FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Split The country
Split The country
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP 10 weeks ago
|
In another thread it was stated that roughly half of the population are right of centre and half are left of centre, when it comes to politics. I believe this to be true, give or take. I also believe the left are moving further left and the right are moving further right.
Someone suggested this could ultimately lead to civil war. This has happened in various countries although I’m not sure it would actually happen here. But I have a suggestion that should make everyone happy. Split the nation.
Not necessarily north/south, I think things are more complex than that. But split the nation politically. Instead of having half of the country permanently pissed off that the government are against you, have two governments. People pay tax to the one they want to support and that government spends based on their revenue. The far left can spend their revenue on benefits, cancelling their supporters elections and gender ideology. The right can spend their money on fighting crime, deportations and women’s rights. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Hahaha.
Civil war.
You can't get people to turn up to a FAB social so getting them to arm up and put themselves forward to fight is a step too far.
I vote you start the revolution and let us know how you get on.
Off you go, less chat, more action.
Left right, left right, left right.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 10 weeks ago
|
"Hahaha.
Civil war.
You can't get people to turn up to a FAB social so getting them to arm up and put themselves forward to fight is a step too far.
I vote you start the revolution and let us know how you get on.
Off you go, less chat, more action.
Left right, left right, left right.
🤣🤣🤣🤣"
How about you start by reading what I said? Not only can you not get people to turn up to a fab meet, you can’t get them to read a couple of paragraphs of text. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hahaha.
Civil war.
You can't get people to turn up to a FAB social so getting them to arm up and put themselves forward to fight is a step too far.
I vote you start the revolution and let us know how you get on.
Off you go, less chat, more action.
Left right, left right, left right.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
How about you start by reading what I said? Not only can you not get people to turn up to a fab meet, you can’t get them to read a couple of paragraphs of text. "
Just read it again and will stick to my comment thanks.
Can't wait to see you and the original poster of this on the news when the revolution starts from your shed.
Good luck with your crusade.
Carry on Pike.
🤣🤣🤣 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 10 weeks ago
|
"Hahaha.
Civil war.
You can't get people to turn up to a FAB social so getting them to arm up and put themselves forward to fight is a step too far.
I vote you start the revolution and let us know how you get on.
Off you go, less chat, more action.
Left right, left right, left right.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
How about you start by reading what I said? Not only can you not get people to turn up to a fab meet, you can’t get them to read a couple of paragraphs of text.
Just read it again and will stick to my comment thanks.
Can't wait to see you and the original poster of this on the news when the revolution starts from your shed.
Good luck with your crusade.
Carry on Pike.
🤣🤣🤣"
So where in my post does it say I agree there could be a civil war? Oh, that’s right, nowhere. In fact it says I disagree with that opinion.
You are the perfect example of someone proven wrong who instead of being able to admit that, instead you double down. Try to learn one of these phrases….
“Sorry, my mistake”
“Sorry, I misread it”
“Sorry, I was wrong”
If using the word sorry is something you never do, try the phrases without that word. Or of course you could just double down again and give us all a good chuckle, which I think is way more in character for you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *G LanaTV/TS 10 weeks ago
Gosport |
I find the concept of this thread bizarre. The UK isn't experiencing a balanced divergence, it is experiencing a systemic drift to the right. Positions that were considered moderate in 1990's are now framed as "radical left," while positions that were considered "far-right" in 1990's are now being drafted into law.
In the 1990s, the political consensus viewed the welfare state as a universal safety net. Since then, the Overton Window has shifted toward extreme conditionality. The introduction of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) and the transition to Universal Credit (starting around 2012) transformed benefits from a right into a "conditional privilege." Rhetoric has moved from "supporting the vulnerable" to the demonisation of the disabled. Policies like the "Benefit Cap" and the "Bedroom Tax", which would have been politically unthinkable for even the 1990s Conservative party are now entrenched. The poor are no longer framed as victims of economic circumstance but as a moral problem to be managed through "sanctions."
In the 1990s, the UK was a leading voice in human rights and helped draft many international protections. Today, the debate has shifted toward extremist measures that bypass international law. The Rwanda Policy (2022-2024) and the Safety of Rwanda Act, which legally mandated courts to ignore factual evidence of safety, represent a leap to the far-right beleifs of the 90s. Positions once exclusive to fringe groups (like the British National Party), such as the mass deportation of asylum seekers to third countries or leaving the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), are now discussed as "moderate" conservative solutions.
