Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Jase1982

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    389

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Jase1982

  1. Jase1982
    It's not the opposition to any viewpoint that is the issue. It's the fact you seem unable to debate sensibly, post things which we know aren't true (and have been discussed numerous times on this thread and across the internet), and you're unable to back what you say up with anything credible. I don't think anyone here is of the same "ilk" ... There have been a few different viewpoints expressed. I wouldn't describe us all as completely left, but some of the things that have been put to you have been blanketed as "leftist" rubbish by you. How would you feel if we just called you a right wing moron?
  2. Jase1982
    In all honesty, I think the thread has generally been quite civil and has opened up quite a bit of debate. Its only when Maharg1 gets involved because he's clearly on a wind up. "Don't feed the troll" has never been more apt.
  3. Jase1982
    Mate, it's new years day. Do I have to go through the news articles and link them here for you. A recent one - 350 million per week for the NHS, which wasn't true. Saying there would be no customs checks in Northern Ireland with his deal, even though there would have to be. What about the lie he told his wife?
  4. Jase1982
    Well, he was sacked once from the cabinet for lying? Just last year the telegraph had to print a retraction because he made something up...
  5. Jase1982
    are you aware I'm not fletch, or have you been on the vino early celebrating new years... you seem to get fletch and myself conflated with eachother quite a bit... Well, I'm against borders, and I think immigration just puts a divide up between human beings, so open door seems ok to me. You're forgetting that there are many nasty people living within this country and, shock horror, we have our own laws to protect law abiding citizens. Borders are literally partly to blame for every war that's ever happened... why would people support something that has created so much turmoil and strife in the world? This is the longest period in history without any major war because of our membership with the EU, and relaxed immigration policies. It's like people that want to end freedom of movement as though it only applies to other people.. ask anyone you like whether they're against freedom, I bet you'd get a different answer. Your posts are starting to read like a channel five documentary.
  6. Jase1982
    There's that phrase again... "worth to the nation" .... you might want to look at this in greater detail and decide what you mean by "worth" and who that would include. I dont understand why people have an issue with other people living and working alongside them if they're foreign born.. we have rights in foreign countries too. Our citizens can live and work in foreign countries, so why isn't it fair that people who are like us shouldn't be able to access the welfare state if needed. What does anyone think all the people who have retired to foreign countries do when they need medication or require state aid? I think you've been led by daily mail stories that tell everyone that foreign people just take our benefits and are all criminals looking to steal our stuff. It's not ridiculous. Many people misunderstand socialism because it's been branded a dirty word. They support socialist healthcare and education policies, but wouldn't call themselves socialist because it's been misunderstood, or packaged by people selling us a product as something disgusting. We live in an over commodified world and socialism, capitalism etc are just more things to be bought and sold. Again, I debate whether people dismissed Corbyn and the policies when ten million people voted for them. You keep ignoring the fact that Brexit being done was the biggest selling point in any election. Also, again, you can't rule out the role of the media in completely demonising Jeremy Corbyn for little reason. I can't stomach this debate because there's been so much BS floating about.
  7. Jase1982
    I'll tell you what mate, I don't know what to say. If thinking about stuff makes me an idiot then I'm an idiot. You are the epitome of someone who doesn't like change. If you believe your extreme narrative - I actually believe the current narrative is extreme because it's extreme to have one entrenched position, and not to consider other possibilities. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just pointing out where there are issues and where possible solutions lie. The solutions may not be complete or correct, but others may build on them. Surely that's what humanity should be great at - building on thoughts, expanding on them and collectively reaching a resolution. Why do we accept so blindly that what we have is all that is possible, and people suffering is a necessary evil of the capitalist wheel.
  8. Jase1982
    I think the only one who is misrepresenting anything is you, quickly followed by an anti corbyn rant about how he's to blame for all labour's problems. Conveniently ignoring past, present and future events... I really struggle to connect with people in this country who seem unable to think about any inter connecting series of events in order to properly understand the results. It's almost like causality doesn't exist. In terms of practical examples; I dont need to give any. Just like Marx, I'm highlighting problems to do with capitalism (obviously not comparing myself to Marx, although I think it's interesting that people are still coming to the same conclusions as he did over 100 years after his death). The way I look at it is that if you see something that is broken, do you sit there and say oh well, we've got no practical product that does the job better, so we'll just accept this product as it is. We're more likely to produce something that does the job better, build on it, and eventually have something that is so much more superior as that is the definition of capitalism. It's actually a massive irony that in a "free" market capitalist world we live in that relies on expansion and evolution, we are unable to expand and improve the system of governance we have. Conservatism exists to conserve the existing power structures and build on their own wealth and power, so another lie is that they are progressive. They are not. The left are. Hence why we come up with issues specifically to do with the systems we use and possible resolutions for them. Conservatism just tells people socialism is bad and socialists are lazy. It tells people that communists are out to kill them in their beds, and are sneaky. All simple slogans that keep us all fixed in the same state of flux; never developing past point A. All that's happening is that the wealth of the 1% is developing to such a point that when the asteroid finally hits earth they'll all have left and be living on mars, whilst the rest of us will be sat here wallowing in our own mess as we burn to death.
