Politics – a Purely Partisan Tribal Travesty.

I thought this was appropriate right now!

Opher's World

Anybody who believes that any political parties represent them, who fall for any of the rhetoric, is fooling themselves.

Politicians represent power and wealth. Nothing else matters. We are all merely pawns in their games. They take the electorate as fools, lie, throw them scraps, talk up the partisan hatred, and put spin on all their actions to hide their true intent.

When understanding where they come from and what they stand for it is easy to see their intent.

a. Most political parties where formed by the wealthy to protect the interests of the wealthy – Tories, Whigs, Republicans and Democrats.

b. Some political parties are little more than pressure groups. They were formed on the basis of one single aim – The Green Party, UKIP.

c. The Labour Party came out of the Trade Union Movement and was formed to raise the standards and conditions of working people.

View original post 823 more words

16 thoughts on “Politics – a Purely Partisan Tribal Travesty.

  1. Just as a point of fact to clarify. For some reason or other the origins of the Labour party are frequently described as a formation from the trade union movement. I think you will find that the socialist parties were formed quite sometime before the trade union movement. It’s a common enough misinterpretation to the extent that is the description as given on wikipedia. A mistake none the less.

    1. Yes the two movements were quite synchronous and were closely intermarried. It is quite possible to suggest the Trade Union movement came out of the Socialist Movement. I think it depends on your interpretation of what you consider to be socialists.

      1. It’s not about ‘interpretation’, it’s about the facts of history in chronological order. As in 1, 2, 3 etc. Firstly, there was a whole bunch of little sporadic socialist groups which spread into forming a much larger group, which in turn spawned the TU movement. I can’t see what’s difficult to interpret?

      2. Well I largely agree. The only thing I might think is difficult to ascertain is the nature of those groups and were they really socialist. Which groups were you thinking of?

      3. Well let’s say ‘sociialist’ enough to the extent of their common purpose. Whether that was the collective terminology back then I’m none too sure this minute. I can’t remember off top. But we understand their common ground and aims.

      4. And Sal you don’t think there were also nascent negotiating structures that were similar to Trade Unions?
        These early movements were always a little nebulous, weren’t they?
        But does it really matter which came first? I’m quite happy to accept your analysis.

      5. Any of these nascent negotiating structures would could only be determined by any information as found within any minutes of these groups meetings. We don’t know exactly what they discussed. I’d very much doubt it given that these groups were so small and so localised.

        No, in these early days these individual job structured organisations did not exist.
        They were only organised on a local township basis, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker etc.
        You also have to remember this was pre-railways. There were no means of collective travelling. The Trade Unions didn’t really get off until after the railways were built.
        But for a factual certainty, we know that small pockets of socialist based groups existed long before that point.

      6. Quite probable. Those early days are a bit hazy.
        Regardless – whether it was the chicken or the egg – the two were very closely married.

      7. Not quite probably Opher – it was definitely.
        Not regardless – there was no regardless about it. It’s a fundamental basis and a fact.
        They became married and I told you why – the railways.

        Tell me Opher – at what point do you ever accept good council?
        At what point – if ever – do you conflate?

        Or have you little if any regard (as in your flagrant use of the word ‘regardless’) for the factual capacity for history?
        Where would we be in terms of our understanding were we so lax with the security of factual details on a wide range of subjects?
        We (some of us) have become so lazy.
        We all too often display such wanton, uneducated opinions with an ever increasing disregard and ease. Frankly, I find this appalling.

      8. Tell me Sal – is being pedantic a real problem? Is nit-picking a psychological disease?
        You are well over the top! Who really cares?
        The Labour Movement gave rise to the Trade Union Movement. They are married. What is there to argue about?

      9. You still don’t get it do you?
        I’ll say it again – it’s the 1,2,3 principle.
        The socialist movement gave rise to the trade union movement which in turn gave rise to the Labour movement.
        In that order.

        I take it history was never a forte?
        And you view accuracy of fact as pedantic?
        The the genesis order of developments as nit-picking?

        Yet on your page header you say, quote: c. The Labour Party came out of the Trade Union Movement and was formed to raise the standards and conditions of working people.

        Despite that, you have just written above, quote: The Labour Movement gave rise to the Trade Union Movement. They are married. What is there to argue about?

        So, there’s you dilemma Opher.
        Was it “came out of” or was it “gave rise to”.

        And you are just after saying that you always get your facts right?
        Huh?

  2. Sal – I do not really care. I will accept your version. The principle that is important is that the Labour Party and Trade Unions are interlinked and represent ordinary working people. The Tories and Whigs were both formed by wealthy people to look after their own interests.

    1. At last. Eventually the penny dropped.
      I know you don’t care. You can’t take correction. You can’t stand to be corrected. But it seems to be every second post that you make – there’s this huge whopping error coming straight out of the page. Yet you tell yourself that you are always right – as you made a point of telling a couple of days ago. And very funny it was too.

      Yes … I just might have a grasp on the principle… and the Tories and Whigs. Lol. Firmly, I might add.

      1. Exchange your misinterpretation and ill-conceived selection of inappropriate words.
        In fact, you were receiving an exemplary education. Your misinformation was replaced by point of fact. When you were teaching your children did they accuse you of arrogant pedantry.
        What pedantry? Over the growth of trade unionism. Pedantry?
        You must have been THE worst teacher ever. How the hell did you get it into these kids heads the chicken and egg? Or did they leave school not knowing? Lol
        I bet there were some, too.
        Please, don’t say anymore. You look pretty stupid as it is already.

I'd like to hear from you...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.