’t.

Judaism through Christ transformed the Roman Empire. This is very basic religious history.

Do they not discuss this in UK schools?
 
It’s such a long standing idea that it doesn’t materialize in any substantial way until western civilization emerges from the dark ages.

But I don’t blame your lack of faith, the Anglican Church is a weird historical oddity.

Should have stuck with the Holy Roman Church.
Someone needs to discover pre-history
"Basic human decency" predates agriculture and pre-dates writing

For more on the subject, I can recommend https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/56269264-the-dawn-of-everything or https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13237633-moral-origins. There is, of course, plenty more for anyone actually interested, rather than just pushing a religion (whilst pretending it wasn't essentially a government)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top