So it's official the Commons has voted to allow a parliamentary general election in 50 days time.
Might this be that last* UK general election?
One bright spot, Ken Clarke confirms he'll stand again in his constituency:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39645885 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39645885)
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/320/cpsprodpb/A6CB/production/_95699624_kenclarkebbc2.jpg)
The less than impressed bloke on the backbench is my local MP, nice enough chap to talk with, but certainly no 'wet'.
*And no I'm not assuming May is going all Erdogan on us?
I still think the queen should raise the Royal banner at York and ravage Scotland.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 19, 2017, 08:50:54 PM
I still think the queen should raise the Royal banner at York and ravage Scotland.
Non-capitalised Queen, but capitalised royal? :hmm:
:P
Quote from: mongers on April 19, 2017, 08:52:15 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 19, 2017, 08:50:54 PM
I still think the queen should raise the Royal banner at York and ravage Scotland.
Non-capitalised Queen, but capitalised royal? :hmm:
:P
My iPad is rebellious.
Quote from: mongers on April 19, 2017, 08:44:06 PM
Might this be that last* UK general election?
Sorry, dude; can't really be bothered to keep up, what with our own impeding apocalypse. But I do hope you manage to successfully survive the fallout from the transatlantic winds.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2017, 09:09:16 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 19, 2017, 08:44:06 PM
Might this be that last* UK general election?
Sorry, dude; can't really be bothered to keep up, what with our own impeding apocalypse. But I do hope you manage to successfully survive the fallout from the transatlantic winds.
It's a race to the bottom, we play Brexit vote, you hit back with Trump, we double down with this stupid/unnecessary election; what have you guys left to play, short of the aforesaid thermonuclear war? :P
Quote from: mongers on April 19, 2017, 09:13:39 PM
what have you guys left to play, short of the aforesaid thermonuclear war? :P
Thermonuclear global market crash.
Some analysis here of what might happen with the vote in Scotland :
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/01/27/why-have-polls-not-shown-shift-towards-scottish-in/
Its all to play for imo.
I am slightly disturbed by the apparent joy all the party leaders have thrown themselves into this election with.
If it's such a great idea, why didn't they pressured for it previously? If it's a bad idea, why support it?
It seems especially counterproductive to the opposition considering the regular next election would have been in 2020, about a year after Brexit is finalised, and the near-certain short term disadvantages starting to unravel in full. It would have been the perfect time to campaign against the government.
Now, I am afraid many people will think, that if it has to be the Tories, it better be a strong Tory government so there won't be any hickups with Brexit. I worry about an absolute landslide.
Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2017, 04:06:57 AM
I am slightly disturbed by the apparent joy all the party leaders have thrown themselves into this election with.
If it's such a great idea, why didn't they pressured for it previously? If it's a bad idea, why support it?
It seems especially counterproductive to the opposition considering the regular next election would have been in 2020, about a year after Brexit is finalised, and the near-certain short term disadvantages starting to unravel in full. It would have been the perfect time to campaign against the government.
Now, I am afraid many people will think, that if it has to be the Tories, it better be a strong Tory government so there won't be any hickups with Brexit. I worry about an absolute landslide.
What good would it be for the other party leaders to moan about an election? :huh:
:huh: Just because they don't have a majority they should shut up about things they can't actually enact/change? Not much point about having an opposition then.
Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2017, 04:15:25 AM
:huh: Just because they don't have a majority they should shut up about things they can't actually enact/change? Not much point about having an opposition then.
I mean if they moan about having a leadership election - what is the message? Oh you don't actually want to try to gain leadership of the country? Oh, you are as pessimistic as the public is about your ability to take control?
Besides, I don't see why Lib Dems wouldn't be happy. Labour would look like it wanted to stay irrelevant if it was moaning about having to make its case to voters.
The Tories do have a commanding lead in the polls, but I suspect that their vote is soft. If another party manages to present a worthwhile alternative a lot of Tory votes could evaporate. We saw the SNP do this to Labour in Scotland last time round. Which underlines what a disaster Corbyn is I suppose :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2017, 04:22:10 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2017, 04:15:25 AM
:huh: Just because they don't have a majority they should shut up about things they can't actually enact/change? Not much point about having an opposition then.
I mean if they moan about having a leadership election - what is the message? Oh you don't actually want to try to gain leadership of the country? Oh, you are as pessimistic as the public is about your ability to take control?
Besides, I don't see why Lib Dems wouldn't be happy. Labour would look like it wanted to stay irrelevant if it was moaning about having to make its case to voters.
Fair point.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2017, 05:15:00 AM
The Tories do have a commanding lead in the polls, but I suspect that their vote is soft. If another party manages to present a worthwhile alternative a lot of Tory votes could evaporate. We saw the SNP do this to Labour in Scotland last time round. Which underlines what a disaster Corbyn is I suppose :hmm:
That's a hell of an "if"
(https://us.v-cdn.net/5000498/uploads/thumbnails/FileUpload/d4/54302517a6ba9a47942b26aee017bb.jpg)
Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2017, 05:34:14 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2017, 05:15:00 AM
The Tories do have a commanding lead in the polls, but I suspect that their vote is soft. If another party manages to present a worthwhile alternative a lot of Tory votes could evaporate. We saw the SNP do this to Labour in Scotland last time round. Which underlines what a disaster Corbyn is I suppose :hmm:
That's a hell of an "if"
You never know, though I guess it isn't going to be as close as the French presidential race. :P
UKIP are quiet so far. :ph34r:
Quote from: Tyr on April 20, 2017, 08:32:50 AM
UKIP are quiet so far. :ph34r:
What are they going to campaign on? They've already achieved their raison d'etre.
Ensuring that it will be the "right" Brexit, and not a wishy-washy half baked thing.
Quote from: The Larch on April 20, 2017, 08:43:52 AM
Quote from: Tyr on April 20, 2017, 08:32:50 AM
UKIP are quiet so far. :ph34r:
What are they going to campaign on? They've already achieved their raison d'etre.
I still expect them to go all the way and start an anti-immigrant program. Unfortunately it will concentrate on Eastern Europeans because they will not want to be beheaded.
Given how quickly Farage bolted after the Brexit referendum I don't think that they were really counting on winning at any time and just wanted to be a protest party for as long as possible.
The main hope for this election is simply that the Tory majority decreases. That presents the only realistic possibility for the UK to hold together and the Brexit train to hit a snag. Now how likely that is I have no idea. I don't know what percentage of the 48% who voted to stay in the EU have decided hard fast Brexit is something they can now support, or if any of the 51% who did support Brexit have gotten cold feet.
Not exactly related but the woman who would be my MP if I could vote (of man in the van controversy) has made this headline:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/20/people-on-70000-do-not-feel-rich-emily-thornberry-admits
QuoteSome people earning £70,000 do not feel rich, says Emily Thornberry
It is true. You could barely afford a cardboard box by the sewage treatment plant in London with that kind of salary.
$90,000. (The exchange rate is much lower now than I expected!) I can see that as not really being affluent in London.
See, instantly you are in the territory where you seek to define who is the enemy of the people to be punished, and who isn't. If you have a flat tax rate, there is no such issue.
70k must be pretty sweet, even in London, but I don't think it could go above an upper middle class lifestyle.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on April 20, 2017, 10:08:41 AM
$90,000. (The exchange rate is much lower now than I expected!) I can see that as not really being affluent in London.
You definitely can't use exchange rates now to understand what people get paid in the UK. Makes everyone seem like paupers.
I prefer the term "well-off" or "comfortable" for people on that sort of income. Rich is more of a substantial house in London, place in the country, all children sent to public schools sort of thing. You need a lot more than £70k for that sort of thing.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2017, 10:13:54 AM
I prefer the term "well-off" or "comfortable" for people on that sort of income. Rich is more of a substantial house in London, place in the country, all children sent to public schools sort of thing. You need a lot more than £70k for that sort of thing.
This reminds me, I'll need to read up on definitions of schools over here. I'd have thought "public" schools are the state-run ones, not private schools.
Why would you think something ridiculous like that?
Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2017, 10:27:00 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2017, 10:13:54 AM
I prefer the term "well-off" or "comfortable" for people on that sort of income. Rich is more of a substantial house in London, place in the country, all children sent to public schools sort of thing. You need a lot more than £70k for that sort of thing.
This reminds me, I'll need to read up on definitions of schools over here. I'd have thought "public" schools are the state-run ones, not private schools.
You were thinking of state(-funded) schools. :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2017, 10:13:54 AM
I prefer the term "well-off" or "comfortable" for people on that sort of income. Rich is more of a substantial house in London, place in the country, all children sent to public schools sort of thing. You need a lot more than £70k for that sort of thing.
I guess it depends on policy aims? Given the context, I suppose it could make sense to label top 5% of UK earners as rich?
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2017, 10:28:19 AM
Why would you think something ridiculous like that?
Indeed, chap has been here for ages and still can't get the basics right :D
They are called public schools because they are open to members of the public (who have to pay fees). The state-run schools are called state schools. A private school might be a religious one, once again you pay fees but would have to be CofE or Catholic or whatever.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2017, 10:34:55 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2017, 10:13:54 AM
I prefer the term "well-off" or "comfortable" for people on that sort of income. Rich is more of a substantial house in London, place in the country, all children sent to public schools sort of thing. You need a lot more than £70k for that sort of thing.
I guess it depends on policy aims? Given the context, I suppose it could make sense to label top 5% of UK earners as rich?
I would imagine that a lot of people on that sort of money might only be getting it for a few years towards the end of their careers. A senior teacher for example, or a senior nurse. My point being that a lot more than 5% of the population will spend part of their time in the 5% group. These people will also generally be entering the labour force later and will usually have to pay their university fees back (at least as time goes by and more have had to take out loans). They already pay the higher rate of income tax on a substantial proportion of their income, I wonder how far the left-wing of the Labour party would like to go? Possibly into the territory we were in back in the 1970s where it didn't really make sense to bother.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2017, 10:46:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2017, 10:34:55 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2017, 10:13:54 AM
I prefer the term "well-off" or "comfortable" for people on that sort of income. Rich is more of a substantial house in London, place in the country, all children sent to public schools sort of thing. You need a lot more than £70k for that sort of thing.
I guess it depends on policy aims? Given the context, I suppose it could make sense to label top 5% of UK earners as rich?
I would imagine that a lot of people on that sort of money might only be getting it for a few years towards the end of their careers. A senior teacher for example, or a senior nurse. My point being that a lot more than 5% of the population will spend part of their time in the 5% group. These people will also generally be entering the labour force later and will usually have to pay their university fees back (at least as time goes by and more have had to take out loans). They already pay the higher rate of income tax on a substantial proportion of their income, I wonder how far the left-wing of the Labour party would like to go? Possibly into the territory we were in back in the 1970s where it didn't really make sense to bother.
Well, thankfully as long as Corbyn Labour keeps at it, it'll all remain academic. :D
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2017, 10:46:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2017, 10:34:55 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2017, 10:13:54 AM
I prefer the term "well-off" or "comfortable" for people on that sort of income. Rich is more of a substantial house in London, place in the country, all children sent to public schools sort of thing. You need a lot more than £70k for that sort of thing.
I guess it depends on policy aims? Given the context, I suppose it could make sense to label top 5% of UK earners as rich?
I would imagine that a lot of people on that sort of money might only be getting it for a few years towards the end of their careers. A senior teacher for example, or a senior nurse. My point being that a lot more than 5% of the population will spend part of their time in the 5% group. These people will also generally be entering the labour force later and will usually have to pay their university fees back (at least as time goes by and more have had to take out loans). They already pay the higher rate of income tax on a substantial proportion of their income, I wonder how far the left-wing of the Labour party would like to go? Possibly into the territory we were in back in the 1970s where it didn't really make sense to bother.
Stop finding excuses for the 1%, RH!
I would agree that 70k is well off rather than rich.
Makes you very very comfortable indeed in some parts of the country but not really in London.
Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2017, 11:27:05 AM
Stop finding excuses for the 1%, RH!
I'd be very impressed if a nurse or teacher made it to the 1% even at the end of their career.
Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2017, 05:34:14 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 20, 2017, 05:15:00 AM
The Tories do have a commanding lead in the polls, but I suspect that their vote is soft. If another party manages to present a worthwhile alternative a lot of Tory votes could evaporate. We saw the SNP do this to Labour in Scotland last time round. Which underlines what a disaster Corbyn is I suppose :hmm:
That's a hell of an "if"
(https://us.v-cdn.net/5000498/uploads/thumbnails/FileUpload/d4/54302517a6ba9a47942b26aee017bb.jpg)
I would've expected the second line to be "and I just ordered more falafel. Looks good pretty good, yeah?"
Quote from: frunk on April 20, 2017, 11:46:11 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2017, 11:27:05 AM
Stop finding excuses for the 1%, RH!
I'd be very impressed if a nurse or teacher made it to the 1% even at the end of their career.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcombiboilersleeds.com%2Fimages%2Fsarcasm%2Fsarcasm-6.jpg&hash=4a675f91d440475389213f51f8b4ac768ab03c82)
Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2017, 11:49:51 AM
Quote from: frunk on April 20, 2017, 11:46:11 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2017, 11:27:05 AM
Stop finding excuses for the 1%, RH!
I'd be very impressed if a nurse or teacher made it to the 1% even at the end of their career.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcombiboilersleeds.com%2Fimages%2Fsarcasm%2Fsarcasm-6.jpg&hash=4a675f91d440475389213f51f8b4ac768ab03c82)
Judging by the name of the broken image it's something about sarcasm. I know you are being sarcastic, but I guess I'm not sure what the point of your sarcasm is.
That socialism is bad, mkay?
Quote from: Tamas on April 20, 2017, 11:54:10 AM
That socialism is bad, mkay?
Just about every country on earth has some socialist or progressive elements designed to help those with less money, so I guess they are all bad.
Quote from: frunk on April 20, 2017, 12:02:28 PM
Just about every country on earth has some socialist or progressive elements designed to help those with less money, so I guess they are all bad.
Well, as we've been seeing, that shit is coming to an abrupt fucking halt everywhere.
What other issues besides Brexit and the personality of Jeremy Corbyn are at stake?
Quote from: Zanza on April 20, 2017, 12:39:09 PM
What other issues besides Brexit and the personality of Jeremy Corbyn are at stake?
As in what issues are the parties planning to campaign on?
Yes. Like tax reform, or NHS or whatever. I guess SNP is clear, but are there any real issues besides Brexit that will be relevant during the election campaign?
My understanding is the Corbyn is mostly going to try to avoid the Brexit issue and focus on things like the NHS et. al.
Here we go:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9sWZSWXkAE7DS-.png)
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2017, 11:49:17 AM
I would've expected the second line to be "and I just ordered more falafel. Looks good pretty good, yeah?"
It's a takeoff of a line from Dazed and Confused.
"I came here to do two things: get fucked up and fight. And I'm done getting fucked up."
Now I'm thinking this:
"I came here to do two things: drink beer and kick some ass. And I'm all out of beer."
I thought the classic line was "I'm here to kick ass and chew bubble gum. And I'm all out of bubble gum."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2017, 01:03:17 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2017, 11:49:17 AM
I would've expected the second line to be "and I just ordered more falafel. Looks good pretty good, yeah?"
It's a takeoff of a line from Dazed and Confused.
"I came here to do two things: get fucked up and fight. And I'm done getting fucked up."
Like BB, I thought of the "chew bubblegum and kick ass" quote... but I also thought that mangling the quote to indicate that Corbyn is a fuckup would be more in line with the board perception of the man.
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2017, 01:15:31 PM
Like BB, I thought of the "chew bubblegum and kick ass" quote... but I also thought that mangling the quote to indicate that Corbyn is a fuckup would be more in line with the board perception of the man.
Gotcha.