  9. Jase1982
    My point was that working class isn't working class anymore. Work has been totally changed compared to what it was, where there's less industry. People just want jobs, and the Tories promise that to them. Gone are the days of heavy industry and real proper jobs. The class system that capitalism creates has shifted over the last 30 years. Post blairite Labour (as you call them) now represent the working poor, and people that struggle to get by. The underclass that privatisation amongst other things has created. The point is that what I'm talking about would eradicate any notion of anything being completed at the expense of other peoples efforts. What people get in and what they get back are largely determined by market forces, which are often grossly unequal, and prioritise things that are only of benefit to that individual market. You can't have this discussion without referring to money because it is capitalism.
  10. Jase1982
    I disagree any are post capitalist though. Just various forms of authoritarian regimes mixed with a degree of other forms of governance. It's as you say, there always needs to be someone at the top "controlling" things in their own vision. That's the challenge really, but I think that any forms of governance "should" work as long as the person or people at the top are basically jesus. Your point two assumes market forces are still prevalent, and that currency is the primary motivator for all humans. I would argue we can't have communism where any market forces exist because they create classes, and where classes exist the worst human traits like envy and jealousy will define human motivation. Your point makes assumptions about lazy people and basically the have's and the have not's - take away the need to accumulate wealth or "things" and people wouldn't be looking over their shoulder at what their neighbours have, or drawing assertions about whether or not someone is lazy. Surely in a free society people should have the right to be lazy if they choose to be? These circumstances just make it easier for whomever "they" are to maintain their own wealth and power because we are constantly divided. It isn't what I vote for, I vote for people that at least have an idea of what something better could look like.
  11. Jase1982
    I don't see how you can claim anything that would come after capitalism is proven to be inferior? The big lie is that there have ever been wholesale socialist or communist countries. They've all had to accept varying degrees of market influence because you can't have anything else running alongside capitalist markets. Tory Britain capitalism has driven us towards is a profit driven society where compassion and society come last down the pecking order. I haven't got any real issue with the idea of capitalism, but you can't have a free market without wholesale regulation and extreme state intervention - something Tories dont believe in. The drive for increased profit and privatisation of public services has had a direct hand in increasing poverty, homelessness and the cost of living. It's no coincidence that inequality has shot up over the last 30 years. I'm starting to sound like a broken record now but I'm convinced the Tories deliberately ran our industry down and pushed us towards a low wage, low skilled economy in order to create Tory voters because the original working class aren't working class anymore. I don't get why anyone can be happy with this version of capitalism.
  12. Jase1982
    +1 Personally I think the system has been on its knees for years, but they all failed to realise the financial sectors ability to create money out of nothing. In theory we could keep going on forever.
  13. Jase1982
    I would imagine it's more for the EU's benefit, so that we go back to where we were - in forcing 'no deal' back on to the table and basically telling the EU to give us what we want. Which of course won't happen, whatever we do get at the end of year will be championed as a success but any negatives can be put down to the EU not playing ball, and not willing to negotiate
  14. Jase1982
    Yeah, that's another fallacy. It's not something that is prohibited, but would have been something that wouldn't have been legally easy to achieve. It would have taken time to acquire franchises etc on the rail. I think the wider nationalisation programme would have been harder to achieve, but most EU countries keep public services in house because that's how they benefit all the people, rather than a minority of shareholders.