The 1990s saw the passage of the Human Rights Act (1998) and the Macpherson Report, which acknowledged institutional racism. Diversity was seen as a path to a modern, global Britain. Modern political discourse frequently labels civil rights and inclusion as "gender ideology" or "wokeism." By framing the protection of minority groups as a radical "far-left" agenda, the right has successfully shifted the "centre" to a place where rolling back these protections is framed as "defending women’s rights" (which of course it does intend to do at all, just look at the protection of abusers in the US they aim to follow) or "common sense," rather than the regressive shift it actually is.
The "Far Left" of today is largely demanding the restoration of the 1990s status quo (e.g., higher tax for the 1%, better-funded public services, and standard human rights protections). The "Right" has moved into territory that was considered politically "unthinkable" thirty years ago (e.g., questioning the validity of international law and using state rhetoric to target the disabled). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find the concept of this thread bizarre. The UK isn't experiencing a balanced divergence, it is experiencing a systemic drift to the right. "
...and, clearly, everyone believes themselves and their views to be, if not in the centre, at least moderate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *G LanaTV/TS 10 weeks ago
Gosport |
"I find the concept of this thread bizarre. The UK isn't experiencing a balanced divergence, it is experiencing a systemic drift to the right.
...and, clearly, everyone believes themselves and their views to be, if not in the centre, at least moderate."
I gave a rather extensive and rationalised statement based on historical evidence not feelings. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 10 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The "Right" has moved into territory that was considered politically "unthinkable" thirty years ago (e.g., questioning the validity of international law and using state rhetoric to target the disabled)."
Do you believe law whether local or international should never be questioned?
What do mean by "using state rhetoric to target the disabled" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *G LanaTV/TS 10 weeks ago
Gosport |
"Do you believe law whether local or international should never be questioned?
"
I didn't state that I stated that the shift from promoting these laws to challenging them is evidence of the shift in the UK's overall political position and shift of the Overton Window. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *G LanaTV/TS 10 weeks ago
Gosport |
"What do mean by "using state rhetoric to target the disabled""
State rhetoric refers to the strategic use of language, speeches, official documents, slogans, and symbols, by government officials and state institutions to persuade citizens, legitimize authority, and manage public perception. It is not merely a style of speaking, but the fundamental "engine" of democratic politics and governing, used to shape public opinion and mobilize support for policy initiatives.
In the case of the disabled the shift in state rhetoric since the 1990s marks a move from a rights-based "social model" of inclusion to a punitive "suspicion-based" model of economic liability. While the 1990s focused on removing societal barriers to participation, modern political discourse has weaponized the "striver vs. skiver" binary to frame disability as a psychological failing or a "lifestyle choice." By inflating the perceived threat of benefit fraud and rebranding work as a "clinical cure" for chronic illness, the state has successfully pushed the Overton Window to a point where stripping support from the vulnerable is framed as "fiscal responsibility" rather than a violation of human dignity.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In another thread it was stated that roughly half of the population are right of centre and half are left of centre, when it comes to politics. I believe this to be true, give or take. I also believe the left are moving further left and the right are moving further right.
Someone suggested this could ultimately lead to civil war. This has happened in various countries although I’m not sure it would actually happen here. But I have a suggestion that should make everyone happy. Split the nation.
Not necessarily north/south, I think things are more complex than that. But split the nation politically. Instead of having half of the country permanently pissed off that the government are against you, have two governments. People pay tax to the one they want to support and that government spends based on their revenue. The far left can spend their revenue on benefits, cancelling their supporters elections and gender ideology. The right can spend their money on fighting crime, deportations and women’s rights."
Because the global elite of white billionaires have made it thus. That’s what they want. Yes/ no, Leave/ stay, black/ white. It’s engineered. Look at the emails from Epstein. Control, manipulation, dumbing down. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
In the case of the disabled the shift in state rhetoric since the 1990s marks a move from a rights-based "social model" of inclusion to a punitive "suspicion-based" model of economic liability. While the 1990s focused on removing societal barriers to participation, modern political discourse has weaponized the "striver vs. skiver" binary to frame disability as a psychological failing or a "lifestyle choice." By inflating the perceived threat of benefit fraud and rebranding work as a "clinical cure" for chronic illness, the state has successfully pushed the Overton Window to a point where stripping support from the vulnerable is framed as "fiscal responsibility" rather than a violation of human dignity.