I guess that makes us even for you vomiting on my Kung Fu Hustle line. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2017, 01:17:55 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2017, 01:15:31 PM
Like BB, I thought of the "chew bubblegum and kick ass" quote... but I also thought that mangling the quote to indicate that Corbyn is a fuckup would be more in line with the board perception of the man.
Gotcha.
I guess that makes us even for you vomiting on my Kung Fu Hustle line. :P
:cheers:
Oh dear. They're not going for the equal minimum wage for everyone, it's discrimination against young people to have different levels idiocy are they.
But thumbs up on the trains. If brexit wasn't such a big deal the trains would win my vote. About time we end the idiocy of privatisation
If the UK is anything like Sweden £70k isn't even close to being rich.
Quote from: Tyr on April 20, 2017, 02:29:58 PM
Oh dear. They're not going for the equal minimum wage for everyone, it's discrimination against young people to have different levels idiocy are they.
But thumbs up on the trains. If brexit wasn't such a big deal the trains would win by vote. About time we end the idiocy of privatisation
And that's the risk Labour and Corbyn are running.
Perhaps the "it's the economy, stupid" message will fly, and people will get frustrated that they're the only party talking about "issues that matter to real people".
But if the public is mostly worried about Brexit, then Labour is just going to get swamped.
All signs point to Labour being swamped... they're going to lose a bunch of their remain voters due to waffling on that file, they haven't done a good job of uniting the different wings of the party, they're not looking good in Scotland vs the SNP.
It was good political gamesmanship for May to call the election now, unless there's a significant change in the dynamic between now and election day.
IMO, of course.
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2017, 03:47:38 PM
All signs point to Labour being swamped... they're going to lose a bunch of their remain voters due to waffling on that file, they haven't done a good job of uniting the different wings of the party, they're not looking good in Scotland vs the SNP.
It was good political gamesmanship for May to call the election now, unless there's a significant change in the dynamic between now and election day.
IMO, of course.
You never know what can happen in a campaign of course - nobody was predicting Trudeau would win our most recent election at the start of the campaign.
But yeah that's how it looks at present.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2017, 01:03:17 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2017, 11:49:17 AM
I would've expected the second line to be "and I just ordered more falafel. Looks good pretty good, yeah?"
It's a takeoff of a line from Dazed and Confused.
"I came here to do two things: get fucked up and fight. And I'm done getting fucked up."
It's origin is even older: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp_K8prLfso
Surprisingly good launch for Corbyn and Labour today. He got some half decent soundbites in. It's just about possible that he won't have the worst ever vote share for Labour since the war
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2017, 01:03:17 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 20, 2017, 11:49:17 AM
I would've expected the second line to be "and I just ordered more falafel. Looks good pretty good, yeah?"
It's a takeoff of a line from Dazed and Confused.
"I came here to do two things: get fucked up and fight. And I'm done getting fucked up."
They Live is the origin of the line, though. Not sure if Dazed and Confused ripped it off or managed to independently think of it.
Anyone know the origin of the line "living the dream?"
Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2017, 04:16:51 PM
Surprisingly good launch for Corbyn and Labour today. He got some half decent soundbites in. It's just about possible that he won't have the worst ever vote share for Labour since the war
Well yes and it'll seem increasingly odd during the campaign if May keeps trying to drag the focus back to Brexit and that only.
The irony is that not many people are very interested in brexit. Now the inability to get a timely appointment at the doctor's? That annoys people.
You guys just made me rewatch the best bits from They Live!
Something good might come out of Brexit afterall.
Quote from: mongers on April 20, 2017, 08:08:23 PM
Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2017, 04:16:51 PM
Surprisingly good launch for Corbyn and Labour today. He got some half decent soundbites in. It's just about possible that he won't have the worst ever vote share for Labour since the war
Well yes and it'll seem increasingly odd during the campaign if May keeps trying to drag the focus back to Brexit and that only.
I don't think she will. She needed Brexit as an excuse to call the election. Tory focus will now be on showing up the fact that Labour haven't really had time to develop their policies and in many cases have policies which Corbyn is strongly against. For example, official Labour policy is to renew Trident. Jezza is stuck with that policy but he's strongly against it. How does he deal with a simple question - will a Labour Government under your Prime Ministership renew Trident? No way out.
We can expect the usual questioning of how spending pledges will be paid for but with the added complication that Labour's nascent policies are based on the estimated deficit for 2020 not 2017. Ditch most of those pledges? Run a higher deficit? Admit you will have to raise taxes?
Quote from: Gups on April 21, 2017, 04:08:59 AMPrime Ministership renew Trident?
Should reintroduce conscription instead.
Quote from: Gups on April 21, 2017, 04:08:59 AM
Quote from: mongers on April 20, 2017, 08:08:23 PM
Quote from: Gups on April 20, 2017, 04:16:51 PM
Surprisingly good launch for Corbyn and Labour today. He got some half decent soundbites in. It's just about possible that he won't have the worst ever vote share for Labour since the war
Well yes and it'll seem increasingly odd during the campaign if May keeps trying to drag the focus back to Brexit and that only.
I don't think she will. She needed Brexit as an excuse to call the election. Tory focus will now be on showing up the fact that Labour haven't really had time to develop their policies and in many cases have policies which Corbyn is strongly against. For example, official Labour policy is to renew Trident. Jezza is stuck with that policy but he's strongly against it. How does he deal with a simple question - will a Labour Government under your Prime Ministership renew Trident? No way out.
We can expect the usual questioning of how spending pledges will be paid for but with the added complication that Labour's nascent policies are based on the estimated deficit for 2020 not 2017. Ditch most of those pledges? Run a higher deficit? Admit you will have to raise taxes?
Yes, an interesting dilemma Labour finds itself in, one of several.
Looks like voter fatigue could cost her a point or two, calling an "unnecessary election" has annoyed a fair few.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 21, 2017, 12:55:32 AM
The irony is that not many people are very interested in brexit. Now the inability to get a timely appointment at the doctor's? That annoys people.
That's a good point RH; Labour should be nailing the Brexit 350million lie to these 'facts on the ground' every time May trots our Brexit and the national interest.
UKIP confirm that they are an unacceptable party to vote for :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39682939
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 23, 2017, 04:42:08 AM
UKIP confirm that they are an unacceptable party to vote for :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39682939
QuoteUKIP's "integration agenda", to be launched on Monday, will also propose outlawing sharia law.
How does...? Mind... struggling...
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 23, 2017, 04:42:08 AM
UKIP confirm that they are an unacceptable party to vote for :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39682939
It would be interesting from a statistical point of view, if they switched to a loud anti-Muslim agenda, see how many people actually ends up voting for them.
Quote from: Tamas on April 23, 2017, 05:41:33 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 23, 2017, 04:42:08 AM
UKIP confirm that they are an unacceptable party to vote for :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39682939
It would be interesting from a statistical point of view, if they switched to a loud anti-Muslim agenda, see how many people actually ends up voting for them.
better call it anti-islam. muslims are, after all, the first victims of that "religion".
Turned on the TV news and saw a TV poll. Labour on 30% and Conservatives on 40%. "Oh thats not so bad" I thought.
...
Then I noticed this was Wales.
The country is doomed.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Opinion_polling_UK_2020_election_short_axis.png)
Is it a bad thing that UKIP voters seem to be going over to the Tories?
Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2017, 01:37:05 PM
Is it a bad thing that UKIP voters seem to be going over to the Tories?
Well the Tories were always somewhat agnostic about the EU, which is what gave UKIP it's raison d'etre.
Now that May has embraced Brexit, I can't think of many reasons why someone who had previously voted UKIP wouldn't vote for the Tories.
Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2017, 01:58:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2017, 01:37:05 PM
Is it a bad thing that UKIP voters seem to be going over to the Tories?
Well the Tories were always somewhat agnostic about the EU, which is what gave UKIP it's raison d'etre.
Now that May has embraced Brexit, I can't think of many reasons why someone who had previously voted UKIP wouldn't vote for the Tories.
If UKIP voters go over to Conservatives its a great thing - it means embracing one far-right self destructive idiocy was enough shepherd the radicals back into the fold of the Nasty Party, and they will not be required to put open xenophobia on their flag to achieve this.
Btw, is Blair aiming to make sure that no one likes him?
Quote from: garbon on April 24, 2017, 02:41:55 PM
Btw, is Blair aiming to make sure that no one likes him?
My impression of U.K. Politics is that he's already achieved that.
I hope Sheilbh is not taking that too hard :(
Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2017, 09:55:02 PM
I hope Sheilbh is not taking that too hard :(
He'll live; Mike Huckabee's still Tweeting.
Quote from: Jacob on April 24, 2017, 09:13:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 24, 2017, 02:41:55 PM
Btw, is Blair aiming to make sure that no one likes him?
My impression of U.K. Politics is that he's already achieved that.
Not in the north.
What has Blair done/said?
Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2017, 09:55:02 PM
I hope Sheilbh is not taking that too hard :(
He can console himself with the resurgence of the positive English nationalism. :bowler:
Quote from: celedhring on April 25, 2017, 02:57:28 AM
What has Blair done/said?
It's weird. He was still pretty popular when he resigned in 2007 but he seems to be widely hated and disliked now. He took a big hit on the left because of Iraq and I suppose that the recession had an effect as well even though he got out before it started. He's amassed a lot of money since leaving which pisses off many. Still, it's hard to pinpoint any particular single thing which would logically explain his unpopularity
Hmm, I think I've worked out what I should do to be part of this democratic process. :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on April 30, 2017, 11:34:32 AM
Hmm, I think I've worked out what I should do to be part of this democratic process. :hmm:
Move to Scotland? :P
Quote from: Maladict on May 01, 2017, 07:25:50 AM
Quote from: mongers on April 30, 2017, 11:34:32 AM
Hmm, I think I've worked out what I should do to be part of this democratic process. :hmm:
Move to Scotland? :P
:D
I've been seriously considering that one for months.
If I were considering a move to the UK I think I'd prefer Scotland, irrespective of Brexit/independence referendum.
Quote from: Maladict on May 03, 2017, 07:22:23 AM
If I were considering a move to the UK I think I'd prefer Scotland, irrespective of Brexit/independence referendum.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/1M9fmo1WAFVK0/giphy.gif)
What's wrong with Scotland? I'd be up for opening an office for my company in Glasgow or Edinburgh. :)
Yeah Scotland is full of Scots. And even if it wasn't it is kind of miserable in most other respects.
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 09:54:05 AM
What's wrong with Scotland? I'd be up for opening an office for my company in Glasgow or Edinburgh. :)
People from Glasgow talk funny.
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2017, 09:54:09 AM
And even if it wasn't it is kind of miserable in most other respects.
:hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2017, 09:54:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 09:54:05 AM
What's wrong with Scotland? I'd be up for opening an office for my company in Glasgow or Edinburgh. :)
People from Glasgow talk funny.
But apparently make polite muggers.
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2017, 09:54:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 09:54:05 AM
What's wrong with Scotland? I'd be up for opening an office for my company in Glasgow or Edinburgh. :)
People from Glasgow talk funny.
Well yes, that is one of the many exclusion criteria that I apply to Texas and the South. -_-
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 10:55:33 AM
Well yes, that is one of the many exclusion criteria that I apply to Texas and the South. -_-
Yet not to Glasgow. Weird.
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2017, 11:08:55 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 10:55:33 AM
Well yes, that is one of the many exclusion criteria that I apply to Texas and the South. -_-
Yet not to Glasgow. Weird.
They sound interesting which cannot be said for the speech of those other areas...
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 11:18:53 AM
They sound interesting which cannot be said for the speech of those other areas...
The Brits clearly disagree with you since they always go straight for the southern accent when they try to do American accents :P
I don't know if that means they like it. My employees keep laughing every time our person based in North Carolina speaks with a bit of a twang.
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 12:43:22 PM
I don't know if that means they like it. My employees keep laughing every time our person based in North Carolina speaks with a bit of a twang.
North Carolina's is pretty extreme. My Father-in-Law lives there.
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 12:43:22 PM
I don't know if that means they like it. My employees keep laughing every time our person based in North Carolina speaks with a bit of a twang.
Yeah, the Texas accent is commonly trotted out when we are doing a caricature of Americans.
Quote from: celedhring on May 03, 2017, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 12:43:22 PM
I don't know if that means they like it. My employees keep laughing every time our person based in North Carolina speaks with a bit of a twang.
Yeah, the Texas accent is commonly trotted out when we are doing a caricature of Americans.
But it is interesting! I don't see you guys doing New Jersey or Fargo accents.
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2017, 01:01:14 PM
Quote from: celedhring on May 03, 2017, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 12:43:22 PM
I don't know if that means they like it. My employees keep laughing every time our person based in North Carolina speaks with a bit of a twang.
Yeah, the Texas accent is commonly trotted out when we are doing a caricature of Americans.
But it is interesting! I don't see you guys doing New Jersey or Fargo accents.
:console:
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 01:03:13 PM
:console:
What? It is not my accent. My accent is probably basically the same as yours.
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2017, 01:10:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 01:03:13 PM
:console:
What? It is not my accent. My accent is probably basically the same as yours.
There goes my mental image of Valmy :(
Quote from: celedhring on May 03, 2017, 01:14:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2017, 01:10:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 01:03:13 PM
:console:
What? It is not my accent. My accent is probably basically the same as yours.
There goes my mental image of Valmy :(
I resemble Matthew McConaughey in virtually no respect :weep:
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2017, 01:10:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 01:03:13 PM
:console:
What? It is not my accent. My accent is probably basically the same as yours.
garbon has probably gone all Madonna on us.
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2017, 01:10:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 01:03:13 PM
:console:
What? It is not my accent. My accent is probably basically the same as yours.
You were the one being all about how interesting it is!
Quote from: HVC on May 03, 2017, 01:32:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2017, 01:10:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 01:03:13 PM
:console:
What? It is not my accent. My accent is probably basically the same as yours.
garbon has probably gone all Madonna on us.
Not in the least.
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 03:44:52 PM
You were the one being all about how interesting it is!
Only because you insisted the ridiculous Glasgow accent was so fascinating.
But it is just a fact. The southern accent is famous and beloved worldwide.
Mocked worldwide, yes.
I think Brit actors do southern accents a lot because they're relatively easy to copy.
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2017, 03:49:57 PM
Mocked worldwide, yes.
Sometimes. Many people also find it hot.
But even if you are right it does not make Glasgow's non-funny.
Many people voted for Trump...
Just cast my first vote in the UK - on the county council member election :)
It was interesting. Maybe because it is much more irrelevant than a national election but: no signature required by me on their list of voters (that I have attended), and there was a pencil in the "booth"
That's a bit... lax isn't it?
Although I just attribute it to the wonderful, blissful naivety I have experienced in other aspects of British life as well.
Its like that in general elections too.
I think that was fine back in the 1950s but may be a problem in a far less cohesive country. I'm in favour of tightening up electoral procedures.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 04, 2017, 03:54:02 AM
Its like that in general elections too.
I think that was fine back in the 1950s but may be a problem in a far less cohesive country. I'm in favour of tightening up electoral procedures.
They didn't even want to see our IDs, and we were two people with accents. Maybe being caught trying to impersonating somebody in a polling station carries a severe punishment or something?
Because if some neutral observers would see this thing going down in Russia or Turkey it would make the news, just saying.
They cross you off the list of electors though, so if the real elector turns up then they at least know there is a problem.
Anyway, I'm off to vote :cool:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 04, 2017, 04:01:05 AM
They cross you off the list of electors though, so if the real elector turns up then they at least know there is a problem.
Anyway, I'm off to vote :cool:
Yeah but it is ripe for stuff like at the end of the day crossing off most of the non-shows and throw in some votes in their place.
