The Politics Thread

[sphericalfox]

Of all the politics of the last few months, surely "but da tories is racist" isn't the full extent of your analysis? Surely?

 

Yes. Yes it is.

[Guest MattP]

(The quote in your signature is a cracker btw given your posts tonight)

[sphericalfox]

(The quote in your signature is a cracker btw given your posts tonight)

 

What's my quote got to do with Tory closet racists? Are you saying Shaw was a racist? Suppose you could be on to something.

[johnny the fox]

Just to be politically correct, your all racists and *****

you missed the apostrophe over "your".. please, please , please......... if you are going to lump all us racists together ..get the grammar right.. you fookin coolie.....no offence ment..ha ha..

[Stadt]

johnny the fox lecturing about grammar

[johnny the fox]

johnny the fox lecturing about grammar

somebody has to... it fell to me.. TBF  I have not been well... been in for a op...under a assumed name..http://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/3425/dan-maurer-36kg-testicle-scrotum-tlc/?CMP=spklr-_-S9SunSocial-_-TWITTER-_-TheSunNewspaper-_-20151007-_-TVsite-_-250961701-_-Imageandlink

[Dr The Singh]

you missed the apostrophe over "your".. please, please , please......... if you are going to lump all us racists together ..get the grammar right.. you fookin coolie.....no offence ment..ha ha..

Apologies officer.....you are a member of the grammer police force, arent you?

[Rincewind]

Ment or meant?

[Rincewind]

I  would have thought Cameron would have ditched that speech after the video that was made over a month ago was shown to be a load of pig-shit. He must have left his new one at home and thought I'll dig out an old one the public will not notice.

[enmac]

Quite an interesting read from my favourite left wing journo (that's for you Alf [emoji14] ) - one thing is for certain, if anyone thought Cameron was going to use Corbyn's election to take the party to right the thought was ended today, he could be the first PM to occupy the centre left, centre and centre right in British politics.

It was a strange but almost refreshing occurance today to see a Conservative audience at a conference giving a standing ovation to a speech that centered around minority rights, prison reform, house building and community cohesion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11917236/David-Cameron-is-the-new-leader-of-the-British-Left.html

David Cameron is the new leader of the British Left It’s now impossible for anyone on the progressive Left to construct an intellectually coherent argument for voting Labour.

At the start of this Conservative Party conference only one issue mattered. Would David Cameron seize the opportunity presented by Jeremy Corbyn’s election to move his party into the vacated ground on the centre-Left? Or would he use the implosion of his opponents and the end of the coalition as the chance to reach out to Tory traditionalists, and start pursuing some old time Thatcherite religion?

We now have our answer. An answer mind-blowing in its clarity.

David Cameron has just become the leader of the British Left. Yes, there are a few hardened activists still hanging around, muttering to themselves and singing the occasional revolutionary song. But the Labour Party is now to David Cameron’s Conservative Party what George Galloway’s Respect or Dave Nellist’s Trade Union and Socialist Coalition once was to Labour. The subject of some mild curiosity. An occasional annoyance. But nothing more.

Prison reform. Ethnic minority rights. Gay rights. A national housing “crusade”. An “all out assault on poverty”. An attack on “the lowest social mobility in the developed world”. These were the main themes of the Conservative Party leader’s – I’ll repeat that, the Conservative Party leader’s – address to his annual conference.

I expected David Cameron to attempt to park his tank on Labour’s lawn. Instead he parked the tank, got out, calmly walked up the path, and hung a “Closed” sign on the front door. Assuming the Prime Minister means what he says – quite a big assumption admittedly – Jeremy Corbyn and his shadow cabinet needn’t bother turning up to the House of Commons next week. Or any other week for the next 20 years or so.

I was tempted to say that Manchester 2015 represents the Conservative Party’s Clause 4 moment. But in truth, the rewriting of Clause 4 was a politically symbolic but essentially superficial gesture. What we’ve witnessed this week is closer to a Tory Bad Godesberg moment, the historic conference in 1959 that saw the German SDP renounce it’s Marxist ideology and embrace social democracy.