"
Some very valid observations.
If you consider the changes in scope and cost of disability provision over the past 50 years, it would perhaps give a little more context as to the reasons for this.
Consider SEND in education (as just one example within the broader issues you've raised). Fifty years ago, someone highly intelligent with ADHD would have been clipped around the ear and told they were naughty, stupid or "mental". Quite rightly, awareness grew and this sort of language was (mostly) stamped out and the realisation that SEND provision could explain and improve the behaviour and education of these children. Resources were thrown at this area, which became the new normal and seen as human rights (still a kind of good thing). As parents and educators witnessed this, uptake of the additional services skyrocketed - of course, because everyone wants the best for their children. Definitions and remits expanded... And then the system began a slow collapse. CAHMS it's now bottlenecked to a halt, mainstream schools are stuck with students they can't accommodate without disrupting mainstream students and specialised schools are, or are looking at, closing for all sorts of reasons (from VAT to recently announced funding changes). Add to that the very small, but highly publicised, cases of fraud, as well as the "disability inflation" that every educator and parent knows needs to be performed in order to get treatment or funding, and people see a broken system where at least a little creative exaggeration is necessary just to get onto a two-year waiting list. And who doesn't know one or two people who have managed to either game the system or receive benefits for no obvious reason.
This means that the average person looking at the situation is seeing a different world from the '90s. In the '90s there was a realisation that something needed to be done and an optimism about it. Now, they see the issues in those solutions - which always boils down to money. We're in a different world now, with different issues. That's why the conversation is changing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 10 weeks ago
|
"What do mean by "using state rhetoric to target the disabled"
State rhetoric refers to the strategic use of language, speeches, official documents, slogans, and symbols, by government officials and state institutions to persuade citizens, legitimize authority, and manage public perception. It is not merely a style of speaking, but the fundamental "engine" of democratic politics and governing, used to shape public opinion and mobilize support for policy initiatives.
In the case of the disabled the shift in state rhetoric since the 1990s marks a move from a rights-based "social model" of inclusion to a punitive "suspicion-based" model of economic liability. While the 1990s focused on removing societal barriers to participation, modern political discourse has weaponized the "striver vs. skiver" binary to frame disability as a psychological failing or a "lifestyle choice." By inflating the perceived threat of benefit fraud and rebranding work as a "clinical cure" for chronic illness, the state has successfully pushed the Overton Window to a point where stripping support from the vulnerable is framed as "fiscal responsibility" rather than a violation of human dignity.
"
Someone making a false claim for benefits, especially disability benefits, is a violation of human dignity |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Because the global elite of white billionaires have made it thus. That’s what they want."
Why make it about race? Honestly confused. Or are you suggesting that the Saudi, Indian and Chinese billionaires are purely benevolent philanthropists?
(China and India hold 2nd and 3rd place respectively for billionaires) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 10 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Do you believe law whether local or international should never be questioned?
I didn't state that I stated that the shift from promoting these laws to challenging them is evidence of the shift in the UK's overall political position and shift of the Overton Window."
I disagree, laws are a fit for the period and if society or circumstances change laws are required to change to reflect this. Not changing laws leads to antiquated decisions and outcomes based on the past not the here and now.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 10 weeks ago
|
Just saw a video which inspired me to look at the Google search history of the phrase ‘family voting’ from 2004 (start of records) to present day.
From 2004 until yesterday it’s evening pretty much a flatline at 0. Then it spikes massively.
That’s very interesting.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 10 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"What do mean by "using state rhetoric to target the disabled"
State rhetoric refers to the strategic use of language, speeches, official documents, slogans, and symbols, by government officials and state institutions to persuade citizens, legitimize authority, and manage public perception. It is not merely a style of speaking, but the fundamental "engine" of democratic politics and governing, used to shape public opinion and mobilize support for policy initiatives.