In the old days (of mass parties) party members would be present at the polling stations (especially in close races) to make sure that there was no funny business. I'm in a one-party state here so nobody bothers, but I'm assuming they still do so at marginal constituencies.
No need to worry about the pencils though, in my place they were secured to the voting booth with some string.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 04, 2017, 04:17:25 AM
In the old days (of mass parties) party members would be present at the polling stations (especially in close races) to make sure that there was no funny business. I'm in a one-party state here so nobody bothers, but I'm assuming they still do so at marginal constituencies.
No need to worry about the pencils though, in my place they were secured to the voting booth with some string.
:D Yeah here as well. It is just funny to use a market that is easy to erase.
I mean sure nobody will bother, but such important matters should not be left to "well, why would anyone bother cheating?"
At any rate, I appreciate the chance to vote as a non-citizen resident, and am proud to have cast my first vote in my chosen new home. :cool:
We don't sign here either, in fact the concept of having to sign a paper to demonstrate that I've voted sound quite strange to me. Here you show your ID, they look you up in their lists, cross you off (with a pen! :lol: ) and it's done. There are also party representatives around to make sure there's no funny business going on.
Quote from: The Larch on May 04, 2017, 05:17:56 AM
We don't sign here either, in fact the concept of having to sign a paper to demonstrate that I've voted sound quite strange to me. Here you show your ID, they look you up in their lists, cross you off (with a pen! :lol: ) and it's done.
Same here.
Quote from: The Larch on May 04, 2017, 05:17:56 AM
There are also party representatives around to make sure there's no funny business going on.
And it's a good job, one day off work sitting down and eating all the free cake you want.
Well, you would need less scrutiny if everybody just signed the paper.
Quote from: Tamas on May 04, 2017, 05:34:58 AM
Well, you would need less scrutiny if everybody just signed the paper.
Don't be a Wagonlitz.
Huh? I am sorry but it is extremely easy to throw some extra votes in your favour into the pile if all you have to do is wait for the end of the voting day, and cross off as many non-shows as you have extra ballots you want to throw in.
Quote from: Tamas on May 04, 2017, 05:51:19 AM
Huh?
Sorry, a bit inside joke-ish. :P It's an extremely parochial Danish poster over at P'dox, who is always shocked to hear that other places do things differently than in Denmark.
QuoteI am sorry but it is extremely easy to throw some extra votes in your favour into the pile if all you have to do is wait for the end of the voting day, and cross off as many non-shows as you have extra ballots you want to throw in.
It can't be that easy as you think (I don't say for sure because I've never been tasked with manning an electoral booth over here, but my father has had to a couple of times and he told me about it). Each booth has a team of 3 randomly selected people (who will quite possibly be familiar with the actual voters, as they're pulled from the local area) manning it, with tasks divided amongst them (one checks IDs, another signs off the list, another helps with the actual putting of the envelope in the urn) and the counting of the votes is done with the party appointees hawking around to make sure that there's no funny business going on. Any of these appointees can ask for a recount and a difference of only one in the number of votes against the voters signed off on the list can mean recounting over and over, or even annulling the entire booth. It could theoretically happen? I guess so. Is it reasonable to suppose that there's voter fraud going on? I really don't think so.
I feel like Tamas you are sliding into the Republican trap of the notion that there must be voter fraud going on. Remember, in US, we only make a person sign, they don't have to show ID.
Quote from: garbon on May 04, 2017, 06:40:40 AM
I feel like Tamas you are sliding into the Republican trap of the notion that there must be voter fraud going on. Remember, in US, we only make a person sign, they don't have to show ID.
Yes, something along those lines.
Also I think if the ballot box stuffing/corruption as Tamas describes is a real probability, then I think the country's civic culture has already failed and corrupt politicians winning vast landslide elections is just the confirmation of that.
It is only about trust in the system. It makes life more convenient, but I guess if you come from Eastern Europe you develop different reflexes. I am not sure they are the incorrect reflexes out of the two, but different for sure.
Been to vote. Dropped off my mother's postal vote as well.
Very, very bored looking polling station personnel, even by normal standards; I'm pretty certain I was the only voter in the building, and I didn't see anyone else leaving as I went in, or coming as I went out.
I wasn't even certain there was an observer there from any of the parties; there were two people standing and chatting outside, but no visible rosettes.
I think the General Election in a month may have killed the turnout for the locals (which would have been low anyway); that's the first time at any election, local or otherwise, that I can recall being the only voter in sight.
Quote from: Agelastus on May 04, 2017, 09:47:50 AM
Been to vote. Dropped off my mother's postal vote as well.
Very, very bored looking polling station personnel, even by normal standards; I'm pretty certain I was the only voter in the building, and I didn't see anyone else leaving as I went in, or coming as I went out.
I wasn't even certain there was an observer there from any of the parties; there were two people standing and chatting outside, but no visible rosettes.
I think the General Election in a month may have killed the turnout for the locals (which would have been low anyway); that's the first time at any election, local or otherwise, that I can recall being the only voter in sight.
Trip to vote made easier by having to go to the library and a shop both within 50 yards of polling station; plenty of voters there.
I hadn't considered who to vote for, until I got into the booth, just four choices,voted Green party.
Quote from: Tamas on May 04, 2017, 07:40:34 AM
It is only about trust in the system. It makes life more convenient, but I guess if you come from Eastern Europe you develop different reflexes. I am not sure they are the incorrect reflexes out of the two, but different for sure.
I think it's the other way around, you turn up and are asked to declare you name, which you do and are then allowed to vote.
In a way you've given your word that you are who you say you are,that you are an honourable person, a quality that's been ebbing out of our political system and elections during the last two or three decades.
I think Tamas is talking about the possiblity of coordinated fraud by election officials, whereas y'all are responding about fraud by voters.
I think.
British election officials committing fraud :bowler: ?
The thought has never crossed my mind.
Quote from: mongers on May 04, 2017, 11:23:05 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 04, 2017, 07:40:34 AM
It is only about trust in the system. It makes life more convenient, but I guess if you come from Eastern Europe you develop different reflexes. I am not sure they are the incorrect reflexes out of the two, but different for sure.
I think it's the other way around, you turn up and are asked to declare you name, which you do and are then allowed to vote.
In a way you've given your word that you are who you say you are,that you are an honourable person, a quality that's been ebbing out of our political system and elections during the last two or three decades.
Well my main problem is with the election officials and those with access to the paperwork and the urn meddling, not people pretending they are somebody else.
But even for that you can't rely on honour! Come on! :D
I mean, in my little town in Hungary where everyone knew everyone else, they did not require me (as it would be the law) to show my ID card, but I still needed to sign (you need to do both).
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 04, 2017, 11:31:53 AM
British election officials committing fraud :bowler: ?
The thought has never crossed my mind.
Heck, with suck lax regulations it could be just a party observer.
Quote from: garbon on May 04, 2017, 06:40:40 AM
I feel like Tamas you are sliding into the Republican trap of the notion that there must be voter fraud going on. Remember, in US, we only make a person sign, they don't have to show ID.
I have to show ID.
Quote from: mongers on May 04, 2017, 11:19:02 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on May 04, 2017, 09:47:50 AM
Been to vote. Dropped off my mother's postal vote as well.
Very, very bored looking polling station personnel, even by normal standards; I'm pretty certain I was the only voter in the building, and I didn't see anyone else leaving as I went in, or coming as I went out.
I wasn't even certain there was an observer there from any of the parties; there were two people standing and chatting outside, but no visible rosettes.
I think the General Election in a month may have killed the turnout for the locals (which would have been low anyway); that's the first time at any election, local or otherwise, that I can recall being the only voter in sight.
Trip to vote made easier by having to go to the library and a shop both within 50 yards of polling station; plenty of voters there.
I hadn't considered who to vote for, until I got into the booth, just four choices,voted Green party.
We only had four choices as well; Tories, Labour, UKIP or some commie outfit; voted Labour as I sometimes do in local elections.
Looking good for the Tories :
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/may/04/local-and-mayoral-elections-2017-live-results-tracker
So far UKIP have failed to hold a single council seat :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 05, 2017, 01:27:47 AM
Looking good for the Tories :
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/may/04/local-and-mayoral-elections-2017-live-results-tracker
So far UKIP have failed to hold a single council seat :P
Hardly surprising given the national polls; for all their efforts to become a normal party with policies in all areas the majority of their supporters very much saw them as a single issue vehicle.
Good for the Tories in that support for UKIP has died.
The lib dems have also done surprisingly disappointing.
Labour looks interesting though. Only narrowly lost the west of England mayoral election despite it being a traditionally heavily tory area.
Given the low turnout all round I'm not sure we can take much from this though. I bet a lot of people didn't even know there were elections going on due to the talk of next month.
Quote from: Tyr on May 05, 2017, 06:49:51 AM
Good for the Tories in that support for UKIP has died.
The lib dems have also done surprisingly disappointing.
Labour looks interesting though. Only narrowly lost the west of England mayoral election despite it being a traditionally heavily tory area
Looks like most everyone thinks Labour is uncapable for, much of anything really. Unfortunately the response seems to be to go all in on the Tories instead of elevating the LibDems as the main opposition party.
Quote from: Tamas on May 05, 2017, 06:52:07 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 05, 2017, 06:49:51 AM
Good for the Tories in that support for UKIP has died.
The lib dems have also done surprisingly disappointing.
Labour looks interesting though. Only narrowly lost the west of England mayoral election despite it being a traditionally heavily tory area
Looks like most everyone thinks Labour is uncapable for, much of anything really. Unfortunately the response seems to be to go all in on the Tories instead of elevating the LibDems as the main opposition party.
Well the Lib Dems don't really seem to stand for much beyond saying we're the one party who might reverse Brexit!!111
Quote from: The Larch on May 04, 2017, 05:17:56 AM
We don't sign here either, in fact the concept of having to sign a paper to demonstrate that I've voted sound quite strange to me. Here you show your ID, they look you up in their lists, cross you off (with a pen! :lol: ) and it's done. There are also party representatives around to make sure there's no funny business going on.
In the systems I know, You need some kind of ID, plus a voter's card(in theory not in Portugal but it is handy to have it), and need to sign in France (only). If you forget one of those, they let you vote most of the times.
The French voter's card shows if you voted or not in previous elections. The most recent ones, that is. They sent a new one for the presidential elections for instance.
When I voted in Germany, I would receive a postcard notification before the election. The card and picture ID were required for voting (since picture ID is mandatory, not a big hurdle).
Quote from: Syt on May 05, 2017, 07:02:15 AM
When I voted in Germany, I would receive a postcard notification before the election. The card and picture ID were required for voting (since picture ID is mandatory, not a big hurdle).
We get a polling card, but you don't need to take it with you; as has been noted, you just go in and give your address and name, no proof of ID etc. required. Then you're ticked off the list.
Quote from: Agelastus on May 05, 2017, 07:04:12 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 05, 2017, 07:02:15 AM
When I voted in Germany, I would receive a postcard notification before the election. The card and picture ID were required for voting (since picture ID is mandatory, not a big hurdle).
We get a polling card, but you don't need to take it with you; as has been noted, you just go in and give your address and name, no proof of ID etc. required. Then you're ticked off the list.
So, once again, the only reason there is (in theory) no election fraud, is that nobody bothers. This "system" is wide open for abuse.
Quote from: Tamas on May 05, 2017, 07:46:32 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on May 05, 2017, 07:04:12 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 05, 2017, 07:02:15 AM
When I voted in Germany, I would receive a postcard notification before the election. The card and picture ID were required for voting (since picture ID is mandatory, not a big hurdle).
We get a polling card, but you don't need to take it with you; as has been noted, you just go in and give your address and name, no proof of ID etc. required. Then you're ticked off the list.
So, once again, the only reason there is (in theory) no election fraud, is that nobody bothers. This "system" is wide open for abuse.
Pretty much.
I think the theory is that since everything is done on such a local level the person running the polling station is a known local who can identify people.
In practice this isn't really possible in the modern world.
If you can mine a list of names and addresses and be sure they won't vote I guess you could drive around the country, polling station to polling station, planting votes.
I wonder if this was done in the brexit ref. :tinfoil:
Checking up apparently by the 2019 elections there'll be a need for Id.
Conservatives win Tees Valley.
It was an unusual one there. The Tory candidate was on a very labour platform of nationalising the local airport whilst the labour candidate had a more tory position of allowing a failing business to fail.
So what are the chances that Corbyn finally does the honorable thing post the general election - in face of what just transpired with the local ones?
2%
The man is a snake.
He's apparently expected to mention that he will stay on as leader regardless at his speech today...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/10/labour-party-manifesto-pledges-to-end-tuition-fees-and-nationalise-railways
QuoteJeremy Corbyn will lay out plans to take parts of Britain's energy industry back into public ownership alongside the railways and Royal Mail in a radical manifesto that will also promise an annual injection of £6bn for the NHS and £1.6bn for social care.
A draft document drawn up by the leadership will also pledge a phased abolition of tuition fees, a dramatic boost in finance for childcare, and scrapping the bedroom tax, the Guardian has learned.
Sources say that Corbyn wants to promise a "transformational programme" with a package covering the NHS, education, housing and jobs as well as industrial intervention and sweeping nationalisation.
One central promise will be to build 100,000 new council houses a year and alongside a policy to ban fracking.
The manifesto claims that the policies will be fully costed with tax rises for those earning over £80,000 – although full details are not included. There will also be a reversal of corporation and inheritance tax cuts.
I was expecting wackier.
Let's not go nuts, it's still pretty crazy.
Quote from: The Brain on May 10, 2017, 04:46:21 PM
Let's not go nuts, it's still pretty crazy.
Disagree. Tax and spend is a sane policy course.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2017, 04:55:38 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 10, 2017, 04:46:21 PM
Let's not go nuts, it's still pretty crazy.
Disagree. Tax and spend is a sane policy course.
Sweeping nationalization is a crazy policy course.
Quote from: The Brain on May 10, 2017, 05:00:26 PM
Sweeping nationalization is a crazy policy course.
That part certainly is dodgier.
The funding is heavily reliant on increased corporation tax. There is a potential problem here; as Osborne reduced the tax, receipts actually went up - a mixture of increased profits and also companies being more prone to booking their profits in the UK. From what I have seen so far Labour is assuming that if (for example) you increase corporation tax from 20% to 30% then receipts will increase by 50%. This seems highly unlikely.
They went a lot further than I thought they would in some areas and not as far as I feared in others. Sounds great.
Of course the americanisation of the UK has gone too far. Saw an interview with a market trader the other day - "I've always voted labour. But I'm not a socialist. I hate socialism." Jesus wept
Quote from: Tyr on May 11, 2017, 04:51:21 AM
They went a lot further than I thought they would in some areas and not as far as I feared in others. Sounds great.
Of course the americanisation of the UK has gone too far. Saw an interview with a market trader the other day - "I've always voted labour. But I'm not a socialist. I hate socialism." Jesus wept
Closing the coal mines was necessary. Deal with it, finally.
Quote from: Tyr on May 11, 2017, 04:51:21 AM
They went a lot further than I thought they would in some areas and not as far as I feared in others. Sounds great.
Sounds like a pack of lies that they'll never get accomplished even if they were miraculously put in power. I know politicians have to lie, I just wish they didn't have to make the lies so...grandiose. Leads to unrealistic expectations among voters.
I doubt they'll accomplish it all. The phased elimination of tuition fees will likely stall after a few reductions.
But at least it would be a step in the right direction.
Quote from: Tyr on May 11, 2017, 06:33:02 AM
I doubt they'll accomplish it all. The phased elimination of tuition fees will likely stall after a few reductions.
But at least it would be a step in the right direction.
Yeah but see I could then see if they said this is policy aim that we eventually want to work for. Promising that they'll do all those things, we know they are lies but just accept them 'as a step in the right direction'.
