Another reason why Labour has no place in government.
Labour has backed the idea of teaching children about white privilege with a shadow minister saying it is “a good idea”.
Shadow culture secretary Thangam Debbonaire said children need “the opportunity to ask difficult questions sometimes of our nation’s history”, insisting it would not be “undermining” Britain.
There is no such thing as white privilege. The whole concept is racist to its rotten core – just like the Labour party, then.
Is that a made up comedy name? I see from Wokeypedia that it is. Ms Singh as was.
“Shadow”minister lol.
And BTW, in what way is it “our nation”
She’s half Tamil Tiger.
I agree with your whole post especially the premise that Labour isn’t fit to govern, unfortunately the obvious alternative has shown it isn’t either.
I will be supporting reform at the next election in the hope that a mauling from both sides will shake the Tories out of their current stupidity.
Yes, it means a labour government but it won’t take long for them screw up and open the door to a viable challenger – question is whether the Tories can get their act together quickly enough to be that challenger.
Phil, allow me to answer your question RE the Tories
They won’t.
The Tory party will learn the wrong lesson and double down on being a more shit version of the Limp Dumbs.
I fear that’s accurate…
Alexander and Joe,
I fear you are both correct.
If you haven’t read it already Mathew Goodwin theorises a possible route for reform to become that challenger (it’s on his substack, hope you don’t mind me mentioning it here LR).
Would require a lot of breaks but probably best opportunity in my lifetime for a new party to emerge.
Phil,
I think the problem here is the way parties transform over time. Look at what labour was, in the ’30s, now look at it. Same for all the others.
There used to be a time when persons of whatever political persuasion genuinely believed in their movement and put forward arguments to support their ideas. Take it or leave it. Now we have politicians trying to work out what the public want, saying they’ll do it, then either not do it or do the exact opposite, plus s load of other shit they never mentioned before they got in power.
No-one voted for mass immigration. No-one voted for Net Zero. No-one voted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. No-one voted for ULEZ. No-one voted to piss billions away in the Ukraine. I could go on.
The problem is the system. Democracy. We don’t live in one, but even if we did it still would not work while there is no qualification required to vote other than being 18. Criminals, perverts, mental defectives and non-taxpayers are just some of the categories that vote.
Just because a lot of people want something does not make it right.
BTW, a loose etymological explanation of the word ‘democracy’ is ‘mob rule’.
There will be no salvation within democracy. The country is ruined beyond repair.
I’m afraid this reasoning doesn’t entirely hold together. If the Government has ignored the wishes of the electorate because, as you rightly say, no-one voted for mass immigration or net zero, the fact that the electorate includes people you don’t believe should have the vote is neither here nor there.
We live in what is, or is supposed to be, a representative democracy. A direct democracy, which is closer to mob rule, is unworkable in a country with millions of voters for obvious reasons. Our problem, and it’s serious, is that our MPs have given up representing us.
As you can tell David, I’m no fan of democracy, but if we must suffer under it, at least make sure the electorate does not include the groups mentioned above, plus numerous others.
My mother actually voted for Tony Blair because she thought he had nice hair, ffs
‘Nice hair’. It’s why a lot of women voted for Trudeau in Canada, and look at the mess we ended up with.
Re representative democracy:
‘At the 2015 general election, Debbonaire was selected as a Labour candidate via an all-women shortlist for the constituency of Bristol West’ (Wikipedia)
Actually, direct democracy can work. The Swiss use it on a fairly regular basis.
How did a minority group that represents less than 10% of the global population acquire a position of privilege? Obviously not because it is superior to the majority.
The problem with limiting the vote to only those who you think should qualify is that it is impossible to design a system that isn’t open to abuse. There are already people out there who think that those with the wrong views shouldn’t be allowed to express their opinions. It is a very small step to ensuring that only those with the correct beliefs should be allowed to vote.
I see your point but I wasn’t proposing excluding people based on what they think, but on their capacity to understand politics, coupled with no criminal record and being a current taxpayer.