In the case of the disabled the shift in state rhetoric since the 1990s marks a move from a rights-based "social model" of inclusion to a punitive "suspicion-based" model of economic liability. While the 1990s focused on removing societal barriers to participation, modern political discourse has weaponized the "striver vs. skiver" binary to frame disability as a psychological failing or a "lifestyle choice." By inflating the perceived threat of benefit fraud and rebranding work as a "clinical cure" for chronic illness, the state has successfully pushed the Overton Window to a point where stripping support from the vulnerable is framed as "fiscal responsibility" rather than a violation of human dignity.
"
I think this a reflection of population growth and societal change. Acknowledging disability and provisions for the disabled have increased not decreased, however the % of the population reporting to have a disability has grown, maybe through acceptance and provision. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hahaha.
Civil war.
You can't get people to turn up to a FAB social so getting them to arm up and put themselves forward to fight is a step too far.
I vote you start the revolution and let us know how you get on.
Off you go, less chat, more action.
Left right, left right, left right.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
How about you start by reading what I said? Not only can you not get people to turn up to a fab meet, you can’t get them to read a couple of paragraphs of text.
Just read it again and will stick to my comment thanks.
Can't wait to see you and the original poster of this on the news when the revolution starts from your shed.
Good luck with your crusade.
Carry on Pike.
🤣🤣🤣
So where in my post does it say I agree there could be a civil war? Oh, that’s right, nowhere. In fact it says I disagree with that opinion.
You are the perfect example of someone proven wrong who instead of being able to admit that, instead you double down. Try to learn one of these phrases….
“Sorry, my mistake”
“Sorry, I misread it”
“Sorry, I was wrong”
If using the word sorry is something you never do, try the phrases without that word. Or of course you could just double down again and give us all a good chuckle, which I think is way more in character for you. "
Ok, you win, you win.
I did read your post, I did see you were commenting on something you had read and it wasn't your thoughts.
The fact that it was an absolute load of nonsense gave me a laugh and so I tried to carry on the comedic thread and thought you would pick that up.
Obviously, I was wrong and apologise for not explaining it was an off the cuff comment from the beginning.
Again, sorry to cause you any upset and I'll be sure in future to explain if my comment is tongue in cheek or serious before I respond but only to your posts.
Good luck.
Liz. X |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 10 weeks ago
|
"Hahaha.
Civil war.
You can't get people to turn up to a FAB social so getting them to arm up and put themselves forward to fight is a step too far.
I vote you start the revolution and let us know how you get on.
Off you go, less chat, more action.
Left right, left right, left right.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
How about you start by reading what I said? Not only can you not get people to turn up to a fab meet, you can’t get them to read a couple of paragraphs of text.
Just read it again and will stick to my comment thanks.
Can't wait to see you and the original poster of this on the news when the revolution starts from your shed.
Good luck with your crusade.
Carry on Pike.
🤣🤣🤣
So where in my post does it say I agree there could be a civil war? Oh, that’s right, nowhere. In fact it says I disagree with that opinion.
You are the perfect example of someone proven wrong who instead of being able to admit that, instead you double down. Try to learn one of these phrases….
“Sorry, my mistake”
“Sorry, I misread it”
“Sorry, I was wrong”
If using the word sorry is something you never do, try the phrases without that word. Or of course you could just double down again and give us all a good chuckle, which I think is way more in character for you.
Ok, you win, you win.
I did read your post, I did see you were commenting on something you had read and it wasn't your thoughts.
The fact that it was an absolute load of nonsense gave me a laugh and so I tried to carry on the comedic thread and thought you would pick that up.
Obviously, I was wrong and apologise for not explaining it was an off the cuff comment from the beginning.
Again, sorry to cause you any upset and I'll be sure in future to explain if my comment is tongue in cheek or serious before I respond but only to your posts.
Good luck.
Liz. X"
I was not upset. Just bemused by your nonsense 😉 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hahaha.
Civil war.
You can't get people to turn up to a FAB social so getting them to arm up and put themselves forward to fight is a step too far.
I vote you start the revolution and let us know how you get on.
Off you go, less chat, more action.
Left right, left right, left right.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
How about you start by reading what I said? Not only can you not get people to turn up to a fab meet, you can’t get them to read a couple of paragraphs of text.