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2017, 06:35:29 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 11, 2017, 06:33:02 AM
I doubt they'll accomplish it all. The phased elimination of tuition fees will likely stall after a few reductions.
But at least it would be a step in the right direction.
Yeah but see I could then see if they said this is policy aim that we eventually want to work for. Promising that they'll do all those things, we know they are lies but just accept them 'as a step in the right direction'.
Meh. It's political speak in general.
You have to promise you will do x even though you can't know for sure if you can do it. I'll try to do x though more honest is less impactful.
Goes beyond politics too.
At the least here labour is making new grand promises.
Not like the Tories with the same promise they have completely and utterly failed with for the past 7 years: "we will reduce immigration to the tens of thousands!"... It has actually gone up and they haven't even tried to control much of it.
Quote from: Tyr on May 11, 2017, 06:43:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2017, 06:35:29 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 11, 2017, 06:33:02 AM
I doubt they'll accomplish it all. The phased elimination of tuition fees will likely stall after a few reductions.
But at least it would be a step in the right direction.
Yeah but see I could then see if they said this is policy aim that we eventually want to work for. Promising that they'll do all those things, we know they are lies but just accept them 'as a step in the right direction'.
Meh. It's political speak in general.
You have to promise you will do x even though you can't know for sure if you can do it. I'll try to do x though more honest is less impactful.
Goes beyond politics too.
At the least here labour is making new grand promises.
Not like the Tories with the same promise they have completely and utterly failed with for the past 7 years: "we will reduce immigration to the tens of thousands!"... It has actually gone up and they haven't even tried to control much of it.
To some extent sure. Troubling though as it is what allows someone like candidate Trump to then glide into making completely false claims non-stop.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/15/general-election-2017-may-workers-rights-corbyn-nhs-politics-live
QuoteThe prime minister was quizzed about housing and mental health as she toured the centre of Abingdon. May chatted with stallholders on the market during the 11-minute visit. One member of the public told her she was the "best of a bad bunch".
"I'll take that as flattering," May replied.
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2017, 06:46:51 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/15/general-election-2017-may-workers-rights-corbyn-nhs-politics-live
QuoteThe prime minister was quizzed about housing and mental health as she toured the centre of Abingdon. May chatted with stallholders on the market during the 11-minute visit. One member of the public told her she was the "best of a bad bunch".
"I'll take that as flattering," May replied.
I am guessing that's the sentiment that's going to give her unprecedented control over the UK in less than a month, but it is not fair. What do we know about her so far?
- she was able to come out on top in the internal leadership contest, against a bunch of creepy textbook political villains. This would probably make even Frank Underwood sweat and shiver so it is impressive on its own right but hardly an endorsement of her as a person of integrity
- she quite obviously put her personal interests over the country's when she named Boris Johnson foreign secretary. I am sure Boris has the ability to be good in a number of cabinet positions, but the only one you could be sure to see him fail utterly was the foreign office. This was an extremely thinly veiled trap to end his political career, with no regard to the damage he will do.
And that's about it.
QuoteWhat do we know about her so far?
Well, she was Home Secretary (the toughest job in British politics) for 6 years so we know quite a lot more than that about her.
Quote from: Tamas on May 15, 2017, 07:04:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2017, 06:46:51 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/15/general-election-2017-may-workers-rights-corbyn-nhs-politics-live
QuoteThe prime minister was quizzed about housing and mental health as she toured the centre of Abingdon. May chatted with stallholders on the market during the 11-minute visit. One member of the public told her she was the "best of a bad bunch".
"I'll take that as flattering," May replied.
I am guessing that's the sentiment that's going to give her unprecedented control over the UK in less than a month, but it is not fair. What do we know about her so far?
A bit like a stick of Blackpool rock, cut her in half and you're find the word authoritarian running throughout.
Quote from: mongers on May 15, 2017, 07:47:48 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 15, 2017, 07:04:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2017, 06:46:51 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/15/general-election-2017-may-workers-rights-corbyn-nhs-politics-live
QuoteThe prime minister was quizzed about housing and mental health as she toured the centre of Abingdon. May chatted with stallholders on the market during the 11-minute visit. One member of the public told her she was the "best of a bad bunch".
"I'll take that as flattering," May replied.
I am guessing that's the sentiment that's going to give her unprecedented control over the UK in less than a month, but it is not fair. What do we know about her so far?
A bit like a stick of Blackpool rock, cut her in half and you're find the word authoritarian running throughout.
Well, that should not be a problem in the sense that a modern democracy should have enough checks and balances to stop tyrants from rising, that's the whole point of it.
The "let's just vote Tory so they win big and can sort out this mess" sentiment has me worried a bit because that was the Hungarian sentiment in 2009 before the first absolute majority granted to our "center-right" people's person Mr. Orban.
I fee slightly guilty because while I did not vote on him I shared the sentiment: I figured they are arrogant pricks but at least with a 2/3rd majority shit would get done to lift us out of the post-communist asshatery. Oh, how utterly wrong I was.
So I am looking at how this election is shaping up in terms of quality of opposition to the conservatives and I am having an unpleasant deja vu. Luckily the UK should be less prone to going that route.
Quote from: Tamas on May 15, 2017, 07:52:59 AM
....
Well, that should not be a problem in the sense that a modern democracy should have enough checks and balances to stop tyrants from rising, that's the whole point of it.
The "let's just vote Tory so they win big and can sort out this mess" sentiment has me worried a bit because that was the Hungarian sentiment in 2009 before the first absolute majority granted to our "center-right" people's person Mr. Orban.
I fee slightly guilty because while I did not vote on him I shared the sentiment: I figured they are arrogant pricks but at least with a 2/3rd majority shit would get done to lift us out of the post-communist asshatery. Oh, how utterly wrong I was.
So I am looking at how this election is shaping up in terms of quality of opposition to the conservatives and I am having an unpleasant deja vu. Luckily the UK should be less prone to going that route.
Read up on the Investigatory powers act 2016.
Quote from: Tamas on May 15, 2017, 07:52:59 AM
The "let's just vote Tory so they win big and can sort out this mess" sentiment has me worried a bit because that was the Hungarian sentiment in 2009 before the first absolute majority granted to our "center-right" people's person Mr. Orban.
I thought it was less that and more, who else should they vote for? Labour is a shambles and certainly not ready to lead the country. Corbyn really not even prepared to lead his party...
Then you've Lib Dems who stand for what exactly? Just differentiating themselves from other parties?
Greens? UKIP? :lol:
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2017, 09:48:39 AM
Then you've Lib Dems who stand for what exactly? Just differentiating themselves from other parties?
I don't get it. They have been around for decades, and are the heirs of a party that was founded in 1859, and have been in government before. They are liberal and pro-Europe. That seems pretty distinct to me. What do you need? A little orange book? The Lib-Dem Manifesto? How is what they stand for some kind of secret mystery?
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2017, 09:54:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2017, 09:48:39 AM
Then you've Lib Dems who stand for what exactly? Just differentiating themselves from other parties?
I don't get it. They have been around for decades, and are the heirs of a party that was founded in 1859, and have been in government before. They are liberal and pro-Europe. That seems pretty distinct to me. What do you need? A little orange book? The Lib-Dem Manifesto? How is what they stand for some kind of secret mystery?
Because they stood for basically nothing when they joined the Conservatives in the coalition government? They mainly seem to be, we're not the evil conservatives, not unhelpful Labour. Oh and they have a leader who seems to have an issue with gays.
I don't think my point of view is controversial. It was the voting British public who slaughtered them in the last general election.
I am gravely disappointed by the cowardice of the LibDems.
Another referendum? Srsly?!!! Pledge to make a soft Brexit. Pledge to not leave the EU altogether. But not pledge to something that everyone knows is retarded, leads to more chaos, and ultimately leads to the same thing as if it never happened.
Labour is experiencing something of a revival in the polls :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39856354
The election could yet provide some surprises.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 15, 2017, 12:00:43 PM
Labour is experiencing something of a revival in the polls :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39856354
The election could yet provide some surprises.
It looks like the UKIP voters are returning to Labour.
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2017, 12:02:39 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 15, 2017, 12:00:43 PM
Labour is experiencing something of a revival in the polls :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39856354
The election could yet provide some surprises.
It looks like the UKIP voters are returning to Labour.
:cool: :bowler:
Xenophobic objective achieved, lets switch back to where there are more handouts!
So what happens to Corbyn's leadership is Labour still loses handily, but manages to slightly improve in the polls from where they started the campaign at?
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2017, 05:11:22 PM
So what happens to Corbyn's leadership is Labour still loses handily, but manages to slightly improve in the polls from where they started the campaign at?
In any scenario, Corbyn remains Labour leader.
It is very nice to see Labour's manifesto actually having the guts to take logical actions like renationalising the railways and water.
I suspect labour's poll upswing is working people actually seeing what socialism means rather than just blindly going "I don't like socialism".
Quote from: Tamas on May 16, 2017, 04:44:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2017, 05:11:22 PM
So what happens to Corbyn's leadership is Labour still loses handily, but manages to slightly improve in the polls from where they started the campaign at?
In any scenario, Corbyn remains Labour leader.
Which would probably mean SDP Mark 2.
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2017, 05:11:22 PM
So what happens to Corbyn's leadership is Labour still loses handily, but manages to slightly improve in the polls from where they started the campaign at?
The benchmark is probably 30% which is about what Labour have got in the last two elections. Obviously that will be a much worse result than the last two elections because UKIP's vote has imploded, but that will be ignored.
Under 28% would be Labour's worst result since 1935. He'd struggle to stay in those circumstances IMO, but who knows.
The interesting trend is the collapse of the minor parties. It looks like the big two will get 80% of the vote or so for the first time in ages. This has two consequences in my opinion; firstly, given the nature of first past the post elections, it enhances the legitimacy of the winning party; secondly, Labour will keep their strongholds and will be well placed to replace the Tories once they have gone through a process of modernisation.
My blood boils every time I hear or read "bedroom tax"
IT IS NOT A TAX! It is a reduced welfare payment. Which MIGHT be a bad idea in itself but do not call it a TAX. It is insulting to people who actually pay taxes, and is a too obvious reveal of how supposed helps for those in need have become to be viewed as entitlements.
Quote from: Gups on May 16, 2017, 09:22:57 AM
The benchmark is probably 30% which is about what Labour have got in the last two elections. Obviously that will be a much worse result than the last two elections because UKIP's vote has imploded, but that will be ignored.
Under 28% would be Labour's worst result since 1935. He'd struggle to stay in those circumstances IMO, but who knows.
My impression is the folks who vote for Corbyn in leadership elections aren't all that interested in winning national elections.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 16, 2017, 11:41:13 AM
Quote from: Gups on May 16, 2017, 09:22:57 AM
The benchmark is probably 30% which is about what Labour have got in the last two elections. Obviously that will be a much worse result than the last two elections because UKIP's vote has imploded, but that will be ignored.
Under 28% would be Labour's worst result since 1935. He'd struggle to stay in those circumstances IMO, but who knows.
My impression is the folks who vote for Corbyn in leadership elections aren't all that interested in winning national elections.
Some of them. But not most, I don't think. I know quite a few and they believe or used to believe that he could win. Some are now against him, some blame the media and the Blairites. It's all a rich tapestry, like vomit on a Turkish carpet.
Cool odd thing I just learned.
Bernie Sanders' brother is the green party candidate in East Oxford
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2017, 05:57:40 AM
Cool odd thing I just learned.
Bernie Sanders' brother is the green party candidate in East Oxford
figures
Quote from: Tyr on May 17, 2017, 05:57:40 AM
Cool odd thing I just learned.
Bernie Sanders' brother is the green party candidate in East Oxford
Yes, he was mentioned as second Sanders brother that failed to get elected when he lost in that by-election last year.
What's this thing with elderly care and selling your home after you die to cover the costs?
So, the government pays for a carer to visit you, and once you die, they sell your house? To whom? How? Auction, or have some friendly companies lined up to take over and make the "best deal" for the government?
Tory guy on Channel 4 news last night.
Host: you have promised to massively reduce immigration. Over half of immigration comes from outside the EU. What will you do to control this non EU immigration.
Tory then proceeds to blather on about brexit and taking back control and how this will let them cut immigration so much, completely ignoring the question :bleeding:
The question went outside his prepared taking points :P
Quote from: Tamas on May 19, 2017, 09:00:56 AM
What's this thing with elderly care and selling your home after you die to cover the costs?
So, the government pays for a carer to visit you, and once you die, they sell your house? To whom? How? Auction, or have some friendly companies lined up to take over and make the "best deal" for the government?
Couldn't you just take out a mortgage or otherwise borrow against the equity in the house? Presumably it'd get settled the way any other estate is settled?
Quote from: Tamas on May 19, 2017, 09:00:56 AM
What's this thing with elderly care and selling your home after you die to cover the costs?
So, the government pays for a carer to visit you, and once you die, they sell your house? To whom? How? Auction, or have some friendly companies lined up to take over and make the "best deal" for the government?
What is the question about? How houses are sold? :unsure:
Quote from: The Brain on May 20, 2017, 02:05:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 19, 2017, 09:00:56 AM
What's this thing with elderly care and selling your home after you die to cover the costs?
So, the government pays for a carer to visit you, and once you die, they sell your house? To whom? How? Auction, or have some friendly companies lined up to take over and make the "best deal" for the government?
What is the question about? How houses are sold? :unsure:
How Tamas can't leave behind the suspicions/fear/mistrust of the state, he learned back in Hungary.
I know things aren't ideal/good here, but it's a long way from the situation in Hungary.
Tamas might even be surprised to learn there are lots of decent public servants in this country. :bowler:
Quote from: Jacob on May 20, 2017, 12:58:54 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 19, 2017, 09:00:56 AM
What's this thing with elderly care and selling your home after you die to cover the costs?
So, the government pays for a carer to visit you, and once you die, they sell your house? To whom? How? Auction, or have some friendly companies lined up to take over and make the "best deal" for the government?
Couldn't you just take out a mortgage or otherwise borrow against the equity in the house? Presumably it'd get settled the way any other estate is settled?
You want to be the lender that gives a mortgage to an elderly person about to go into a nursing home?
Quote from: dps on May 20, 2017, 11:15:18 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 20, 2017, 12:58:54 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 19, 2017, 09:00:56 AM
What's this thing with elderly care and selling your home after you die to cover the costs?
So, the government pays for a carer to visit you, and once you die, they sell your house? To whom? How? Auction, or have some friendly companies lined up to take over and make the "best deal" for the government?
Couldn't you just take out a mortgage or otherwise borrow against the equity in the house? Presumably it'd get settled the way any other estate is settled?
You want to be the lender that gives a mortgage to an elderly person about to go into a nursing home?
Tricking old people into remortgaging their homes seems to be a profitable business, ripe for exploitation.
So some see the value in it. I guess they get to under value the home and effectively buy it cheap, ready to sell on.
Quote from: dps on May 20, 2017, 11:15:18 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 20, 2017, 12:58:54 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 19, 2017, 09:00:56 AM
What's this thing with elderly care and selling your home after you die to cover the costs?
So, the government pays for a carer to visit you, and once you die, they sell your house? To whom? How? Auction, or have some friendly companies lined up to take over and make the "best deal" for the government?
Couldn't you just take out a mortgage or otherwise borrow against the equity in the house? Presumably it'd get settled the way any other estate is settled?
You want to be the lender that gives a mortgage to an elderly person about to go into a nursing home?
Life insurance. The lender bakes it into the mortgage to ensure repayment.
I would imagine there are offerings where you receive a lifelong monthly payment from the bank/insurance company and they receive your property upon your death. I know such things exist in Hungary.
I remember my parents were not amused when my grandma (in her late 60s\early 70s back then) was convinced by this large bank's representative to sign such a deal (an annual payment IIRC) for the piece of land she got as compensation for the lands the commies took away from her father in the 50s. We didn't need the extra annual money and the land would had been a nice asset.
