Wow... England Needs A Revolution...

How are you going to have a revolution when you are completely unarmed? You have no guns! You couldn't revolt your way out of a parking camera.

SLAVES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OWN GUNS
SLAVES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OWN GUNS
SLAVES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OWN GUNS

reply to post by yellowbeard


With respdect, that's absolute twaddle.

If less than 50% votes storm parliment? And who's going to organise that exactly?
Radical fringe in the UK couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

I'm actually pro revolution where its needed and has achance of success, but self proclaimed revolutionaries who suck at the teat of the state aren't the ones to be calling for it.

reply to post by MaxSteiner


Maggy used the jocks oil to pay it off. WW2? They sat on the side lines until the world was on its knees. Then they came over here like heros and SOLD us their help, in a war which wall street financed and helped to create.

Globalisation and immigration has been a disaster for the working class and increasingly the middle class in the UK.

By way of example, under Blair, 99% of new public sector jobs went to immgrants. Under Cameron the figure is still 80%. These figures beggar belief but are true

Maybe the immigrants work harder or are more reliable employees.

In the recent riots the rioters were mostly British-born layabouts but the shops they attacked were often owned by hard-working immigrant families. And when the Met timidly retreated from the rioting scum stalwart families of immigrants armed with baseball bats and chair-legs bravely defended their businesses.

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by yellowbeard
reply to post by nightbringr

 

Nope, you're letting them do your thinking for you....... MAJORITY RULE

Ok lets pretend it worked your way.

So only 10% vote and the government is declared invalid. What then? Do the other 90% get together and decide what type of government is installed? That wouldnt be democracy then would it, as the other 10% would be excluded.

Furthermore, the 90% who didnt vote wouldnt agree on what type of government to install anyways! Some may want communism, some national socialism (shudder the thought), some somthing more moderate in the middle. Hell, i spoke with someone earlier today who wanted an absolute monarchy again!

Your suggestion would solve no problems.

edit on 31-8-2011 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)

My way of forming a government would be to have something like jury service, 600 (or however many MP's there are) selected completely at random from the population, no excuses to refuse and jobs held open, to serve for three years, changing one third of the members every year by rotation and then every six months have a vote to decide everything that the government suggests

Ever one is now starting to wake up.
they will have to make a very Big world disaster.
so they can have a totle free hand again.
put us in the dark ages again!
or we will take over. LOL.
and Still they will be like the wizerd of OZ.
THEM in the back controling us all.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by yellowbeard

 

With respdect, that's absolute twaddle.

If less than 50% votes storm parliment? And who's going to organise that exactly?
Radical fringe in the UK couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

I'm actually pro revolution where its needed and has achance of success, but self proclaimed revolutionaries who suck at the teat of the state aren't the ones to be calling for it.

Who the hell are you saying sucks at the teat of the state, I've worked my butt off for most of my life and have paid more than most in taxes over the years, so I hope that wasn't aimed at me, Just because I'm an anarchist it doesn't mean I'm a workshy scrounger

reply to post by yellowbeard


No, it's more an accurate portrayal of the sort of peopel you'll have storming parliment when the revolution come.
Take a look at the G20/G8 protests, they had over half a million people out that day, but were to inept to use them.
Same with the recent riots.
(And there's some very interesting lessons to be learned right there as well, since the state managed to lock up most of the sensible people before anything happened.).

The state isn't quite at total information awareness, but its close, and they're discussing blocking all social media in the event of troubles next time around.

There's a saying "Better the devil you know" and it's very pertinant for revoloutions, look at the #wits the western imperial powers are forcing on the Libyans, look at the Ukraine corrupt government put in by the US, or the puppets installed in Iraq and Afghanistan. THAT is what happens in revolutions, there's nothing heroic or romantic about it.
And sad to say, most revolutionaries don't have the bottle to carry out the violent purges that have to follow a successful uprising if the power structure is to remain in place for more than a few years. It's a dirty business, and the sort of people who are willing to do it aren't radicals, and they aren't revolutionaries, they're the exact same poeple we have in power now. So why make waves? The status quo isn't so bad is it?