Those that do not pay taxes should have zero say in how the Government spends taxes.
“Those that do not pay taxes should have zero say in how the Government spends taxes.”
That’s a reasonable position to take with just one caveat. I’m retired and I’m currently drawing from my pension fund at a rate that stays below the tax threshold so I’m paying very little tax at present. I have however paid tax for nearly fifty years so I’m definitely a net contributor.
Your previous 59 years of contribution entitled you (under Alexander’s People’s Republic) to vote for the previous 50 years. Now you do not pay tax, you do not get to vote (I would also abolish all taxation on basic pensions, taxing money that has already been taxed is ridiculous)
What you sem to be saying is analogous to buying a ticket to last year’s FA Cup final and expecting to be able to attend all future finals.
There should also be an upper limit on voter age as well as a minimum (25). Without being rude, just realistic, the elderly don’t have that many years left and should not be able to influence policies that will affect only those younger ones left behind when they sail away into the great beyond.
Not true. He may not pay NI or income tax, but he pays all those other sneaky taxes. Also, there was a rebellion that started with the rallying cry of no taxation without representation. That principle still stands.
No taxation without representation.
How did that work out for the yanks?
BTW, no-one suggested denying representation. A person’s constituency MP would (should) be available during their weekly surgeries to all their constituents, regardless of tax status.
Regardless of how it worked out for them, the principle stands. Also, being older doesn’t diminish someone’s right to have a say. Sure I agree our system is deeply flawed, but stopping older people from voting isn’t going to fix it. And why should I live in a world where I am denied a say by dint of my age? No, sorry, I don’t agree with this one little bit. While I draw breath, my right to a say is the same as anyone else’s. Having the right to access one’s MP is not the same as having the right to vote the bastard out and if I have been denied the right to vote either for or against, they do not represent me. You don’t fix a flawed system by disenfranchising chunks of the demos. Nice try, no cigar.
As an aside, I agree that there should be a minimum age as a basis for competence as we do for other competencies. We can argue about where that line falls. Personally, the age of majority as it is now is about right.
Ok, we’ll agree to disagree.
When my Glorious People’s Republic is formed, be aware your name has gone on my list 🙂
Fair enough. However, a couple of points. The discussion has been predicated on the understanding that voting actually produces meaningful results, which we know it doesn’t. However, assuming that it does, we do not just have a say on taxation, we are voting on a range of potential government policies and we are all affected, so we should all have a say. Being old does not mean that we are about to shuffle off our mortal coil, so we shouldn’t have a say over policies that will affect younger people. That was the cry of the anti Brexiteer. But older people are more likely to have better bullshit detectors having had the benefit of experience, which is why those who voted yes in 1975, voted no in 2016. Net Zero is an example of a bullshit policy. We oldies have lived through decades of climate alarmism and seen all the predictions fail. Consequently we are more likely to vote against a Net Zero candidate and this will be for everyone’s benefit in the long run, regardless of how long we live ourselves. Assuming, of course that voting made the slightest bit of difference, which as we already know, it doesn’t.
Beat me to it.
“…taxing money that has already been taxed is ridiculous.”
See also VAT on fuel duty.
“No taxation without representation.”
I remember Obama expressing his unwanted opinion prior to the EU Referendum and thinking that he seemed to have forgotten that particular principle. Anyway, what you are suggesting is the other way around, no representation without taxation.
On having been a net contributor for over forty years. Apart from a couple of brief periods of unemployment I have never been a burden on the state either. People who are dependent upon state largesse are a particular issue as their votes can be bought using other people’s money. Once we start deciding who can and can’t vote we open a huge can of worms.
“be aware your name has gone on my list.”
Don’t tell him Pike!
🙂
Yours too, oh, come the revolution ..
Thangnam Nee Singh talking abut ‘our country’? No it isn’t yours its is mine. A proud Englishman and Anglo-Saxon back to the old days. I will flex my white privilage in your face if I ever meet you.