However, Grandma is now in her 96th year and still of reasonably good health, so I guess you can say she won the bet and not the bank. :)
I've tilted to the left! (did all the extra questions)
http://uk.isidewith.com/results/3161856509
64% Labour
62% Lib Dem
60% Plaid Cymru
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2017, 01:23:44 PM
I've tilted to the left! (did all the extra questions)
http://uk.isidewith.com/results/3161856509
64% Labour
62% Lib Dem
60% Plaid Cymru
74% Labour
69% SNP ( :rolleyes: )
68% Plaid Cymru
I love how some of the questions are blatantly referring to US issues (bombing North Korea?). There's even one question from the French election test that got in there somehow.
73% Conservative
68% UKIP
51% Liberal Democrat
Apparently I'm most like the Lib Dems.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/6622/production/_96064162_hi039450174.jpg)
Not sure why that photo is getting traction, to my eye it's just someone who likes pets naturally interacting with them, seem quite normal to make facial expression towards dogs given they appear to 'read' peoples faces.
Using one's estate to pay for healthcare sounds an attractive proposition. I'd rather get decent healthcare and lose my flat after my death, than retain the flat and die without healthcare.
Quote from: garbon on May 20, 2017, 01:23:44 PM
I've tilted to the left! (did all the extra questions)
http://uk.isidewith.com/results/3161856509
64% Labour
62% Lib Dem
60% Plaid Cymru
I get the impression it isn't setup right. A question asks should the railways be privatised.
This time I got
79- Lib Dem
76 - Labour
64- Green
Conservative
71%
Science • Immigration • Foreign Policy • Electoral • Domestic Policy • National Security • Education • Economic • Social
UKIP
57%
Science • Foreign Policy • Healthcare • National Security • Education • Economic • Social
Democratic Unionist
46%
Science • Immigration • Electoral • National Security • Education
British National
44%
Science • Foreign Policy • Healthcare • National Security • Social
Liberal Democrat
40%
Science • Immigration • Healthcare • Social • Criminal
Labour
39%
Science • Immigration • Education • Social
Plaid Cymru
33%
Immigration • Social
SNP
31%
Immigration • Social
Green
30%
Immigration • Criminal
Sinn Féin
30%
Immigration • Social
--------------------------------
Although it is definitely not correctly done for the UK election - there's one question relating to French families reuniting IIRC.
Apparently, Tory lead has halved in the polls. Good thing this will be over in two weeks because I am in no mood for a Stalinist prime minister
Quote from: Tamas on May 22, 2017, 01:41:06 AM
Apparently, Tory lead has halved in the polls. Good thing this will be over in two weeks because I am in no mood for a Stalinist prime minister
:unsure:
Theresa May shows more of those signs than Corbyn does.
Despite the media smears he doesn't even go over into the domain of Marxism let alone stalinism
Unfunded promises are another matter.
I'd be tempted to vote Labour if they also promised to provide ponies for any working class girls who want one. Pony inequality is a huge problem throughout the land.
It is an uninspiring choice before us, I'm inclined to spoil my vote :(
Quote from: Tyr on May 22, 2017, 01:53:58 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 22, 2017, 01:41:06 AM
Apparently, Tory lead has halved in the polls. Good thing this will be over in two weeks because I am in no mood for a Stalinist prime minister
:unsure:
Theresa May shows more of those signs than Corbyn does.
Despite the media smears he doesn't even go over into the domain of Marxism let alone stalinism
It's like the case of Trump vs. pretty much everyone else in the GOP: with May, at least you know well ahead that she will go as far as the people will let with her quasi fascist agenda, but she will not risk the collapse of the political system just to try and go all in.
I feel no such assurances with Corbyn.
Read that Corbyn said Marx was "a great economist."
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 22, 2017, 02:11:42 AM
Unfunded promises are another matter.
I'd be tempted to vote Labour if they also promised to provide ponies for any working class girls who want one. Pony inequality is a huge problem throughout the land.
It is an uninspiring choice before us, I'm inclined to spoil my vote :(
If you want to talk about uncosted manifestos look to the Tories.
They've been keen to cost the labour one (badly) but not their own.
Labours policy is actually fairly well costed when you consider a lot of the stuff isn't meant to happen overnight, merely being the direction they want to move in.
@Tyr - well I'm not going to vote for them either, far too authoritarian for my liking. I guess I'll vote Lib-Dem who at least accept that high-quality services require higher taxes.
It is all academic anyway, huge Labour majority here. Are you registered and voting btw?
87% Labour
86% Libdem
56% UKIP
52% Tory
Religious vs Secular
You side strongly towards "Secular", meaning you strongly support policies that reflect a separation of church and state. This theme is somewhat important to you.
Traditional vs Progressive
You side moderately towards "Progressive", meaning you believe we should be a nation that values personal freedom, expression, and diversity. This theme is somewhat important to you.
Unilateralism vs Multilateralism
You side strongly towards "Multilateralism", meaning you strongly believe policy decisions should be made collectively with support of everyone who may be affected by the outcome of the decision. This theme is somewhat important to you.
Tough vs Tender
You side slightly towards "Tender", meaning you more often believe in showing compassion, empathy, and rehabilitation for small-time criminals or those struggling with addiction. This theme is only less important to you.
Collectivism vs Individualism
You are a centrist on Collectivism and Individualism issues. This theme is somewhat important to you.
And apparently, Kessingland ( :unsure: ) is closest to my views.
:hmm:
Had a look at the German one and half the questions are copy&paste from the US and have little relevance to the political discourse here.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 22, 2017, 04:06:52 AM
@Tyr - well I'm not going to vote for them either, far too authoritarian for my liking. I guess I'll vote Lib-Dem who at least accept that high-quality services require higher taxes.
It is all academic anyway, huge Labour majority here. Are you registered and voting btw?
Yes. Still registered at my parents place though so... It's going to be a labour walk over.
Ideal world my favoured outcome from this election would be a lib dem/green coalition. But that's about as likely as Theresa May pulling off her mask to reveal she is zombie thatcher.
More realistically.... The one dimensional thinking best outcome is a labour minority government where they can turn to the lib dems or snp for votes on issues. This ensures progressive laws get passed but labour are kept under control on Brexit.
Thinking a bit more deviously a Conservative minority might be a desirable outcome. Sticks them with the blame for the brexit mess theyve gotten us into and forces them to soften the brexit.
I'm not going to vote labour. I've sworn ill not vote for my mp ever again and I cannot forgive their failures and treachery on Brexit.
So.... It's a toss up between whether I go lib dem in the likely vain hope they can secure second place in my seat or I go green to help them at least keep their deposit and do my feeble part to further highlight how dumb our system is.
75% Conservative
63% UKIP
46% Lib Dem
35% Labour
Lib-Dem 58%
Labour 56%
Conservative 54%
I'm most closely aligned with voters from County Fermanagh. :unsure:
Liberal Democrat 69%
Labour 63%
Conservative 60%
SNP 57%
Green 55%
UKIP 54%
Plaid Cymru 53%
So it seems like I agree with everybody :unsure:
Despite not being aligned with either the Democratic Unionists nor Sinn Fein I would be most at home in Northern Ireland :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2017, 03:43:17 PM
Despite not being aligned with either the Democratic Unionists nor Sinn Fein I would be most at home in Northern Ireland :unsure:
Did you vote for beheading the monarchy and aristocrats?
So, was this horrific attack in Manchester a lucky break for May? Seemed like her big advantage in the polls was melting away, but now Labour's momentum will be broken with nobody paying attention to politics. Not to mention that feeling threatened should push people away from the idea of electing a crazy pacifist/Russian agent communist guy
I'm certain that this has been positive for May and the Tories. Corbyn was actually gaining some traction, this process has now been interrupted.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 24, 2017, 01:42:16 AM
I'm certain that this has been positive for May and the Tories. Corbyn was actually gaining some traction, this process has now been interrupted.
Absolutely. Not only has the momentum been interrupted but law & order/security has always been a Tory strongpoint. It doesn't help that Corbyn is rightly perceived as soft on terrorism. Coincidentally, there was a lot of press about his views on the IRA at the weekend. We'll also be reminded about his opposition to any kind of shoot to kill policy following the Paris attacks (although he rowed back on that)
To be fair though, I'd rather risk May's shot at a fascist quasi-despotism, than Corbyn's shot at his weird mix of 50s communism and 60s hippy morals.
Britain quite often votes for "strong governments" that can be surprisingly repressive by continental standards; but if these governments step over a certain (hidden) line they get tossed out. I suspect May will not enjoy a long tenure at number 10.
Quote from: Tamas on May 24, 2017, 01:20:44 AM
So, was this horrific attack in Manchester a lucky break for May? Seemed like her big advantage in the polls was melting away, but now Labour's momentum will be broken with nobody paying attention to politics. Not to mention that feeling threatened should push people away from the idea of electing a crazy pacifist/Russian agent communist guy
Depends how UKIP play it.
Hopefully they can win the idiots around to their side and steal some votes from the Tories whilst still getting nowhere themselves
The Tories will wait for the funerals to finish and then go on the offensive, using this outrage to attack Labour as being soft on terrorism.
Is this Maggie May's mini-Falklands 'victory'?
I'm confused, was there a thought that Labour was suddenly going to win? Isn't it just that polls were now suggesting Conservatives wouldn't win as big as initially hoped? (Before this incident)
68% Conservative
53% UKIP
30% Lib Dem
25% Labour
Kinda thought I'd score higher with UKIP.
Quote from: garbon on May 24, 2017, 08:40:34 AM
I'm confused, was there a thought that Labour was suddenly going to win? Isn't it just that polls were now suggesting Conservatives wouldn't win as big as initially hoped? (Before this incident)
I think finishing with a roughly 2015-ish margin of victory will be a defeat for May as she specifically called this election to get a bigger majority to do her nation-saving uninterrupted. If the Tory margin ends up reduced, that would be a big failure for May personally.
So no, no chance of Labour victory, but there are big stakes.
Yeah, the size of her majority will determine her authority. If it is 100 or so, still a possibility, then she will have a pretty clear run I think; for good or ill.
Quote from: derspiess on May 24, 2017, 08:45:53 AM
Kinda thought I'd score higher with UKIP.
You have to remember that they appeal to Labour voters.
Quote from: garbon on May 24, 2017, 08:40:34 AM
I'm confused, was there a thought that Labour was suddenly going to win? Isn't it just that polls were now suggesting Conservatives wouldn't win as big as initially hoped? (Before this incident)
Yep, but there was certainly some momentum behind Labour. We had the dementia tax furore and a U-turn by Theresa. For the first time in years, the Tories were on the defensive and Labour looked united. If it had carried on, could have been looking a small Tory majority or even a hung Parliament ( super unlikely IMO but just about plausible)
Quote from: Savonarola on May 22, 2017, 04:02:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2017, 03:43:17 PM
Despite not being aligned with either the Democratic Unionists nor Sinn Fein I would be most at home in Northern Ireland :unsure:
Did you vote for beheading the monarchy and aristocrats?
Well of course. That probably made me seem like a likely Sinn Fein voter :P
Quote from: Gups on May 24, 2017, 10:14:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 24, 2017, 08:40:34 AM
I'm confused, was there a thought that Labour was suddenly going to win? Isn't it just that polls were now suggesting Conservatives wouldn't win as big as initially hoped? (Before this incident)
Yep, but there was certainly some momentum behind Labour. We had the dementia tax furore and a U-turn by Theresa. For the first time in years, the Tories were on the defensive and Labour looked united. If it had carried on, could have been looking a small Tory majority or even a hung Parliament ( super unlikely IMO but just about plausible)
Indeed.
This outrage might well significantly change the subject matter and trajectory of the campaign.
Just 14 full campaigning days now left.
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2017, 10:44:08 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on May 22, 2017, 04:02:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2017, 03:43:17 PM
Despite not being aligned with either the Democratic Unionists nor Sinn Fein I would be most at home in Northern Ireland :unsure:
Did you vote for beheading the monarchy and aristocrats?
Well of course. That probably made me seem like a likely Sinn Fein voter :P
I did too; so I thought that might be why I ended up in Northern Ireland as well.
I see by British standards I'm a raving globalist, a pacifist, a progressive and soft on crime.
Quote from: Gups on May 24, 2017, 10:14:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 24, 2017, 08:40:34 AM
I'm confused, was there a thought that Labour was suddenly going to win? Isn't it just that polls were now suggesting Conservatives wouldn't win as big as initially hoped? (Before this incident)
Yep, but there was certainly some momentum behind Labour. We had the dementia tax furore and a U-turn by Theresa. For the first time in years, the Tories were on the defensive and Labour looked united. If it had carried on, could have been looking a small Tory majority or even a hung Parliament ( super unlikely IMO but just about plausible)
Do you all not have tightening of races generally? Or is it one side just starts pulling away in the polls as you lead into the general election?
Quote from: Gups on May 24, 2017, 02:14:43 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 24, 2017, 01:42:16 AM
I'm certain that this has been positive for May and the Tories. Corbyn was actually gaining some traction, this process has now been interrupted.
Absolutely. Not only has the momentum been interrupted but law & order/security has always been a Tory strongpoint. It doesn't help that Corbyn is rightly perceived as soft on terrorism. Coincidentally, there was a lot of press about his views on the IRA at the weekend. We'll also be reminded about his opposition to any kind of shoot to kill policy following the Paris attacks (although he rowed back on that)
Well, the first poll with field work undertaken since the attacks suggests that I'm completely wrong. Yougov showing Tory lead cut to 5 points with Labour at 38%. I'm surprised - be interesting to see if it's an outlier or not.
Funny thing is, what a close victory means is all faint hope for a soft brexit gone - we don't know if May even wants one but she won't be able to get it if the nazi rebels in her party can de facto control her due to a low majority.
And it's not like Corbyn will do any opposing - he will be right back fighting the inside opposition in his party, rolling over to whatever May wants, as it was the case before the election.
An interesting and very unpredictable election. Tory campaign has been dreadful in my view, have they any positive policies?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 26, 2017, 05:04:58 AM
An interesting and very unpredictable election. Tory campaign has been dreadful in my view, have they any positive policies?
Blue passports?
And it seems the Tories have followed the advice from the 11th September attacks and exploited the situation to release some more details about their manifesto... for instance that their stuff about free school breakfasts was based on a calculation of 7p a meal.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that they are both lying :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40057115
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40058068
I think the IFS are correct.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/26/jeremy-corbyn-the-war-on-terror-is-simply-not-working
What a lovely stance. Avoid any issues at home by letting other people figure out their own shit.
His victim blaming easy very nice either
He's a clichéd dick of a man.
As much as I dislike the Tories, I want Labour crushed in this election so that we get rid of that dreadful man. Unfortunately it looks like he'll do well enough to stay in place.
Quote from: Gups on May 26, 2017, 10:08:07 AM
He's a clichéd dick of a man.
As much as I dislike the Tories, I want Labour crushed in this election so that we get rid of that dreadful man. Unfortunately it looks like he'll do well enough to stay in place.
If the polls are right then this Tory leadership is absolutely inept at campaigning. Losing so much support when your opponent is somebody like Corbyn boggles the mind.
I am starting to worry we might actually see PM Corbyn.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 26, 2017, 07:10:53 AM
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that they are both lying :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40057115
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40058068
I think the IFS are correct.
The difference is the Tories have the full might of the civil service to do their sums.
Labour are having to muddle through.
The tories are clearly lying. Labour could just be getting things wrong.
The Tories have been in power too long and the natural state of things is for the opposition party to bounce back after awhile. If Corbyn was not in charge it would be the natural time for Labour to return to power.