Originally posted by yellowbeard
My way of forming a government would be to have something like jury service, 600 (or however many MP's there are) selected completely at random from the population, no excuses to refuse and jobs held open, to serve for three years, changing one third of the members every year by rotation and then every six months have a vote to decide everything that the government suggests

And please explain to me how these people will be any less corrupt than your current politicians? There is no reason to believe or expect these people to be any better.

And what if i decide i do NOT want to be on your jury board? Are you going to force me? Some people want nothing to do with politics. I would suggest if you force me to do it, you are taking away my freedom.

reply to post by nightbringr


I know the first thing I'd be doing if I was selected under his system is filling my carpet bag lol.
Like Hobbes says in Leviathan, dictatorship is the best form of government for the UK. As true today as it was in the last civil war.

reply to post by MaxSteiner

Don't subscribe to that at all really Im afraid.

The joys of the debate

I think alot of the problems people are encountering is that they are trying to live locally in a global world.

Erm....we’re in the middle of a global economic meltdown – caused by doing away with localism and creating what they euphemistically termed ‘a world of inter-dependence’. i.e. When one goes we all go – as we’re all discovering to our very expensive cost at the moment.

Simply put, even if we went back to that magical time you're talking about, Britain wouldn't be able to compete with other countries.

You mean compete in manufacturing like with China? Do we do that now? Or with Spain or France’s agriculture? I know – we’ll do call centres. Oh no – India can provide graduates who work at a quarter of the cost.

There must be something....oh I forgot finance. We became a world player in the financial markets because of our rules – there were none – as we’re also now discovering to our very expensive cost. Back to the drawing board on that one. We’re NOT competing. We’re NOT innovating. For the most part tptb in this country engage their brain power in spin and rhetoric.

Bills are high, but you get paid 20p per unit of electircity you sell to the grid, and thats tax free, the higher the rates get the more you make.

Right – and how does that system cost to install? Bills are NOT ‘high’ – they are extortionate forcing many in the winter months to attempt to answer the ‘to heat or to eat’ question. And that’s going to get worse.

People need to live within their means and make the most of the new world instead of bemoaning the fact that the old days are past.

Now couldn’t you have told that to the successive governments who dropped all those nasty financial regulations so we could borrow our way to wealth...and indebtedness.

Costs are increasing all over its true, but that's just the way things are, get over it, adapt to it and things are easier.

Yes – adapting- that’s what this thread appears to be basically all about. Now why should I continually adapt to pay the Spanish company that bills me for my gas and electricity (Scottish Power btw). Why can’t we adapt our power suppliers to suit us? Why can’t the government adapt and give me my £7,000 in shares of the Royal Bank of Scotland – and the annual dividend that goes with it – instead of simply stealing the money from me? Why must we put up and shut up? Is that your stiff upper lip breaking out there?

Council tax to high? Get student status. Bills to high? Get a lodger.

Get student status? I’m a grown woman with 2 adult children....with bills to pay....lots of them. Get a lodger? Well I live in older house – but in the trendy new modern builds – with their compact and bijou deign – they’d have to be a helluva friendly lodger.

Nationalising all the infastructure won't work. We sold it off because its all shagged, and the cost of doing anyhting more than painting the rust was astronomically high.

No they were sold off as a license to print money. The tax payer paid for the infrastructure - not these private companies. Public funds paid for the services to be available – the profits however have been privatised.

Calls for revolution, or an end to immegration/globalisation are fine if they make you feel better, but don't exect any sensible people to take you seriously. The country would collapse in the transition far faster than it is now, and the only people left to sort it out would be extremists (who would end up the exact same way as our current politians are now in under a year...)

Revolution has more than one definition. How about a revolution of our thinking? Keep the democracy. Retain the mixed economy and send capitalism off somewhere the sun don’t shine.

We don’t need to take to the streets. Just go to a hustings meeting. I promise, it’ll be a riot.

Originally posted by plnelson
In the recent riots the rioters were mostly British-born layabouts but the shops they attacked were often owned by hard-working immigrant families. And when the Met timidly retreated from the rioting scum stalwart families of immigrants armed with baseball bats and chair-legs bravely defended their businesses.

Yet, if stalwart families which were white and not immigrants, had bravely armed themselves with baseball bats and chair-legs against the rioting scum, the police would have made sure that their feet would not have touched the ground.

