UK Coalition watch

Corneel · **#7461** by **Corneel** » Sep 03, 2014 4:18 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Corneel wrote:Yeah, because socialist police states are utterly unheard of...

Any xxamples of genuine socialist police states?

The GDR would be a prime example.

mrjonno · **#7462** by **mrjonno** » Sep 03, 2014 4:20 pm

Well so am I.
That said, I'm far more bothered about the privacy of individuals being invaded when they have done nothing wrong than I am about the privacy of individuals with a criminal record.

I think the concept of privacy in the digital age is pretty meaningless, do people seriously use cash these days, credit cards, cctv and electronic bus passes are going to be able to locate me 24-7 anyway The state is going to have a pretty damn good idea of what you are up to whether you like or not , on that basis its best to get some sort of regulation in there.

Sendraks · **#7463** by **Sendraks** » Sep 03, 2014 4:30 pm

mrjonno wrote:The state is going to have a pretty damn good idea of what you are up to whether you like or not , on that basis its best to get some sort of regulation in there.

Regulation of what?

And if you say mercenaries, then I'm going to refer you back to my questions about what that regulation would actually entail. Rather than sticking with the "shitty politician" school of throwing out a soundbite and hoping some other poor fucker can make it work or be prepared to carry the can when it can't.

ED209 · **#7464** by **ED209** » Sep 03, 2014 4:41 pm

What exactly is meant to be the problem with keeping a list of proscribed terrorist organisations which it is illegal under UK law to operate for anywhere in the world? There might be some grey areas where far-right torydem govts seek to criminalise those charities which they gag at home, and we could argue about those, but wouldn't IS(IS) make any reasonable list?

Don't we already do this for illegal sex tourism, and for that matter, overseas terrorist groups :ask:

chairman bill · **#7465** by **chairman bill** » Sep 03, 2014 4:51 pm

Corneel wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Corneel wrote:Yeah, because socialist police states are utterly unheard of...

Any xxamples of genuine socialist police states?

The GDR would be a prime example.

In what way was it socialist?

Corneel · **#7466** by **Corneel** » Sep 03, 2014 5:05 pm

chairman bill wrote:
Corneel wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Corneel wrote:Yeah, because socialist police states are utterly unheard of...

Any xxamples of genuine socialist police states?

The GDR would be a prime example.

In what way was it socialist?

In the same way Westboro Baptist Church is Christian.

chairman bill · **#7467** by **chairman bill** » Sep 03, 2014 5:33 pm

So the people ruled? It was a democratic, egalitarian state, governed by the people?

ED209 · **#7468** by **ED209** » Sep 03, 2014 7:59 pm

More typical torydem wankery:

Charities should stick to knitting and keep out of politics, says MP
New civil society minister Brooks Newmark accused of spouting 'patronising rubbish' as concerns over Lobbying Act grow

David Cameron's new minister for civil society has been branded patronising and dismissive after he told charities to "stick to their knitting" and keep out of politics.

Brooks Newmark, who was appointed in the summer reshuffle, made the comments amid worries among charities that the new Lobbying Act that will limit their ability to campaign on issues of the day.

In his first major speech since he took on the role, Newmark used the opportunity to criticise charities who "stray" out of their remit of helping people.

Asked about the ability of charities to campaign, he said: "We really want to try and keep charities and voluntary groups out of the realms of politics....

Newmark's comments were condemned as "patronising rubbish" by Lisa Nandy, the shadow minister for civil society. "It's his first speech as charities minister, and I think it's not just patronising but actually deeply offensive at a time when charities are picking up the pieces from this government's awful, unfair policies, that their ministers would talk about them in such a dismissive way," she said.

"This comes from a government that hasn't just introduced the Lobbying Act but has also restricted charities using judicial review, cut legal aid, ramped up employment tribunal fees and clamped down on immigration appeals. What you're looking at is a government that doesn't like challenge. That is quite a frightening place for a government to have got itself into."...