  15. Jase1982
    Mate, you're being a bit hysterical. Hysterical points of view do lead to extremities. I haven't yet said anything about Labour partly failing because of voters such as yourself who have become fanatical in their hatred of anything Corbyn. I think some of the blame should be placed at the door of Labour voters who turned their back on the Labour movement in their darkest hour. See, again for me, it's very complex. There are a number of different things going on here. I'm not sure why you're talking about Johnson. Johnson and his team adopted the same tactic Trump did, where they were pretty much of the opinion that they could easily "shoot someone" and voters would still vote for them. Their policies were just background noise because people were voting to "get Brexit done". The Labour party, however, campaigned extensively on anything BUT Brexit. I will offer up something and say that the Labour leadership team failed to strategise well at all. There were quite extensive campaigns to de-seat existing Tory MP's such as Ian Duncan Smith and Boris Johnson because their majorities had fallen, and it was perceived that they could be won over and wouldn't that be hilarious... Not realising of course that they could still retain their seats and at the end of the election Labour would lose and those MP's would still be alright. There didn't appear to be any thought put into the seats Labour actually had and that cost them dearly. They also relied heavily on the almost god like nature of their manifesto , expecting it to do the talking for them. There wasn't a coherent argument put forward as to why things are rubbish now, and what we should be doing in order to improve the lives of voters. Much the same as the remain campaign; they just weren't coherent, the messages weren't simple and easily understandable to the electorate. I don't believe that enough effort was put into explaining the nationalisation programme, which I understand is a difficult one to put forward to the electorate. Most people pay their bills and believe that's how much something costs and not paying them is bad - Simple as that. Explaining to them that we pay for things several times over, and it's fuelling homelessness, poverty and inequality is a harder message to get through than "get brexit done". I agree, it is a sad state of affairs that we couldn't even beat Johnson. But, again, I would suggest that the election wasn't really a vindication of Boris Johnson and all he stood for. It was more a vote to "get Brexit done", and the fact a lot of voters had simply been put off by Corbyn and his treatment by the media. That's the reason why we saw him travelling north the day after the result. The key for him now will be to see how much he can bribe those Labour voters to retain their vote in 5 years ... or however long the Tory's decide we have to wait for another election. They may even say we've had too many elections and to keep it consistent, and to make sure Brexit gets done, and all the trade deals are completed, lets have one in ten years - They could easily do that.
  16. Jase1982
    You do misunderstand me slightly because I don't disagree that part of it is Corbyn, but I was merely making the point that his policies were popular, and that it's a combination of issues. It was only the worst result in years because they failed to win a race in multiple constituencies. It was the worst result since 1935, agreed. However, surely that again just highlights the issue with first past the post. I personally think that a whole load of Labour voters that voted leave, have felt let down by numerous Labour parties, and haven't voted for a long time tipped the balance in key constituencies. Coupled with the Brexit party taking what votes they could from Labour. It still doesn't detract from the fact that 10 million people voted Labour. For me, the fact they lost so many MP's highlights the need for electoral reform. Johnson has announced his withdrawal bill will be put to the vote on Friday, but what's the point, What is the point of having a multi party democracy if one party can control parliament so astonishingly.
  17. Jase1982
    Any chance you could just concede a little in your vigorous condemnation of anything Corbyn.... Labour still managed over 10 million votes, which is around the same as the Blair era from 2001 onward. So I don't see how anyone can argue that the policies weren't popular. I still think that Ed Miliband wasn't left enough and that a left leaning government can win if the message is clearly understood, and something such as Brexit isn't evident as the overriding voter motivation. I don't see what would have been different had Labour come out with a stronger Brexit position. They'd have lost votes regardless, and in all honesty, what was misunderstood was that the position they took was a remain position. They were only offering a choice to people who voted one way or the other to establish whether this thing is still in the best interest of all the people. Surely that's democracy? Again, where's the democracy in all this.
  18. Jase1982
    Not anymore now that the right have manipulated voters into voting for a conservative dictatorship. All of what you've said is just another worrying aspect of what the future holds
  19. Jase1982
    28 of the 32 wealthiest countries in the world reside within the EU. Realistically we will need the US because they are one of the few remaining countries outside of the EU that would be worth doing a deal with, but as discussed on here previously, the exact agreement we strike with the US is open to debate. Should we still want a trade deal with the EU we would need to align our standards with them, which makes a deal with the US harder. Also 80% of our economy is services. Try selling financial services to a person in India... or try sending engineers half way round the world just because some numpty has decided trading with the countries geographically closest to us wont work anymore because of immigrants and sovereignty.