Just read it again and will stick to my comment thanks.
Can't wait to see you and the original poster of this on the news when the revolution starts from your shed.
Good luck with your crusade.
Carry on Pike.
🤣🤣🤣
So where in my post does it say I agree there could be a civil war? Oh, that’s right, nowhere. In fact it says I disagree with that opinion.
You are the perfect example of someone proven wrong who instead of being able to admit that, instead you double down. Try to learn one of these phrases….
“Sorry, my mistake”
“Sorry, I misread it”
“Sorry, I was wrong”
If using the word sorry is something you never do, try the phrases without that word. Or of course you could just double down again and give us all a good chuckle, which I think is way more in character for you.
Ok, you win, you win.
I did read your post, I did see you were commenting on something you had read and it wasn't your thoughts.
The fact that it was an absolute load of nonsense gave me a laugh and so I tried to carry on the comedic thread and thought you would pick that up.
Obviously, I was wrong and apologise for not explaining it was an off the cuff comment from the beginning.
Again, sorry to cause you any upset and I'll be sure in future to explain if my comment is tongue in cheek or serious before I respond but only to your posts.
Good luck.
Liz. X
I was not upset. Just bemused by your nonsense 😉"
Sorry you thought my reply was nonsense and bemusing.
I thought they were rather funny and your responses even more funny.
Have fun. 🤣
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just saw a video which inspired me to look at the Google search history of the phrase ‘family voting’ from 2004 (start of records) to present day.
From 2004 until yesterday it’s evening pretty much a flatline at 0. Then it spikes massively.
That’s very interesting.
"
Almost like its being pushed by some in order to further demonise an easy target to blame..
Twas ever thus.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 10 weeks ago
|
"Just saw a video which inspired me to look at the Google search history of the phrase ‘family voting’ from 2004 (start of records) to present day.
From 2004 until yesterday it’s evening pretty much a flatline at 0. Then it spikes massively.
That’s very interesting.
"
Conspiracy theories usually are interesting to their promoters, but less so to most of us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 10 weeks ago
|
"Just saw a video which inspired me to look at the Google search history of the phrase ‘family voting’ from 2004 (start of records) to present day.
From 2004 until yesterday it’s evening pretty much a flatline at 0. Then it spikes massively.
That’s very interesting.
Conspiracy theories usually are interesting to their promoters, but less so to most of us."
It’ll be very interesting to see what evidence of family voting is produced, or whether the story will fade away. After all, the three leading parties all said they welcome an investigation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 10 weeks ago
|
In Sheffield this week:
"A headteacher on Friday blamed bubbling “community tensions” for a chaotic outbreak of violence that saw pupils fighting running battles across school grounds, leaving one staff member hospitalised and others injured."
Community tensions...🤔 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 10 weeks ago
|
It’s just seems to me, the left have all these crazy ideas but no money. They expect everyone else to pay for them and taxation makes it all legal.
Roughly 50% of the population are being paid for by the other 50%. Eventually we will get to the stage where the people paying will be the smaller group and they will ask themselves why they bother. Once past that tipping point, things could change quite quickly.
No idea how the left think they will implement their ideas when hardly anybody is generating tax revenue |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *G LanaTV/TS 10 weeks ago
Gosport |
"It’s just seems to me, the left have all these crazy ideas but no money. They expect everyone else to pay for them and taxation makes it all legal.
Roughly 50% of the population are being paid for by the other 50%. Eventually we will get to the stage where the people paying will be the smaller group and they will ask themselves why they bother. Once past that tipping point, things could change quite quickly.
No idea how the left think they will implement their ideas when hardly anybody is generating tax revenue "
Whilst about 70% of the UK adults are income tax payers I think you are alluding to net contributors vs net recipients. In that case in any single year there are already more net recipients than contributors, about 53% vs 47%, but this is heavily biased by those who are retired. In this group about 75-80% are net recipients even when having reasonable private pensions.
However, what is probably important to note is that, at least according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, over their lifetimes approximately 93% of people will eventually pay more in taxes than they receive in cash benefits (social security). This is because most people are "recipients" when they are children (education) and when they are elderly (pensions/NHS), but are "contributors" for the 40+ years in between. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 10 weeks ago
|
"It’s just seems to me, the left have all these crazy ideas but no money. They expect everyone else to pay for them and taxation makes it all legal.