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2017, 10:43:43 AM
The Tories have been in power too long and the natural state of things is for the opposition party to bounce back after awhile. If Corbyn was not in charge it would be the natural time for Labour to return to power.
I think there is wisdom here. :)
The public services are starting to visibly deteriorate now. As usual the initial bout of cutting wasn't too bad, there was some fat in the system, but we left that period a few years back. I think we should grow up and admit that getting the public services we want will require increased taxes; clearly the politicians do not think we are there yet.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 26, 2017, 10:49:20 AM
The public services are starting to visibly deteriorate now. As usual the initial bout of cutting wasn't too bad, there was some fat in the system, but we left that period a few years back. I think we should grow up and admit that getting the public services we want will require increased taxes; clearly the politicians do not think we are there yet.
How does the UK tackle the issue of efficiency in government services? I ask because related stuff is a huge issue in Sweden right now. We are discussing efficiency in private companies that provide services in healthcare and education (many people are against efficiency there).
That is a big question. The standard weapon is budgetary constraint; but it is a blunt instrument and the various services are having very mixed fortunes right now. Outsourcing was very popular but is somewhat tarnished nowadays as many badly-designed contacts were agreed. Many of the staff are very conservative and don't want their jobs to change. Without the profit motive it is hard to see one's way and people can get very slack about costs.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 26, 2017, 11:19:40 AM
That is a big question. The standard weapon is budgetary constraint; but it is a blunt instrument and the various services are having very mixed fortunes right now. Outsourcing was very popular but is somewhat tarnished nowadays as many badly-designed contacts were agreed. Many of the staff are very conservative and don't want their jobs to change. Without the profit motive it is hard to see one's way and people can get very slack about costs.
Yes. In my experience a surprising number of people seem to think that the cost of doing something (and the quality of the product) is somehow set in stone. My experience is that it is very healthy for an organization to exist under constant pressure to perform better, and if possible to face oblivion if it underperforms.
Quote from: The Brain on May 26, 2017, 11:30:52 AM
Yes. In my experience a surprising number of people seem to think that the cost of doing something (and the quality of the product) is somehow set in stone. My experience is that it is very healthy for an organization to exist under constant pressure to perform better, and if possible to face oblivion if it underperforms.
The challenge, IMO, lies in ensuring that the metrics for underperformance that determine oblivion actually line up to provide pressure towards the outcomes you want.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 26, 2017, 10:49:20 AM
The public services are starting to visibly deteriorate now. As usual the initial bout of cutting wasn't too bad, there was some fat in the system, but we left that period a few years back. I think we should grow up and admit that getting the public services we want will require increased taxes; clearly the politicians do not think we are there yet.
Alas brexit has bought them a few years of evil foreign scapegoats.
I'm just hoping they don't manage to run the nhs down to the extent they can push through privatisation as an obvious thing to do to improve. Like they did with the trains.
Quote from: Tyr on May 27, 2017, 07:34:41 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 26, 2017, 10:49:20 AM
The public services are starting to visibly deteriorate now. As usual the initial bout of cutting wasn't too bad, there was some fat in the system, but we left that period a few years back. I think we should grow up and admit that getting the public services we want will require increased taxes; clearly the politicians do not think we are there yet.
Alas brexit has bought them a few years of evil foreign scapegoats.
I'm just hoping they don't manage to run the nhs down to the extent they can push through privatisation as an obvious thing to do to improve. Like they did with the trains.
Funnily enough, hard brexit would bring the government some -I assume- substantial extra income via the tariff they'd be putting on all stuff, and they would get MORE far-right support out of it, since it would be the fault of the evil EU that they are forced to do this.
Our best chance of a leadership 'debate' is starting now, 8.30pm on Channel 4 in the UK.
Likely some good questioning in store. :bowler:
edit:
not sure if their website allows streaming outside of UK.
Verdict?
One I've seen elsewhere : May made a smart choice in avoiding a debate.
Someone doesn't hold the Tories in very high esteem.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FDAWlNdwW0AAMKWe.jpg&hash=05ea84a80d4b5f5a3ac492f70c1b33f0b8f05c96)
:lol:
Well yes, the country is supposed to vote on May and the Tories, because they are the only ones who can sort out the Brexit chaos that... they created.
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2017, 10:08:41 AM
:lol:
Well yes, the country is supposed to vote on May and the Tories, because they are the only ones who can sort out the Brexit chaos that... they created.
On the other hand, Labour doesn't really have an angle there as they, as a party, can't even coalesce around their leader, let alone a coherent position on Brexit.
Quote from: garbon on May 30, 2017, 10:12:35 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 30, 2017, 10:08:41 AM
:lol:
Well yes, the country is supposed to vote on May and the Tories, because they are the only ones who can sort out the Brexit chaos that... they created.
On the other hand, Labour doesn't really have an angle there as they, as a party, can't even coalesce around their leader, let alone a coherent position on Brexit.
True.
That's why people should vote LibDems. But we don't live such times where moderation and lack of bombastic claims can win votes.
I will write letters to the British people to vote Lib Dem. That always works.
New yougov poll shows Tories dropping below a majority.
Here's to hoping it doesn't give the Tories some new wind in their sails and make the others grow lazy. Would be great to see.
Quote from: Tyr on May 31, 2017, 03:19:59 AM
New yougov poll shows Tories dropping below a majority.
Here's to hoping it doesn't give the Tories some new wind in their sails and make the others grow lazy. Would be great to see.
May IS incompetent in anything but running an accountant's office, isn't she?
It seems Corbyn will be going ahead with the live debate on the BBC today.
May won't.
It's the last day of May?
My voting paper has arrived.
Only 4 choices sadly, I'd heard mutters the Greens might be on there. So its UKIP, Conservatives, Lib Dem or Labour.
Hey you vote your conscience. I won't tell you what to do.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.mirror.co.uk%2Fincoming%2Farticle6405835.ece%2FALTERNATES%2Fs298%2FLib-Dems.jpg&hash=7894c2d259367a967406500b0e965a2f88cd77eb)
"Liberal Democrats"? About as redundant as "Nazi Republicans".
Quote from: Valmy on May 31, 2017, 11:12:19 AM
Hey you vote your conscience. I won't tell you what to do.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.mirror.co.uk%2Fincoming%2Farticle6405835.ece%2FALTERNATES%2Fs298%2FLib-Dems.jpg&hash=7894c2d259367a967406500b0e965a2f88cd77eb)
Probably.
As said labour are going to win in my seat anyway, so I guess the only thing to do is try and give the lib dems a healthy showing. Doubt they'll manage 2nd this time though.
The debate on TV...wonder how that will play for the leaders. It was quite a mess having all those other party leaders there too. Lots of talking over each other.
I found it rather dull
UK now the worst-performing advanced economy in the world after post-Brexit vote slump
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-worst-performing-advanced-economy-world-post-brexit-slump-election-pound-sterling-a7766286.html
Prime Minister Corbyn. Has a ring to it :hmm:
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 01, 2017, 08:59:46 AM
Prime Minister Corbyn. Has a ring to it :hmm:
Countries always want to compete with the US, but in this case I think it's best if they realize they've lost. We have the worst leader, get over it.
Quote from: frunk on June 01, 2017, 09:05:31 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 01, 2017, 08:59:46 AM
Prime Minister Corbyn. Has a ring to it :hmm:
Countries always want to compete with the US, but in this case I think it's best if they realize they've lost. We have the worst leader, get over it.
Yeah, only Erdogan, Duarte and Assad are still in the running.
Quote from: mongers on June 01, 2017, 09:25:35 AM
Quote from: frunk on June 01, 2017, 09:05:31 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 01, 2017, 08:59:46 AM
Prime Minister Corbyn. Has a ring to it :hmm:
Countries always want to compete with the US, but in this case I think it's best if they realize they've lost. We have the worst leader, get over it.
Yeah, only Erdogan, Duarte and Assad are still in the running.
At least Erdogan was initially helping the economy, before compensating for his penis size overwritten all other priorities. Orban is like him except he has been bad for the economy all the time.
Quote from: Tamas on June 01, 2017, 09:29:59 AM
Quote from: mongers on June 01, 2017, 09:25:35 AM
Quote from: frunk on June 01, 2017, 09:05:31 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 01, 2017, 08:59:46 AM
Prime Minister Corbyn. Has a ring to it :hmm:
Countries always want to compete with the US, but in this case I think it's best if they realize they've lost. We have the worst leader, get over it.
Yeah, only Erdogan, Duarte and Assad are still in the running.
At least Erdogan was initially helping the economy, before compensating for his penis size overwritten all other priorities. Orban is like him except he has been bad for the economy all the time.
You Hungarians don't have a bad track record with the Corbyns running the shop, do you?
Quote from: celedhring on June 01, 2017, 11:12:35 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 01, 2017, 09:29:59 AM
Quote from: mongers on June 01, 2017, 09:25:35 AM
Quote from: frunk on June 01, 2017, 09:05:31 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 01, 2017, 08:59:46 AM
Prime Minister Corbyn. Has a ring to it :hmm:
Countries always want to compete with the US, but in this case I think it's best if they realize they've lost. We have the worst leader, get over it.
Yeah, only Erdogan, Duarte and Assad are still in the running.
At least Erdogan was initially helping the economy, before compensating for his penis size overwritten all other priorities. Orban is like him except he has been bad for the economy all the time.
You Hungarians don't have a bad track record with the Corbyns running the shop, do you?
Don't get me started.
UKIP candidates fully unleashing the loon after being bereft of their original platform (which was already loony).
(https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18740726_10154381751056854_3412107430199433082_n.jpg?oh=3cf6fa0308a05f4ec15e7fa6656711ec&oe=59AE9C7F)
Quote from: celedhring on June 01, 2017, 12:03:24 PM
UKIP candidates fully unleashing the loon after being bereft of their original platform (which was already loony).
Didn't know Tim's cousin lived in the UK.
He is right about mining the asteroid belt.
Looking at my postal ballot properly....
The Tory candidate lives in London. I didn't even though you could do that, thought you had to be living local :lol:
Supposedly the White House wants to send Donald to London in a show of "solidarity" with the UK.
I think that may be the last thing May wants this week. Imagine the chaos :lol:
Yeah, because Donald totally wouldn't hijack the situation to push his travel ban and other shit. So awkward. :lol:
Please make it so.
I think some of my sympathy for Diane Abbott has bled off. Her mystery illness was that she had type 2 diabetes and despite knowing about it for 2 years, thought it was a good idea to skip meals?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/13/diane-abbott-reveals-illness-and-hits-out-at-vicious-tory-campaign
QuoteDiane Abbott reveals illness and hits out at 'vicious' Tory campaign
Diane Abbott has accused the Conservative party of unleashing the most vicious and negative general election campaign in her memory, expressing her disappointment that a female prime minister had singled her out as a national target.
And in her first interview since stepping aside because of illness at the end of the campaign, the Labour frontbencher also revealed for the first time that she had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes two years ago, and said that was why she had taken a break.
As the Conservative party angrily dismissed her criticisms of their campaign, Abbott insisted that she was managing her condition and felt ready to return to work. But she admitted that it had affected her performance in broadcast interviews branded a "car crash" in the midst of the gruelling seven-week campaign.
"During the election campaign, everything went crazy – and the diabetes was out of control, the blood sugar was out of control," she told the Guardian, saying that she was badly affected after facing six or seven interviews in a row without eating enough food.
She said her brother had watched and listened to interviews, including when she stumbled over figures on a key policy on police funding when being grilled by LBC's Nick Ferrari, and got in touch with her.
"He said 'that is not Diane', because ever since I've been a child I've had a great memory for figures, and he said he knew it was my blood sugar and gave me a lecture about eating and having glucose tablets," she said, highlighting her years of broadcast experience as a pundit on This Week.
Abbott added: "It is a condition you can manage. I am doing that now and I feel ready to get back to work."
...
I don't see it as a big issue one way or the other, I think the flak she took didn't significantly effect the Labour party's campaign and success.
She didn't perform well, so doesn't deserve a major shadow cabinet post, maybe relegate her and allow her to quietly :Embarrass: slip back onto the back benches. Though give her credit for having been in parliament for 30 years, long stretch for anyone.
She is awful
So, The Deal to Bring Stability and Unite the Nation has been made: DUP will support to the Tories in exchange of 1 billion extra pound spent on Northern Ireland.
A tail wagging the dog situation if I have ever seen one.
Quote from: Tamas on June 26, 2017, 06:21:44 AM
So, The Deal to Bring Stability and Unite the Nation has been made: DUP will support to the Tories in exchange of 1 billion extra pound spent on Northern Ireland.
A tail wagging the dog situation if I have ever seen one.
Over two years, apparently. I pictured it would be something like across the entire 5 years of the current term, but 500 million pounds every year is around 1% of Northern Ireland's GNP :lol:
Funny thing is, during the election, May loved to say (and very rightly so) that Labour thought there's a "magic money tree" where the money for their planned spending would be coming from.
Then as it turns out, she can easily pull a billion extra pounds down from that tree when her own survival is at stake.
QuoteThe £1 billion Theresa May spent on votes of ten Ulster MPs could have replaced all flammable cladding on country's high flats – twice
Ouch
When your entire political message is about the need to reduce public spending, suddenly spending a billion pounds on your own political survival is controversial, to say the least.
Just like how the American political cast fumbled Trump into th presidency, do will glaring Tory ineptitude and recklessness will put a communist useful idiot into No.10
Entire? :huh:
Anyway, your last two posts are basically the same post. :P
Quote from: Tamas on June 26, 2017, 08:11:20 AM
Funny thing is, during the election, May loved to say (and very rightly so) that Labour thought there's a "magic money tree" where the money for their planned spending would be coming from.
Then as it turns out, she can easily pull a billion extra pounds down from that tree when her own survival is at stake.
Something similar is happening here in BC. The right of centre government lost its majority in a recent election and in an effort to put off a non confidence vote they started promising all kinds of spending initiatives which they said could not be afforded during the election. All for naught, as they are going to lose a confidence vote - likely tomorrow.
While it looks pretty grubby, I'm really not sure what choice there was. Nobody wants another election; no other party is offering to support the Tories; no other coalition is possible.
£1bn over two years is chicken feed really in the scheme of things.
Quote from: Gups on June 28, 2017, 09:31:00 AM
While it looks pretty grubby, I'm really not sure what choice there was. Nobody wants another election; no other party is offering to support the Tories; no other coalition is possible.
£1bn over two years is chicken feed really in the scheme of things.
Well a £1,000 million political bribe on top of an unnecessary £130 million pound election, seems a big bill for the country to pay for someone's vanity project and desire for political power.
If she's shown such disastrous political skills and choice on those two matters, what other terrible decisions might she make on another key decision? :hmm:
Georges Pompidou's vanity project cost about that. But at least France got a weird looking museum out of the deal.
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2017, 10:59:15 AM
Georges Pompidou's vanity project cost about that. But at least France got a weird looking museum out of the deal.
If by weird looking, you mean butt ugly.
Quote from: mongers on June 28, 2017, 10:46:00 AM
Quote from: Gups on June 28, 2017, 09:31:00 AM
While it looks pretty grubby, I'm really not sure what choice there was. Nobody wants another election; no other party is offering to support the Tories; no other coalition is possible.
£1bn over two years is chicken feed really in the scheme of things.
Well a £1,000 million political bribe on top of an unnecessary £130 million pound election, seems a big bill for the country to pay for someone's vanity project and desire for political power.
If she's shown such disastrous political skills and choice on those two matters, what other terrible decisions might she make on another key decision? :hmm:
The government is pretty terrible for sure. Which is another reason for marveling at Labour's inability to beat them at the election.
King Arthur's return from Avalon must be imminent :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 28, 2017, 11:29:42 AM
Quote from: mongers on June 28, 2017, 10:46:00 AM
Quote from: Gups on June 28, 2017, 09:31:00 AM
While it looks pretty grubby, I'm really not sure what choice there was. Nobody wants another election; no other party is offering to support the Tories; no other coalition is possible.