  20. Jase1982
    Yeah that's mental. Why would you want to enter into a trade war with the EU for no reason? Again, they'll just choose to purchase more from countries in other parts of the world that don't engage in putting trade sanctions on their closest trading partners for no reason. You misunderstand that the EU wouldn't be choosing to do anything.. tariffs would be applied by default. And then your answer would be to further cripple our economy by raising tariffs on the EU when we rely on imports to produce stuff in order to export? We literally need to import raw materials . Getting into a trade war would just mean they buy less from us, and our 50% of our economy would end up being subject to increased costs. In fact 100% of our economy would be affected because we'd also not be able to trade with the rest of the world under the terms negotiated through the EU.
  21. Jase1982
    Brexit has got nothing to do with who sells what to who. The government don't tell private companies where to trade. This is all about the terms and conditions under which businesses operate, and without the risk of sounding like a broken record, businesses will have a choice to continue trading with us or to not. The key issue has always been not to increase the costs to uk businesses because that would effect the amount of trade they do with the rest of the world because we have trade deals with the vast majority of wealthy countries, through the EU. Leaving with no deal, or reduced terms would increase costs to uk businesses, which inevitably would hit our economy. It's true that businesses would still buy from us, but if it's more expensive to buy from us then EU countries would choose whether to buy from us. Subsequently, if we make it more expensive to buy goods in, then inevitably our export costs increase. Brexit as it stands is basically imposing trade sanctions on ourselves. Anyone that says businesses will still buy from us just doesn't understand the detail, how the EU works, or basic economics.
  22. Jase1982
    Mate, you're making no sense again, and just saying hysterical stuff. I'm sorry but youd have to be a complete fool to believe it's all Corbyn's fault. What would have happened if hed taken a stronger leave position is that he would have lost votes to someone like the lib dems. He was in a tough position, and I've said before... he gave all the moderate labour MP's every opportunity to work together... but they all one after the other shafted him. Jeremy Corbyn has worked all his life to better the lives of people less fortunate, and all this rubbish about extreme left taking over is nonsense. What's extreme about wanting to end poverty, and dealing with homelessness. Pointing out the downfall of privatisation and how its having a negative effect on civilisation. Dealing with the housing crisis.. I dont see what's so extreme... we've all just been living in a free market capitalist world for so long.. I had a conversation with someone I work with (who voted tory) yesterday and she was arguing for equal pay, or better pay for NHS staff. She's spoken about ending homelessness. Pointing out that we just had a chance to elect a socialist who would actually deal with these issues is just white noise because everyone thinks all politicians are the same. Centre ground politics has warped reality and distorted the narrative so that people cant see a different way out... coupled with first past the post it just makes our politics and society so unequal
  23. Jase1982
    In terms of the result, in hindsight, I think that the manifesto possibly went too far. I think nationalisation of utilities, railways and royal mail is a good thing due to the fact privatisation sucks money out of the system, and things end up being paid for several times over. I'm not sure nationalisation of BT was such a good thing. Our network is pretty rubbish and leaving infrastructure projects to private companies is incoherent and inefficient, but that might have been a step too far. I disagree it's all Corbyn's fault because the Tory's campaigned on a very simple message - "get brexit done". In effect, their manifesto was very basic, and labour haemorrhaged leave voting labour voters so desperately tired of the process. There was a hell of a lot of anti Corbyn propaganda from the word go. I said after the referendum that the Tory's would be screwed because they wouldn't be able to deliver on any of the promises made, and for a long time it looked like that would be the case. However, I never took into consideration the effect of Boris Johnson would have because he's a very good salesman... I would bet my life on us having a deal by the end of next year, and whatever we're left with will be championed as a massive success... I'm sick of it all if I'm honest. I've had people banging on about remainers can all shit up now, they lost etc, as if they'd won the lottery. But when I look at it, it was all still based on nonsense and misinformation, so I think we've all lost. We're now left with a Tory government that has a huge majority so that they can push through anything they like. Where's the democracy there? Leavers wanted more democracy, but Johnson having played a blinder, has secured less democracy and conviced them they're all winners. Coupled with their promise to "renegotiate the relationship between parliament and the courts" I'm concerned all these leave voters aren't really thinking clearly. I've also said all along that brexit was about the elite in our country having more overall control, and now they have it. They've even convinced working class labour voters that it's in their interest. How did this happen?
  24. Jase1982
    How many more times!!! It was a global recession!! Seriously, I feel like I'm in a cuckoo clock. Answer honestly, surely if the country had been bankrupted the price of food would have shot up and we wouldn't have been able to draw any money out from a cash point? These things are what I would expect if we had gone under as a country.
  25. Jase1982
    He already came out and confirmed john McDonnell would take over temporarily if they lost

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...