"
Do ‘the left’ (generic) not work then? Not pay taxes?
What would society look like without taxation, do you think? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 10 weeks ago
|
"It’s just seems to me, the left have all these crazy ideas but no money. They expect everyone else to pay for them and taxation makes it all legal.
Do ‘the left’ (generic) not work then? Not pay taxes?
What would society look like without taxation, do you think? "
No they do work, but those with smaller incomes and on benefits tend to be left wing voters.
And those who pay higher rates of income tax tend to be more right wing.
The top 1% of earners paying 33% of all income tax will probably vote for parties in favour of lower taxes
So in simple terms, the left needs the rights money. The right don’t need the lefts money
A nation with no taxes? Historically taxes were mainly only put in place to finance for wars. People spent their own money on what they wanted to spend it on.
We need to maintain permanent military so zero taxes isn’t an option, but I would like more control on how my taxes are spent. There’s loads of stuff i personally wouldn’t support |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hahaha.
Civil war.
You can't get people to turn up to a FAB social so getting them to arm up and put themselves forward to fight is a step too far.
I vote you start the revolution and let us know how you get on.
Off you go, less chat, more action.
Left right, left right, left right.
🤣🤣🤣🤣"
'I'm alright jack' springs to mind.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 10 weeks ago
|
"It’s just seems to me, the left have all these crazy ideas but no money. They expect everyone else to pay for them and taxation makes it all legal.
Do ‘the left’ (generic) not work then? Not pay taxes?
What would society look like without taxation, do you think?
No they do work, but those with smaller incomes and on benefits tend to be left wing voters.
"
I’d like to see your peer reviewed data that backs this up.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 10 weeks ago
|
"It’s just seems to me, the left have all these crazy ideas but no money. They expect everyone else to pay for them and taxation makes it all legal.
Do ‘the left’ (generic) not work then? Not pay taxes?
What would society look like without taxation, do you think?
No they do work, but those with smaller incomes and on benefits tend to be left wing voters.
I’d like to see your peer reviewed data that backs this up.
"
No worries, pop round whenever |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In another thread it was stated that roughly half of the population are right of centre and half are left of centre, when it comes to politics. I believe this to be true, give or take. I also believe the left are moving further left and the right are moving further right.
Someone suggested this could ultimately lead to civil war. This has happened in various countries although I’m not sure it would actually happen here. But I have a suggestion that should make everyone happy. Split the nation.
Not necessarily north/south, I think things are more complex than that. But split the nation politically. Instead of having half of the country permanently pissed off that the government are against you, have two governments. People pay tax to the one they want to support and that government spends based on their revenue. The far left can spend their revenue on benefits, cancelling their supporters elections and gender ideology. The right can spend their money on fighting crime, deportations and women’s rights."
I’m proud to be right of centre |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find the concept of this thread bizarre. The UK isn't experiencing a balanced divergence, it is experiencing a systemic drift to the right. Positions that were considered moderate in 1990's are now framed as "radical left," while positions that were considered "far-right" in 1990's are now being drafted into law.
We have way too many benefit sucking free loaders, and it’s a bill that isn’t manageable
And far from a drift to right we are heading into a doom case scenario with the left wing ideology
In the 1990s, the political consensus viewed the welfare state as a universal safety net. Since then, the Overton Window has shifted toward extreme conditionality. The introduction of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) and the transition to Universal Credit (starting around 2012) transformed benefits from a right into a "conditional privilege." Rhetoric has moved from "supporting the vulnerable" to the demonisation of the disabled. Policies like the "Benefit Cap" and the "Bedroom Tax", which would have been politically unthinkable for even the 1990s Conservative party are now entrenched. The poor are no longer framed as victims of economic circumstance but as a moral problem to be managed through "sanctions."
In the 1990s, the UK was a leading voice in human rights and helped draft many international protections. Today, the debate has shifted toward extremist measures that bypass international law. The Rwanda Policy (2022-2024) and the Safety of Rwanda Act, which legally mandated courts to ignore factual evidence of safety, represent a leap to the far-right beleifs of the 90s. Positions once exclusive to fringe groups (like the British National Party), such as the mass deportation of asylum seekers to third countries or leaving the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), are now discussed as "moderate" conservative solutions.