"all animals are equal but some animals are more equal"

Animal Farm. 1945.

Originally posted by nake13

Originally posted by Swanfilters
it's time we pulled out and watched the Scottish and Welsh big talk come crashing down to the reality of the situation - they are NOTHING without England.

edit on 30-8-2011 by Swanfilters because: (no reason given)

You are right there,it is time that you and the rest of the parasites who have benefited from Scotland's oil revenue"pulled out",we would be a far better country without you.

It may interest you too look up the revenues, past and present, from those Oil fields (there are alot in English waters too, btw) and then compare that to the amount of money sent North from the Treasury. The former has always been dwarfed by the latter.

Besides, oil revenue has only been colected for 3 decades. What about the other 27 decades since Union? The Scottish asked to form a Union in 1707 because Scotland bankrupted themselves trying to start a colonial Empire and came begging, cap in hand, to the English for us to bail them out.

Oh, there was a Scottish King on the throne of England at the time too, handy huh? And apparently we conquered you....

Alex Salmond neglects that side of History and is a self-serving little twat for pushing those lies as facts.

He (and many Scots it would appear) buy into the bull Scotland could be a soveriegn and wealthy nation without England. Without England, Scotland would be no more significant than Slovakia or Belgium. The EU would eat you up before you could even say "English bastard"...

A lot of people forget that the greatest things both our nations have done have been together, not as individual nations. That said, if the Scots want to go their way and think they'll be better off, I 100% support it and will laugh my bollocks off when Salmonds lies are exposed. Scotland can afford nothing without English taxpayers supporting them.

As for the OP, well, a tad melodramatic, no? The whole Uni fees thing has been spun out of proportion, to the benefit of the left and Labour. This is the same Labour that brought the fee's in (with Scottish MP's swinging the vote in parliament btw) despite saying they wouldn't in the election only a few months before!

The excuse that people can't afford Uni is total bollocks. No one has to pay up front and you only pay back once you earn more than £21k a year on a sliding scale. This relates to, for someone on around £25k a year, about £30 a month. Who can't afford that? And the debt is written off after 20 years or so anyway. For those harping on about Uni being "too expensive", try going to a French or US university for £9000 a year....

England (and the wider UK) doesn't need a revolution, we just need to get the 50% of our population who can't even be arsed to vote off their bums and interested in what is going on! A bit of reform in Parliament (or just revert to how it should be run - parties are not recognised by Parliament anyway) and things will get better.

The state of our country is entirely down to the people who live here. Most claim "politics is boring", "I don't vote" etc, but will in the next breath complain about fuel prices or Tax.

As it happens, I am gearing up for much greater political activity up to the next election (I am going to stand for election) and hope to get the younger crowd interested in what happens, rather than letting the over-50's call the shots as they are the only one's who vote.

reply to post by christina-66


Sorry not going to reply to your post because people who break EVERY SINGLE point of a post down and reply to that piss me off.

Write a reasonable retort laid out in paragraphs and I'll bother reading it.

====> Not being nasty, I'm sure there are some good points in there, but I'm multi tasking watching something and trying to finish an article Im writing for one of my sites and it's noticably more arduous to read than a normal post


You'd be surprised how easy it is to get student status though

Originally posted by christina-66
You mean compete in manufacturing like with China? Do we do that now? Or with Spain or France’s agriculture? I know – we’ll do call centres. Oh no – India can provide graduates who work at a quarter of the cost.

On High tech manufacturing, we can most certainly compete (and do). With ragrds to the agriculture, Spain and France... Heard of CAP? Does France wonders, that does..

Originally posted by christina-66
Right – and how does that system cost to install? Bills are NOT ‘high’ – they are extortionate forcing many in the winter months to attempt to answer the ‘to heat or to eat’ question. And that’s going to get worse.

You can get grants etc to pay for most of the cost, most people don't even bother looking into it. Better insulation and preventaive measures would save a fortune on hetaing, but again, most don't bother.

Originally posted by christina-66
No they were sold off as a license to print money. The tax payer paid for the infrastructure - not these private companies. Public funds paid for the services to be available – the profits however have been privatised.