It wasn’t just what David Cameron said, but how his party reacted to it. The section of his speech where he said "I want us, the Conservatives, to end discrimination and finish the fight for real equality in Britain today,” was met with a standing ovation. At Labour Party conference it was a pledge to ban Twitter trolls that brought Labour delegates to their feet.

David Cameron’s “New Conservative” mission still faces a number of obstacles. One will be internal opposition. There will be some “traditionalists” dismayed by what they will see as his dangerous socially progressive dilettantism. But one interesting thing I noticed in the aftermath of Theresa May’s Enoch Powell tribute turn was the way it jarred with the tone of the rest of the conference. A Conservative Home Secretary delivering a hard anti-immigration message suddenly felt out of place. And as a result, I suspect Cameron will be able to take his party with him on his new progressive journey.

A much more significant hurdle will, of course, be aligning the words with the policy, and the policy with delivery. The cut to tax credit is a controversial policy. The trade union bill is a spiteful policy. The welfare reforms remain a misunderstood policy.

But David Cameron knows that. He is well aware he will now be judged on his ability to construct a bridge between rhetoric and reality.

A third problem for him will be fully embedding New Conservatism at a time when his party is already starting to look beyond him to his replacement. Whoever his successor is will want to have ownership of their own agenda and narrative, rather than be seen to be David Cameron’s brand salesman.

But one effect of today is it has put to bed the argument Cameron is a lame duck leader. David Cameron is now a man with a mission. “He doesn’t believe in anything”. “He is only interested in power for power’s sake”. Those old charges will undoubtedly still be levelled. But they will ring rather hollow now.

A single speech cannot change the political landscape. But this wasn’t just a speech. David Cameron has just erected an impenetrable forcefield around the centre ground of British politics. It’s now impossible for anyone on the progressive Left to construct an intellectually coherent argument for voting Labour. That situation will not last indefinitely, and it will be interesting to see how New Conservatism reacts when it has to fight for territory, rather than have it simply ceded to it by its opponents.

But there will be no fighting today. The socially progressive Left has a new leader. His name is David Cameron.

You only see reality through the "eyes" of the Telegraph. How sad.

Please please tell me that's a joke.

[Guest MattP]

It's the writing of Dan Hodges, the son of Labour stalwart Glenda Jackson. The same article is in the New Statesman if you want to read it in a left wing publication but I suppose it's easier to shout about the right wing media than address any issues raised.

[Footballwipe]

Anyone else got a place in the audience for QT tonight? Looks like a mediocre panel but looking forward to it!

[Guest MattP]

No I applied but again got rejected, that's about five times now.

Is it at the curve?

[Footballwipe]

Leicester Grammar School this one is tonight; I've got to lug my way from SW Leics to Oadby before 6pm, which will be a challenge in itself.

[Guest MattP]

Enjoy mate!

[Footballwipe]

Enjoy mate!

 

 

Thanks chief!

 

Should be an interesting experience, not sure my question will get on (I've gone for a bit of a zany one as opposed to a serious one, enough of those will be submitted.) And I have to write a question down when I get there on the day's news too. If it's interesting enough I might put a little bit about it on here tomorrow.

[Guest MattP]

Do so I'd be very interested.

They always have a zainy question to finish off so you'll have a chance, it will be nerve wracking though if you have to wait that long.

The panel isn't too bad actually, I can't stand Hosie though, the epitome of the smug SNP politician.

[Merging Cultures]

I don't know Ronnie, it's not easy to emigrate outside of the EU without some skills to offer and the EU is closed to some extent due to the language barrier. I doubt there are very many Brits working abroad in unskilled positions.

I agree with MB. I'm extremely gifted.

[Guest MattP]

Thought that was going to be horrific but actually enjoyed it.