The 1990s saw the passage of the Human Rights Act (1998) and the Macpherson Report, which acknowledged institutional racism. Diversity was seen as a path to a modern, global Britain. Modern political discourse frequently labels civil rights and inclusion as "gender ideology" or "wokeism." By framing the protection of minority groups as a radical "far-left" agenda, the right has successfully shifted the "centre" to a place where rolling back these protections is framed as "defending women’s rights" (which of course it does intend to do at all, just look at the protection of abusers in the US they aim to follow) or "common sense," rather than the regressive shift it actually is.
The "Far Left" of today is largely demanding the restoration of the 1990s status quo (e.g., higher tax for the 1%, better-funded public services, and standard human rights protections). The "Right" has moved into territory that was considered politically "unthinkable" thirty years ago (e.g., questioning the validity of international law and using state rhetoric to target the disabled)."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
It’s interesting that some on the left inhere think politics has shifted to the right and the centre point has shifted in the same direction.
And that some on the right think the exact opposite.
And this was the entire point of my thread. Roughly half of the population find the other half’s politics abhorrent, and vice versa.
But what is really interesting is that many of the comments seem to like this stand off. They want to force their ideology onto the other side. They want to pass laws to force the other side to comply and I’ve even seen it mentioned that they should find a way to pass laws that can’t be changed by the other side if they ever got in power.
Is that what politics is now. All you wanna do is force your opinions down the opposite sides throat?
I’d be more than happy to have two governments, two NHS, two police forces, two lots of the armed services (actually there would only be one, the left wanna get rid) two tax pots and you pay into the one that you subscribe to ans can only use the services that they provide.
The EU wants to force everyone together under one banner, one government, one empire, one court, one parliament, one commission yet society is being more fragmented and divided.
Why not just divide? Why is it preferable to force your opinion onto others than to live in a society and under a government system you agree with nearly everyone?
I’ve come to the conclusion that people prefer conflict to peace and harmony
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 9 weeks ago
|
"
I’d be more than happy to have two governments, two NHS, two police forces, two lots of the armed services (actually there would only be one, the left wanna get rid) two tax pots and you pay into the one that you subscribe to ans can only use the services that they provide.
"
Surely on the right, such services should be expected to be at least self sustaining, and indeed turn a profit - not taken from taxation? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 9 weeks ago
|
"Hahaha.
Civil war.
You can't get people to turn up to a FAB social so getting them to arm up and put themselves forward to fight is a step too far.
I vote you start the revolution and let us know how you get on.
Off you go, less chat, more action.
Left right, left right, left right.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
How about you start by reading what I said? Not only can you not get people to turn up to a fab meet, you can’t get them to read a couple of paragraphs of text.
Just read it again and will stick to my comment thanks.
Can't wait to see you and the original poster of this on the news when the revolution starts from your shed.
Good luck with your crusade.
Carry on Pike.
🤣🤣🤣
So where in my post does it say I agree there could be a civil war? Oh, that’s right, nowhere. In fact it says I disagree with that opinion.
You are the perfect example of someone proven wrong who instead of being able to admit that, instead you double down. Try to learn one of these phrases….
“Sorry, my mistake”
“Sorry, I misread it”
“Sorry, I was wrong”
If using the word sorry is something you never do, try the phrases without that word. Or of course you could just double down again and give us all a good chuckle, which I think is way more in character for you.
Ok, you win, you win.
I did read your post, I did see you were commenting on something you had read and it wasn't your thoughts.
The fact that it was an absolute load of nonsense gave me a laugh and so I tried to carry on the comedic thread and thought you would pick that up.
Obviously, I was wrong and apologise for not explaining it was an off the cuff comment from the beginning.
Again, sorry to cause you any upset and I'll be sure in future to explain if my comment is tongue in cheek or serious before I respond but only to your posts.
Good luck.
Liz. X
I was not upset. Just bemused by your nonsense 😉
Sorry you thought my reply was nonsense and bemusing.
I thought they were rather funny and your responses even more funny.
Have fun. 🤣
"
I’m glad I cheered your day. It’s the little things in life don’t you think? 🤣 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