£1bn over two years is chicken feed really in the scheme of things.
Well a £1,000 million political bribe on top of an unnecessary £130 million pound election, seems a big bill for the country to pay for someone's vanity project and desire for political power.
If she's shown such disastrous political skills and choice on those two matters, what other terrible decisions might she make on another key decision? :hmm:
The government is pretty terrible for sure. Which is another reason for marveling at Labour's inability to beat them at the election.
King Arthur's return from Avalon must be imminent :hmm:
he'll restore Welsh rule over Britannia for sure.
I have you know that Labour's performance has basically given every far left wing nut absolute certainty that their victory in the US is imminent. So thanks for that sucky Tories.
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2017, 11:46:15 AM
I have you know that Labour's performance has basically given every far left wing nut absolute certainty that their victory in the US is imminent. So thanks for that sucky Tories.
And a new cult of personality is born for the progressive populists.
Quote
'Oh, Jeremy Corbyn!': how the Labour chant all started:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4_Yrwb4rh8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4_Yrwb4rh8)
Quote
Jeremy Corbyn Delivers Inspiring Speech & Crowd Goes Wild!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RsSPOcVcNM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RsSPOcVcNM)
Didn't Corbyn once again pledged to scrap Trident,mot his fans at Glastonbury? You know, the thing their manifesto said he would keep? He would be such a disaster as PM, trying to enact his lifelong communist dream.
Yes, the manifesto supports it but I believe guardian said final version has language on how nuclear is a last resort measure as opposed to how it is typically an everyday deterrent.
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2017, 04:49:43 PM
Yes, the manifesto supports it but I believe guardian said final version has language on how nuclear is a last resort measure as opposed to how it is typically an everyday deterrent.
That's not the same as scrapping the deterrent entirely now is it?
But my point isnt Trident per se, but the latest evidence at Glastonbury that Corbyn doesn't really care about party policy and party promises and such: he has a vision and he will try to push it through if he is given a chance.
The UK needs a Macron-like new force of the progressive middle to form, otherwise we will be stuck between inept gambler Tories and an English Chavez
Corbyn didn't say he would scrap trident no.
Corbyn has no choice but to listen to party policy. Even with a majority he couldn't pass anything without the party's support. That's the way the system works.
Quote from: Tyr on June 29, 2017, 04:46:08 AM
Corbyn didn't say he would scrap trident no.
Corbyn has no choice but to listen to party policy. Even with a majority he couldn't pass anything without the party's support. That's the way the system works.
Yeah let's just elect a dangerous radical, he will be reign in by party politics and common sense, for sure. Nothing bad ever came of such a decision.
Quote from: Tyr on June 29, 2017, 04:46:08 AM
Corbyn didn't say he would scrap trident no.
Corbyn has no choice but to listen to party policy. Even with a majority he couldn't pass anything without the party's support. That's the way the system works.
True, he just did this:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/26/jeremy-corbyn-trident-labour-manifesto-commitment
QuoteCorbyn refuses to back Trident but says he will respect Labour position
Quote from: Tamas on June 29, 2017, 01:02:10 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2017, 04:49:43 PM
Yes, the manifesto supports it but I believe guardian said final version has language on how nuclear is a last resort measure as opposed to how it is typically an everyday deterrent.
That's not the same as scrapping the deterrent entirely now is it?
But my point isnt Trident per se, but the latest evidence at Glastonbury that Corbyn doesn't really care about party policy and party promises and such: he has a vision and he will try to push it through if he is given a chance.
The UK needs a Macron-like new force of the progressive middle to form, otherwise we will be stuck between inept gambler Tories and an English Chavez
That was the compromise that was reached. The language about using as a last resort wasn't in that leaked version of manifesto, only showed up in final version - I would guess to make keep Trident more palatable for Corbyn.
The Trident issue I consider serious not because how the Tories portrayed it during the election, but because it is a perfect summary of Corbyn and what is wrong with him: he is totally detached from realities of the world. You stay out of war by discouraging others from dragging you into one, not by making yourself a target that is incapable of retaliation. A vote against Trident is a vote against peace.
Is it really worth so many billions just to scare Russia a little bit more than they already are by France and the US?
Britain can't even use Trident without the Americans anyway.
Trident is a non issue for me. I don't particularly care either way. But it's irrelevant as Labour policy is the same as the Tories there.
And to call Corbyn a dangerous radical is daft. He's a bit of an outdated dinosaur in some respects but dangerous?
He does demonstrate more admiration for terrorists and Marxist leaders than I would find appropriate.
Corbyn is also a brexiteer of course, which is why he has just sacked 3 shadow ministers for backing a vote for the UK to stay in the single market after Brexit :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40451301
I'm not sure how the remainer youth who idolise him manage to square that :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 30, 2017, 01:10:44 AM
Corbyn is also a brexiteer of course, which is why he has just sacked 3 shadow ministers for backing a vote for the UK to stay in the single market after Brexit :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40451301
I'm not sure how the remainer youth who idolise him manage to square that :hmm:
"free" higher education > worries about leaving the source of the UK's prosperity ?
Also, probably that people should now just support Corbyn - no use in symbolic conscience voting if it is against party unity.
By the by, is Labour saying with free education that they'd wipe out prior loans? Don't really understand the appeal to people in their mid-late 20s if not.
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2017, 03:49:58 AM
Also, probably that people should now just support Corbyn - no use in symbolic conscience voting if it is against party unity.
By the by, is Labour saying with free education that they'd wipe out prior loans? Don't really understand the appeal to people in their mid-late 20s if not.
IIRC yes there was talk of that. Along with nationalising the shit out of everything, spending a helluva lot more on everything (except defence).
To their credit, they did cover the money for some of that, by the plans of taxing the shit out of corporations, the time-honoured and proven way to growth and prosperity!
Quote
To their credit, they did cover the money for some of that, by the plans of taxing the shit out of corporations, the time-honoured and proven way to growth and prosperity!
Undoing recent tax cuts that haven't done anything good to raise the tax rate on the profits of big corporations by 4%, leaving them still amongst the lowest taxed in the world, is taxing the shit out of them?
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2017, 03:49:58 AM
Also, probably that people should now just support Corbyn - no use in symbolic conscience voting if it is against party unity.
By the by, is Labour saying with free education that they'd wipe out prior loans? Don't really understand the appeal to people in their mid-late 20s if not.
It was muttered about doing something about this for recent grads but generally no.
But then that's what the left is all about. You don't vote for purely what is best for you personally. You vote for what is best for society.
And if you had to put up with high tuition fees then you'll want to ensure future generations don't have to go through the same.
QuoteBut then that's what the left is all about. You don't vote for purely what is best for you personally. You vote for what is best for society.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Tyr on June 30, 2017, 04:38:53 AM
Quote
To their credit, they did cover the money for some of that, by the plans of taxing the shit out of corporations, the time-honoured and proven way to growth and prosperity!
Undoing recent tax cuts that haven't done anything good to raise the tax rate on the profits of big corporations by 4%, leaving them still amongst the lowest taxed in the world, is taxing the shit out of them?
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2017, 03:49:58 AM
Also, probably that people should now just support Corbyn - no use in symbolic conscience voting if it is against party unity.
By the by, is Labour saying with free education that they'd wipe out prior loans? Don't really understand the appeal to people in their mid-late 20s if not.
It was muttered about doing something about this for recent grads but generally no.
But then that's what the left is all about. You don't vote for purely what is best for you personally. You vote for what is best for society.
And if you had to put up with high tuition fees then you'll want to ensure future generations don't have to go through the same.
How is that best for society? Is there a shortage of people going to university in the UK?
I am fine with it as long as we don't call it free, because education is something a society really should invest in.
However, you are right: I think people loving this idea do not recognise that it would devalue college/university degrees further, and they, by and large, would end up as required minimums for entering the job market, instead of a bonus in finding employment.
Quote from: Tamas on June 30, 2017, 04:51:27 AM
QuoteBut then that's what the left is all about. You don't vote for purely what is best for you personally. You vote for what is best for society.
:lmfao:
Constructive
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2017, 04:56:07 AMve
How is that best for society? Is there a shortage of people going to university in the UK?
That isn't the issue.
The issue is that the demographics are wrong. Disproportionatly skewed away from the poor.
Some of this can be explained upstream with less encouragement and worse schools.
But without a doubt tuition fees also play a role in scaring away the poor from university.
This has dire effects for social mobility and equality, factors which in turn lead into issues like crime and people voting for stupid bullshit like brexit.
Also it means Britain isn't fully exploiting its human resources if it is only looking towards the middle and upper classes to source its top thinkers.
There are no fees in Scotland and the participation rate for people from poor backgrounds is far worse than in England and Wales :
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2015/12/worst-place-poor-students-uk-scotland
The advantage of the loans system, for people from poor backgrounds, is that it pushes the costs into the future; having to find the money upfront is precisely the most difficult financial challenge for the poor.
Quote from: Tyr on June 30, 2017, 06:18:59 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 30, 2017, 04:51:27 AM
QuoteBut then that's what the left is all about. You don't vote for purely what is best for you personally. You vote for what is best for society.
:lmfao:
Constructive
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2017, 04:56:07 AMve
How is that best for society? Is there a shortage of people going to university in the UK?
That isn't the issue.
The issue is that the demographics are wrong. Disproportionatly skewed away from the poor.
Some of this can be explained upstream with less encouragement and worse schools.
But without a doubt tuition fees also play a role in scaring away the poor from university.
This has dire effects for social mobility and equality, factors which in turn lead into issues like crime and people voting for stupid bullshit like brexit.
Also it means Britain isn't fully exploiting its human resources if it is only looking towards the middle and upper classes to source its top thinkers.
Oh so social policies shouldn't take into account likely outcomes like what Tamas notes? It isn't really a driver of social mobility once it just becomes a barrier to entry to getting say a receptionist position.
I think if there is one common thing you can say about the different socialist spending policies and their supporters is that they seldom think past the first act which is them receiving extra money. It is understandable, but still counterproductive.
QuoteI think if there is one common thing you can say about the different socialist spending policies and their supporters is that they seldom think past the first act which is them receiving extra money. It is understandable, but still counterproductive.
What. The. Fuck?
That's completely the opposite of socialist policies. That far more describes liberal policies.
Socialist policies are all about looking at things holistically, considering how a change in one factor will impact things elsewhere down the line.
Which is a source of a lot of the criticism against socialism as well as the praise.
QuoteOh so social policies shouldn't take into account likely outcomes like what Tamas notes? It isn't really a driver of social mobility once it just becomes a barrier to entry to getting say a receptionist position.
Irrelevant to the issue. And a lot easier said than done, I've know idea where the government would even begin trying to turn new universities back into polytechnics, a few would take whatever incentives are offered but others would strongly fight against it.
Nobody has suggested it regardless.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 30, 2017, 06:32:43 AM
There are no fees in Scotland and the participation rate for people from poor backgrounds is far worse than in England and Wales :
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2015/12/worst-place-poor-students-uk-scotland
The advantage of the loans system, for people from poor backgrounds, is that it pushes the costs into the future; having to find the money upfront is precisely the most difficult financial challenge for the poor.
As said its not the only factor.
I'd like to see England broken down by region to try and get something more comparable to Scotland.
Have right to strike laws been changed in Yoo Kay since the endemic strikes of the 70s?
Quote from: Tyr on June 30, 2017, 01:10:15 PM
What. The. Fuck?
That's completely the opposite of socialist policies. That far more describes liberal policies.
Socialist policies are all about looking at things holistically, considering how a change in one factor will impact things elsewhere down the line.
Which is a source of a lot of the criticism against socialism as well as the praise.
What. The. Fuck? I think it can describe both policies at least how they are sold to the voters anyway.
You're the greatest Squeeze. If you didn't exist we would have to invent you.
Quote from: Tyr on June 30, 2017, 01:10:15 PM
QuoteI think if there is one common thing you can say about the different socialist spending policies and their supporters is that they seldom think past the first act which is them receiving extra money. It is understandable, but still counterproductive.
What. The. Fuck?
That's completely the opposite of socialist policies. That far more describes liberal policies.
Socialist policies are all about looking at things holistically, considering how a change in one factor will impact things elsewhere down the line.
Which is a source of a lot of the criticism against socialism as well as the praise.
QuoteOh so social policies shouldn't take into account likely outcomes like what Tamas notes? It isn't really a driver of social mobility once it just becomes a barrier to entry to getting say a receptionist position.
Irrelevant to the issue. And a lot easier said than done, I've know idea where the government would even begin trying to turn new universities back into polytechnics, a few would take whatever incentives are offered but others would strongly fight against it.
Nobody has suggested it regardless.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 30, 2017, 06:32:43 AM
There are no fees in Scotland and the participation rate for people from poor backgrounds is far worse than in England and Wales :
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2015/12/worst-place-poor-students-uk-scotland
The advantage of the loans system, for people from poor backgrounds, is that it pushes the costs into the future; having to find the money upfront is precisely the most difficult financial challenge for the poor.
As said its not the only factor.
I'd like to see England broken down by region to try and get something more comparable to Scotland.
WTF? The impact of social policies are irrelevant to the issue? :huh:
Quote from: Tamas on June 30, 2017, 06:53:37 AM
I think if there is one common thing you can say about the different socialist spending policies and their supporters is that they seldom think past the first act which is them receiving extra money. It is understandable, but still counterproductive.
You're the greatest Tammy. If you didn't exist we would have to invent you.
I don't like the interest rate charged for the student loans, it is currently 6% IIRC. Bank of England rate +1 or 2% would be better imo.
Btw I love how liberals are the source of all evil for both the far left and right
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 30, 2017, 04:24:21 PM
I don't like the interest rate charged for the student loans, it is currently 6% IIRC. Bank of England rate +1 or 2% would be better imo.
Any idea what the default rate is?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2017, 04:48:15 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 30, 2017, 04:24:21 PM
I don't like the interest rate charged for the student loans, it is currently 6% IIRC. Bank of England rate +1 or 2% would be better imo.
Any idea what the default rate is?
It might be as high as 50%.
Ouch.
There are various ways of not paying. Earning a low wage is one. Buggering off to Australia another :lol:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 30, 2017, 05:07:12 PM
There are various ways of not paying. Earning a low wage is one. Buggering off to Australia another :lol:
I thought you guys had one of those X % of income repayment deals. Surely a low wage earner making payments doesn't count as a default?
So, as a first sign of Britain's glorious new future of standing alone in the world, China has declared their agreement with the Brits of leaving Hong Kong politics alone for 50 years "ancient history" that holds no meaning. Oh boy :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2017, 05:13:24 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 30, 2017, 05:07:12 PM
There are various ways of not paying. Earning a low wage is one. Buggering off to Australia another :lol:
I thought you guys had one of those X % of income repayment deals. Surely a low wage earner making payments doesn't count as a default?
The repayments are not very punitive and the loan is written off after 25 years. So it is not defaulting as such.
For example on an income of £30k you would repay only £810, on £40k it would be £1710. meanwhile the a interest on £30k would be something like £1,800 (all figures per annum). There are plenty of jobs where you don't get more than £40k unless you get on the management track; looking at the figures it would seem that to really pay back the loan one needs to be earning c £50k or more.
Quote from: garbon on June 30, 2017, 01:57:08 PM
WTF? The impact of social policies are irrelevant to the issue? :huh:
Talking about tuition fees is talking about how to paint the fence.
Talking about completely restructuring the university system is talking about building a new fence.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 30, 2017, 06:32:43 AM
The advantage of the loans system, for people from poor backgrounds, is that it pushes the costs into the future; having to find the money upfront is precisely the most difficult financial challenge for the poor.