Actually, most were sold off due to the UK blindly following EU directives to break up National Monopolies... However, the French, Germans and the rest don't abide by the rules so we did ourselves a disservice.

The main problem with the EU and the UK is exactly that. We follow the rules and break up our industries, privatise etc, only to look at the continent to find they are all pissing themselves laughing as they haven't and instead, back their big industries with illegal subsidies and loans. They get away with it because our leaders are to Chicken to stand up to them in the Council meetings, while bending over for the next round of "EU regulation" *read: EU regulation meant to shaft the UK)

reply to post by stumason


Yeah Scottish people really don't know how lucky they are.
The Welsh don't get anywhere near as good a deal, and poor areas in England get nothing compared to whats pumped up north (Although now Browns out of office hopefully that will be balanced out).

I sometimes wonder if we might not be better off giving the Scottish their independance, and then declaring war on them immediatly and taking the few bits we want

reply to post by stumason

Besides, oil revenue has only been colected for 3 decades. What about the other 27 decades since Union? The Scottish asked to form a Union in 1707 because Scotland bankrupted themselves trying to start a colonial Empire and came begging, cap in hand, to the English for us to bail them out.

Oh, there was a Scottish King on the throne of England at the time too, handy huh? And apparently we conquered you....

Alex Salmond neglects that side of History and is a self-serving little twat for pushing those lies as facts.

He (and many Scots it would appear) buy into the bull Scotland could be a soveriegn and wealthy nation without England. Without England, Scotland would be no more significant than Slovakia or Belgium. The EU would eat you up before you could even say "English bastard"...

A lot of people forget that the greatest things both our nations have done have been together, not as individual nations. That said, if the Scots want to go their way and think they'll be better off, I 100% support it and will laugh my bollocks off when Salmonds lies are exposed. Scotland can afford nothing without English taxpayers supporting them.

You’ve got some of your history correct – but not all of it – and nor do most scots. Just go back a few centuries earlier. That ‘scottish’ king of Scotland you refer to was a Stewart ‘Steward’ who came here with the Norman Invasion and whose real family name is Fitz Alan. The Bruce’s of course were norman's too. Robert de Brus, the grandfather of Robert the Bruce also came here with the Norman invasion.

The Scottish/norman royals were intermarrying with the English/norman royals for some 600 years before the union of the crowns and the act of union took place. These weren’t wars between ‘nations’ – these were the invading nobility fighting among themselves for land and power.

Personally I don’t want to see Scotland break away from the Union – i’ve already said – by virtue of our small population – our old boy network is entrenched and tight knit. They operate in rings – lending each other credibility.

Do you know that on Sky movies prior to the referendum on a devolved Scottish parliament they showed Braveheart 3 times a day, every day, for an entire month. Now there’s propaganda for ye.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by stumason

 

Yeah Scottish people really don't know how lucky they are.
The Welsh don't get anywhere near as good a deal, and poor areas in England get nothing compared to whats pumped up north (Although now Browns out of office hopefully that will be balanced out).

I sometimes wonder if we might not be better off giving the Scottish their independance, and then declaring war on them immediatly and taking the few bits we want

You do that and we'll come steal your sheep.

I'd just like to say that housing benefit has just been cut too.

The poor will be much poorer over this winter. Especially if its cold.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
Yeah Scottish people really don't know how lucky they are.
The Welsh don't get anywhere near as good a deal, and poor areas in England get nothing compared to whats pumped up north (Although now Browns out of office hopefully that will be balanced out).

Indeed and the Welsh know where their bread is buttered, hence the zero support for any kind of independance. Hopefully in this Parliament, the old "West lothian question" will be answered, along with funding... We can hope, anyway.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
I sometimes wonder if we might not be better off giving the Scottish their independance, and then declaring war on them immediatly and taking the few bits we want

I actually suggested in a conversation with my ED colleagues that we should beat them to the punch and declare our own independance. My reasoning is thus:

The EU commision said that upon any successful Scottish independance that they wouldn't automatically get EU membership and they would have to go down the application route like anyone else, albeit probably fast tracked. If England jumped ship first, we could leave the "UK" and it's inherant liabilites to the EU to the Scots (and anyone else wanting rid of us "English bastards") to enjoy....