RayC

Fair enough. You may be right. Time will tell whether Harris has a realistic and workable plan to implement price controls or whether she is just spouting empty rhetoric.

Actually you should be supplying the definition not me, as you are one claiming that the policy is Marxist. There are no end of PhD dissertations devoted to the question: 'What is Marxism?', so I'm not going to attempt it here. I replied to you separately giving examples of where I believe price controls are appropriate.

I am not in favour of price controls as a rule but they have their place in a mixed economy. Many utility companies in the UK are publicly listed e.g. water companies, power companies, etc. Many are also monopolies. Do you think that they should be free to charge whatever price they like? Only an idiot would think so.

I'm not sure why you keep drawing an analogy between the US in 2024 and revolutionary France of the 1790s. There are plenty of more recent examples of price controls e.g. the privatised utilities in the UK. Harris has given few details about how her plan would work and leaves herself open to justifiable attack for that very reason. However, one would think that she would not be stupid enough to set any price ceiling below the cost of production as the French government of 1793 did.

Hunger, due to a failed harvest, played a large part in the French Revolution. However, it was not price fixing but laissez-faire economics which was the problem i.e. a shortage of bread lead to an increase in its' prices which many in the Third Estate could not afford. This, together with a general dissatisfaction with the monarchy and political order, formed the catalyst for the Revolution. By definition, price controls will control inflation. However, whether they can be used to fix inflation or are desirable and sustainable in anything but the short term is very debatable.

The economic illiterates are those who see no role for the State in the management of the economy and a nation's resources.

So anyone who believes that price controls might sometimes be necessary i.e. in the public interest, is by definition a Marxist?

'She's a Marxist', 'he's a Marxist', 'the Democrats are all Marxist'. The return of Mccarthyism.

In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, you may wish to know that the author has produced another colouring book (presumably to complement this one on his "Political Philosophy"?). https://sandru.com/

If at first you don't succeed .... There is a thread about the election in Thuringia elsewhere on the forum where this view is debunked.

Are you trolling? Why don't you address my original question directly? How is it fair and democratic that a party which wins 34% of the vote gains 63% of the seats in parliament? In the case of this election in Thuringer, imo as the party which won the largest share of the vote, the AfD should be given the opportunity to form a coalition government. However, as that the other parties have already declared that they will not work with the AfD, an AfD-led government will not occur. Given this, another solution will have to be found. As I stated previously, it is the prerogative of each individual party to decide who it will - or will not - work with. There is nothing undemocratic about this process. Do you believe that the other parties should be forced to work with the AfD?

That has absolutely no bearing on the point which I made i.e that FPTP is undemocratic. The UK government is formed by the party which wins an overall majority in the lower house (House of Commons). Fortunately, the upper house (House of Lords) only has delaying powers, as election to it is even more undemocratic: it is by appointment. Not since 1935 has a government in the UK won a majority of the vote. You are evading the issue i.e. that the FPTP is undemocratic.

A matter of opinion of course but I completely disagree. In the case of the UK, the recently elected Labour government gained 33% of the votes cast, but won 63% of the parliamentary constituencies. How is that fair and democratic?

Of course they haven't been. Anyone eligible to vote in this election could cast their vote for whatever party they wanted. The AfD won 34% of the vote. They needed 50.1% of the vote to be able to form a government. They fell short and are therefore unable to do so. I really can't understand why you find this simple arithmetic concept so difficult to grasp. However, I do agree that the toilet is probably the best place for AfD votes.

No voters have been disenfranchised.

There are plenty of alternative systems e.g. first past the post, STV, etc. All have their flaws What system would you suggest?

Let's hope that history isn't repeating itself.

I imagine that most AfD supporters will feel disappointed that they are unable to form a government but, I repeat, there is nothing undemocratic or untoward about other parties not wishing to be part of an AfD-led coalition. That is their perogative. What the AfD needs to do is win >50% of the votes cast, then there can be no argument about whether they should form a government.

Rather like most soap operas, this one has more than run its' course. Hopefully, the media will realise that soon.

Unfortunately the AfD polled well. As the largest party they have earned the right to attempt to form a coalition. However, there is nothing improper or undemocratic about the other parties refusing to join an AfD-led coalition. It certainly doesn't "bypass the will of the people" as you suggest: A large majority (66%) did not vote AfD. It is very rare for parties to win >50% of votes cast in 'one-off' elections and centre-based coalition government is the usual outcome. Is this anti-democratic given the circumstances? No. Does it generate the best outcome? Probably not. Is it the best way of electing a government? Open to debate.

Why does telling DWP that you are married cause a problem?

Much as I would like to see it happen, the phrase, "Good luck with that" comes to mind.

None of which in any way rebukes the content of the article. You should try playing the ball, not the man. As for propaganda: Pot, kettle, black comes to mind. I'll pass on your regards to Mr. Kolyandr if I bump into him in London.

There are racists in the UK - as there are in every country - but you'll need a bit more evidence than that to suggest that the UK is a racist country.

Have you already applied for your state pension and been asked to supply a marriage certificate? If so, ignore the rest of this message. If not - and you are about to apply for your state pension - then you do not need to provide a marriage certificate. You merely need to confirm that the date of your marriage. I applied recently over the phone (+44 191 218 7777)? I was hanging on for +/- 5 mins and the application process took +/-15 mins. Listed below are the details which I had to supply: • Contact details (telephone numbers, address, email address) • Marital status (including dates of marriage, death or divorce) • Spouse’s UK National Insurance number if they have one • The date you left the UK (month and year is acceptable) • The name of your last UK employer and the date you left that employment (month and year is acceptable) • If you have lived or worked in any other countries than the UK, we need the dates that you lived/worked in those countries as well as your social security numbers for those countries if you have one • The banking details of where you would like to be paid.