Actually, getting a loan when you are poor and don't know when or how you will scrape by is a pretty big hurdle.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 01, 2017, 03:43:17 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 30, 2017, 06:32:43 AM
The advantage of the loans system, for people from poor backgrounds, is that it pushes the costs into the future; having to find the money upfront is precisely the most difficult financial challenge for the poor.
Actually, getting a loan when you are poor and don't know when or how you will scrape by is a pretty big hurdle.
But the UK system of education loans isn't just a standard loan setup.
Quote from: Tyr on June 30, 2017, 01:10:15 PM
QuoteI think if there is one common thing you can say about the different socialist spending policies and their supporters is that they seldom think past the first act which is them receiving extra money. It is understandable, but still counterproductive.
What. The. Fuck?
That's completely the opposite of socialist policies. That far more describes liberal policies.
When it comes to economics, the left, whether liberal or socialist, is all about voting yourself money out of the public treasury, money which of course ultimately comes from private sources. The difference is that liberals just want to get that money through taxes, while socialists want to get it by just nationalizing stuff.
Quote from: dps on July 01, 2017, 12:18:59 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 30, 2017, 01:10:15 PM
QuoteI think if there is one common thing you can say about the different socialist spending policies and their supporters is that they seldom think past the first act which is them receiving extra money. It is understandable, but still counterproductive.
What. The. Fuck?
That's completely the opposite of socialist policies. That far more describes liberal policies.
When it comes to economics, the left, whether liberal or socialist, is all about voting yourself money out of the public treasury, money which of course ultimately comes from private sources. The difference is that liberals just want to get that money through taxes, while socialists want to get it by just nationalizing stuff.
Liberals are the right.
If the only reason people vote socialist is so they personally can get free stuff then how come so many well off people vote left? How come so many poor people who would benefit from the policies vote right?
Quote from: dps on July 01, 2017, 12:18:59 PM
When it comes to economics, the left, whether liberal or socialist, is all about voting yourself money out of the public treasury, money which of course ultimately comes from private sources. The difference is that liberals just want to get that money through taxes, while socialists want to get it by just nationalizing stuff.
And the right, whether liberal or fascist, is all about voting yourself money by intercepting money on its way to the public treasury though creation of government tax and business policies that only the rich can exploit.
Quote from: Tyr on July 02, 2017, 01:08:47 AM
Quote from: dps on July 01, 2017, 12:18:59 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 30, 2017, 01:10:15 PM
QuoteI think if there is one common thing you can say about the different socialist spending policies and their supporters is that they seldom think past the first act which is them receiving extra money. It is understandable, but still counterproductive.
What. The. Fuck?
That's completely the opposite of socialist policies. That far more describes liberal policies.
When it comes to economics, the left, whether liberal or socialist, is all about voting yourself money out of the public treasury, money which of course ultimately comes from private sources. The difference is that liberals just want to get that money through taxes, while socialists want to get it by just nationalizing stuff.
Liberals are the right.
If the only reason people vote socialist is so they personally can get free stuff then how come so many well off people vote left? How come so many poor people who would benefit from the policies vote right?
Why is the right calling its political enemies "liberals" then?
Let's face it: the liberal idea of letting people do what they desire as long as they don't prevent each other in that pursuit, is not laying well with either the left or the right.
Quote from: Tamas on July 02, 2017, 04:24:53 PM
Why is the right calling its political enemies "liberals" then?
It's just a different usage in the US and Europe.
The Guardian claims Boris Johnson's newfound concern about the public sector pay cap is part of his intrigues to be crowned PM. Hard to see it any other way for sure.
It's incredible how willing everyone seems to be to stir up more chaos
Quote from: Tamas on July 03, 2017, 03:45:36 AM
The Guardian claims Boris Johnson's newfound concern about the public sector pay cap is part of his intrigues to be crowned PM. Hard to see it any other way for sure.
It's incredible how willing everyone seems to be to stir up more chaos
I know, I was like Tory infighting again?
Of course, it is obvious why the Conservatives didn't vote in favour of the Labour amendment last week (despite feigned confusion from the twitter accounts of Tim Farron and Corbyn), they don't want Labour getting credit for anything.
well yes, but if Johnson and his bond villain ally's concern was genuine they'd be convincing the cabinet quietly. Even if they have fallen to deaf ears in their honest concern for the nurses, they have just won an election, they have 5 years, they don't have to panic if it takes longer to abolish the pay cap.
Only possible explanation is that they are aiming for a coup with discrediting Hammond as a bonus. Who, BTW, seems to be the only bastion of sanity left in the government.
Quote from: Tamas on July 01, 2017, 02:18:34 AM
So, as a first sign of Britain's glorious new future of standing alone in the world, China has declared their agreement with the Brits of leaving Hong Kong politics alone for 50 years "ancient history" that holds no meaning. Oh boy :D
I don't think there is anybody in the world who cares, except us. Not even the UK.
Quote from: Tamas on July 03, 2017, 04:13:59 AM
well yes, but if Johnson and his bond villain ally's concern was genuine they'd be convincing the cabinet quietly. Even if they have fallen to deaf ears in their honest concern for the nurses, they have just won an election, they have 5 years, they don't have to panic if it takes longer to abolish the pay cap.
Only possible explanation is that they are aiming for a coup with discrediting Hammond as a bonus. Who, BTW, seems to be the only bastion of sanity left in the government.
Oh, of course. To be slightly fair to them, May is a crawling shambles at this point. More tone deaf by the moment.
Quote from: Tamas on July 02, 2017, 04:24:53 PM
Why is the right calling its political enemies "liberals" then?
Let's face it: the liberal idea of letting people do what they desire as long as they don't prevent each other in that pursuit, is not laying well with either the left or the right.
It's more often the (hard) left that complains about liberals I find.
Though you do get some idiots from the right who use it as an insult whilst waving the UKIP flag. completely failing to realise the irony of British nationalists using such painful Americanisms.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 03, 2017, 04:18:40 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 01, 2017, 02:18:34 AM
So, as a first sign of Britain's glorious new future of standing alone in the world, China has declared their agreement with the Brits of leaving Hong Kong politics alone for 50 years "ancient history" that holds no meaning. Oh boy :D
I don't think there is anybody in the world who cares, except us. Not even the UK.
I care.
I thought giving all of you British citizenship was the right thing to do back before the handover in 1997 as well - and still regret that we didn't.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 03, 2017, 05:53:43 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 03, 2017, 04:18:40 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 01, 2017, 02:18:34 AM
So, as a first sign of Britain's glorious new future of standing alone in the world, China has declared their agreement with the Brits of leaving Hong Kong politics alone for 50 years "ancient history" that holds no meaning. Oh boy :D
I don't think there is anybody in the world who cares, except us. Not even the UK.
I care.
I thought giving all of you British citizenship was the right thing to do back before the handover in 1997 as well - and still regret that we didn't.
Well thanks :hug:
Mrs Thatcher did all that she could for us, and for that we are eternally grateful.
Quote from: Tamas on July 03, 2017, 04:13:59 AM
well yes, but if Johnson and his bond villain ally's concern was genuine they'd be convincing the cabinet quietly. Even if they have fallen to deaf ears in their honest concern for the nurses, they have just won an election, they have 5 years, they don't have to panic if it takes longer to abolish the pay cap.
Only possible explanation is that they are aiming for a coup with discrediting Hammond as a bonus. Who, BTW, seems to be the only bastion of sanity left in the government.
Boris is a mess. He's now backed away from his stance.
Also:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jul/06/politics-live
QuoteI think, actually, that Donald Trump's approach to politics has been something that has gripped the imagination of people around the world. He has engaged people in politics in a way that we have not seen for a long time, with his tweets and all the rest of it. I certainly wouldn't be allowed to tweet in the way that he has, much as I might like to.
(https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/president-comacho-idiocracy.jpg?quality=100&w=650)
Quote from: Tamas on July 02, 2017, 04:24:53 PM
Let's face it: the liberal idea of letting people do what they desire as long as they don't prevent each other in that pursuit, is not laying well with either the left or the right.
This idea also does not work on its own, because different people don't have the same opportunities.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 08, 2017, 05:20:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 02, 2017, 04:24:53 PM
Let's face it: the liberal idea of letting people do what they desire as long as they don't prevent each other in that pursuit, is not laying well with either the left or the right.
This idea also does not work on its own, because different people don't have the same opportunities.
Yeah, but we should help those who have less opportunities, instead of holding back those who have more.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 30, 2017, 04:24:21 PM
I don't like the interest rate charged for the student loans, it is currently 6% IIRC. Bank of England rate +1 or 2% would be better imo.
That's really high. Mine is 0.01% for the next 5 years.
Quote from: Tamas on July 08, 2017, 06:57:37 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on July 08, 2017, 05:20:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 02, 2017, 04:24:53 PM
Let's face it: the liberal idea of letting people do what they desire as long as they don't prevent each other in that pursuit, is not laying well with either the left or the right.
This idea also does not work on its own, because different people don't have the same opportunities.
Yeah, but we should help those who have less opportunities, instead of holding back those who have more.
How are we holding back those who have more? If you mean taxation, it's pretty much necessary in order to help those who have less.
What are the odds of the government surviving the Great Repeal Bill?
Already the internal leadership fight seems well underway and it has the cabinet in shambles.
Next election in October?
The Tory implosion would be hilarious if (a) we weren't in the middle of negotiating Brexit and (b) the alternative wasn't comrade Jezza
Quote from: Gups on July 17, 2017, 08:07:19 AM
The Tory implosion would be hilarious if (a) we weren't in the middle of negotiating Brexit and (b) the alternative wasn't comrade Jezza
Who would have thought that all was standing between a 50s-style communist and No.10 is a promise to reimburse student loans.
Quote from: Gups on July 17, 2017, 08:07:19 AM
The Tory implosion would be hilarious if (a) we weren't in the middle of negotiating Brexit and (b) the alternative wasn't comrade Jezza
Well, today has seen the resignation of the defence secretary over largely undisclosed allegations of sexual misconduct, so we might be heading for a Tory implosion over the next few months.
Also wasn't there a UK political crisis thread, but I couldn't find it. :hmm:
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/3012fb2e8cea0cc6f14500d17c52d136/tumblr_oypmqgCMCk1qao1lqo1_1280.jpg)
What's that? The "who's a naughty boy" list of the Tory party?
Yes, though it includes people who had affairs while married / married the people they had said affairs with (or as it lists for Amber Rudd that she had a workplace relationship!).
Alun Cairns appears to be on the list for being gay.
Tory politician commits sexual harassment - nothing to see here, move along
Labour politician commits sexual harassment - this is thoroughly unacceptable and there will be a full investigation.
Quote
The Tory implosion would be hilarious if (a) we weren't in the middle of negotiating Brexit and (b) the alternative wasn't comrade Jezza
Corbyn is old and is sticking to the party consensus. Given labours last manifesto I'm not concerned about Corbyn even though he himself is a dinosaur.
Plus, get rid of the tories and maybe the lib dems can step up as a viable opposition again. Liberal economic policy but not evil.
Quote from: Tyr on November 02, 2017, 05:08:02 AM
Tory politician commits sexual harassment - nothing to see here, move along
:huh:
One of them already has resigned.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 02, 2017, 04:49:00 AM
Alun Cairns appears to be on the list for being gay.
I thought this list was a "MPs who were inappropriate" how can you make that list for being gay?
Quote from: Tamas on November 02, 2017, 06:22:39 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 02, 2017, 04:49:00 AM
Alun Cairns appears to be on the list for being gay.
I thought this list was a "MPs who were inappropriate" how can you make that list for being gay?
It is a tittle-tattle list, all the MPs on it are Tories for example; so it also caters for homophobes and the generally prurient.
I really wonder what "being inappropriate" means in this context. :hmm:
Quote from: The Larch on November 02, 2017, 08:23:02 AM
I really wonder what "being inappropriate" means in this context. :hmm:
Apparently, being gay.
Quote from: Tamas on November 02, 2017, 08:34:45 AM
Quote from: The Larch on November 02, 2017, 08:23:02 AM
I really wonder what "being inappropriate" means in this context. :hmm:
Apparently, being gay.
Actually that particular guy doesn't have anything in his file about being inappropriate. :P
Quote from: The Larch on November 02, 2017, 08:23:02 AM
I really wonder what "being inappropriate" means in this context. :hmm:
Who the hell knows. I hate that term.
Quote from: Gups on November 02, 2017, 09:16:33 AM
Quote from: The Larch on November 02, 2017, 08:23:02 AM
I really wonder what "being inappropriate" means in this context. :hmm:
Who the hell knows. I hate that term.
Apparently having grabby hands is not part of it, as that seems to be a separate offence. :lol:
Fallon supposedly out over lewd comments to Leadsom.
The Guardian has an article on the shocking behaviour of this latter-day Caligula :
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/02/michael-fallon-resigned-defence-secretary-andrea-leadsom
Quote from: The Larch on November 02, 2017, 04:34:03 AM
What's that? The "who's a naughty boy" list of the Tory party?
"Video exists of three males urinating on him" :lol:
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2017, 05:31:12 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 02, 2017, 05:08:02 AM
Tory politician commits sexual harassment - nothing to see here, move along
:huh:
One of them already has resigned.
One. From his cabinet position. He remains an MP.
Labour have suspended their naughty MP.
The other Tories who have done genuinely bad things?...
I can't even.
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2017, 02:40:42 AM
lewd comments to Leadsom.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.com%2Fr%2Fbut-why.gif&hash=99e7e4b3d198022bba4e0d9df557228ecf5e253e)
I expect he was drunk.
Its a great way of getting rid of political opponents though; you just need the memory of an elephant and, a mere 6 years later.......in goes the knife.
Nigel Farage says the :Joos did it. (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-jewish-farage-brexit-698486)
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2017, 08:19:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2017, 02:40:42 AM
lewd comments to Leadsom.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.com%2Fr%2Fbut-why.gif&hash=99e7e4b3d198022bba4e0d9df557228ecf5e253e)
I didn't want to be rude but yeah...
It is possible to be sexually demeaning to someone in a way that does not imply that you are attracted to them.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2017, 12:46:16 PM
It is possible to be sexually demeaning to someone in a way that does not imply that you are attracted to them.
Not with what he is accused of doing (draping himself on her, mentioning that he had somewhere she could warm her hands when she mentioned they were cold).
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2017, 12:53:03 PM
Not with what he is accused of doing (draping himself on her, mentioning that he had somewhere she could warm her hands when she mentioned they were cold).
Oh my.
That's the thing. What he did specifically doesn't sound that extreme but I can imagine a bit noxious when you are just trying to work.
He has denied the Leadsom incident btw, so it is his word against hers.
I think the real reason he has left is that this sort of marginally creepy behaviour is standard for him. Therefore, if he stayed, there would be a continuous drip-drip of allegations against him - something which government hates.
According to the Times, there is an allegation of a serious sexual assault against Fallon.
Meanwhile another Tory MP has had the whip withdrawn and has been reported to the police
Nice to see some cases being acted upon.
Considering the already slim Tory hold on power a few bi-elections could break them.
Quote from: Gups on November 04, 2017, 06:52:40 AM
According to the Times, there is an allegation of a serious sexual assault against Fallon.
Meanwhile another Tory MP has had the whip withdrawn and has been reported to the police
What does this mean?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2017, 03:24:14 PM
Quote from: Gups on November 04, 2017, 06:52:40 AM
According to the Times, there is an allegation of a serious sexual assault against Fallon.
Meanwhile another Tory MP has had the whip withdrawn and has been reported to the police
What does this mean?
In yank terms, he's been kicked out of the caucus.
Quote from: Gups on November 04, 2017, 04:22:57 PM
In yank terms, he's been kicked out of the caucus.
And, unless he's arrested before then, at the next election he's out on the street?