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... ok-newmark

So the torydems admit they "really want to keep charities and voluntary groups out of the realms of politics". OK, then we will ensure the rest of the torydems are booted the fuck out of the realms of politics very soon.

chairman bill · **#7469** by **chairman bill** » Sep 03, 2014 8:12 pm

If their role is helping people, and government is hell-bent on fucking people over, how do they not stray into politics? This is about closing down dissent, but of course it is only illiberal enemies of freedom who will complain, 'cos they hate freedom & liberty.

Corneel · **#7470** by **Corneel** » Sep 04, 2014 7:18 am

chairman bill wrote:So the people ruled? It was a democratic, egalitarian state, governed by the people?

It was not very democratic (rule by the people), despite the name, but then socialist =! democratic, so that triple repeated question doesn't seem quite relevant (the socialist umbrella is broad enough to cover strains of widely different degrees of democracy).
It did take many measures to produce a more egalitarian state and one could say they succeeded to a large extent. This article on Socialist Unity calls it even "probably the most egalitarian society in Europe".

chairman bill · **#7471** by **chairman bill** » Sep 04, 2014 7:54 am

Socialism absolutely requires democracy. How could it not? Social-ism - the clue is in the name.

Anyway, whilst we're talking about democracy, some Tory MPs are calling on Cameron to extend the life of the current government by a year, 'cos they're worried they are going to lose the next General Election
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/03/calls-to-postpone-uk-general-election-scots-independence

Corneel · **#7472** by **Corneel** » Sep 04, 2014 8:20 am

chairman bill wrote:Socialism absolutely requires democracy. How could it not? Social-ism - the clue is in the name.

Apart from the fact that relying on the etymologic origins of the name is a notable fallacy, social in no way implies democracy.

THWOTH · **#7473** by **THWOTH** » Sep 04, 2014 8:37 am

Asked about the ability of charities to campaign, he said: "We really want to try and keep charities and voluntary groups out of the realms of politics....

And why is that exactly Mr Minister for a Free Society?
Corporations and companies should stick to commerse and keep out of politics too in that case.

chairman bill · **#7474** by **chairman bill** » Sep 04, 2014 8:46 am

Corneel wrote:
chairman bill wrote:Socialism absolutely requires democracy. How could it not? Social-ism - the clue is in the name.

Apart from the fact that relying on the etymologic origins of the name is a notable fallacy, social in no way implies democracy.

Well how about the writings of socialists? FFS, even Marxist communism is grounded in democracy. It's not about etymology, but it is about what the word means. It's about the people ruling. Not a ruling class. Not the landowners. No oligarchs or autocrats, but the people. It's about everyone being equal, no class, no hierarchy. Some people say socialism is just an economic theory, but it isn't, it's about a different way of doing this society thing.

mrjonno · **#7475** by **mrjonno** » Sep 04, 2014 9:17 am

Socialism also by definition requires a strong society and to me that means law and order.
There is nothing wrong incompatible with a strong police force, the enforcement of laws and socialism

chairman bill · **#7476** by **chairman bill** » Sep 04, 2014 9:22 am

There isn't, but the police need to remember who they serve - the people, not a select group of the people. And a strong society doesn't imply a strong state, or indeed a state of any kind.

mrjonno · **#7477** by **mrjonno** » Sep 04, 2014 9:33 am

chairman bill wrote:There isn't, but the police need to remember who they serve - the people, not a select group of the people. And a strong society doesn't imply a strong state, or indeed a state of any kind.

Disagree a strong society needs strong leadership (hopefully elected) and to me that is a strong state. It should of course be democratically elected but that not incompatible with leading as opposed to just following

chairman bill · **#7478** by **chairman bill** » Sep 04, 2014 9:59 am

A strong society needs strong bonds between the people.

mrjonno · **#7479** by **mrjonno** » Sep 04, 2014 10:01 am

chairman bill wrote:A strong society needs strong bonds between the people.

Needs that too I just have no time for some anarchist wing of the left, law and order are good things

smudge · **#7480** by **smudge** » Sep 04, 2014 10:02 am

chairman bill wrote: but of course it is only illiberal enemies of freedom who will complain....

And unimportant people grouchy about the price of knitting needles, clearly.

UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Re: UK Coalition watch

Who is online