When Labour members are prepared to say in front of the World in Leicester they are embarrassed by him and the people he associates with its going well.

why don't the BBC just go and join the Tories?

[Bettsj2]

Do so I'd be very interested.

They always have a zainy question to finish off so you'll have a chance, it will be nerve wracking though if you have to wait that long.

The panel isn't too bad actually, I can't stand Hosie though, the epitome of the smug SNP politician.

I think Priti Patel trumped him in the smugness stakes tonight.

Christ she was like Derek Zoolander.

[Rincewind]

I  would thi nk there are many  Brits working in bars.  I suppose it depends on the definition of  unskilled. Not having a go but every job requires some skill. Experience has its advantages too.

[RedSoxUK]

Thought that was going to be horrific but actually enjoyed it.

When Labour members are prepared to say in front of the World in Leicester they are embarrassed by him and the people he associates with its going well.

why don't the BBC just go and join the Tories?

 

I missed the first 10 minutes, but the rest it seemed noticebly in favour of Labour tbh. Same old Question Time. Disagreed completely with the panels views to Putin and Syria though, its becoming more and more clear that we (the UK) are just another thorn in NATO under poor strategic command from the US. This constant attack on Putin is increibly childish, and doesn't answer any of the questions Russia's military are asking. It's not about backing Assad or which side are you on? it's about taking out ISIS, if the Syrian 'moderater' rebels are getting in the way of that then i'm fully backing of Putin. 

 

This is something we need to do with Putin. USA are still thinking imperialistically, wanting to dominate as they have done so badly in the past. We criticise Putin for supporting his friend Assad, put aside the totalarianism for one moment and realise the wrongdoing NATO has actually created in the Arab countries, Iraq and Libya specifically; far worse, far far worse than the perceived human rights attrocities Assad's government has commited.

 

These MPs so critical of Putin really need to understand occam's razor, the Syrian rebels fighting Assad are mercenaries paid for by the highest bidder - which just so happens to be the US, if Russia paid the Syrian Rebels more, they wouldn't be fighting Assad's government (some still would ofcourse,) they would work to fight the real threat in Syria which is ISIS; don't you see MPs, the US has funded militants to fight Assad's army, just as they did with Libyan militants which cripled Libya just a few years ago to devestation. And on top of this delusional political policy the US has commited in the MidEast, the Syrian Rebels funded and trained by the US join ISIS the next day, because they pay even more. 

 

The US and NATO need to rise above it, let Putin handle the situation - then we can talk about the Assad governmental regime reforming. There's a major misconception by the average joe, that Mr. Johnny Foreigner is fleeing Syria just to get away from Assad, this isn't true at all - they're fleeing because of the civil war. They occupy camps in Lebanon and Turkey because they are refugees, they have no home to go back to because the Assad forces have taken it back from the rebels and left destruction, or because either side has looted all their stuff + the loss of civilian life caught up in the civil war mess - which is only fuelled and exaggerated by the money the US has given the rebels to fight the Assad government.

 

And still the US donate millions and give weapons to the Syrian rebels, and then again tomorrow some will join ISIS because of the simple driven fact of money - and the politial commentators will criticise Putin for pressuring the West, and for 'attacking Syrian Rebels as well as ISIS' - And the violence will continue, Syrians civilians will die by Assad/Rebel collataral damage, they will lose their homes, they will flock to the camps, and some will head to Europe. And the US still donates millions, and gives weapons which some end up in to the hands of ISIS, again, and President Obama continues the rhetoric of ending the Assad regime.

 

Edit: Meanwhile we, Germany, France, USA, etc donate billions, literally billions of pounds to Humanitarian Aid because Obama and NATO are so driven by taking out the Assad government. 

[leicsmac]

I missed the first 10 minutes, but the rest it seemed noticebly in favour of Labour tbh. Same old Question Time. Disagreed completely with the panels views to Putin and Syria though, its becoming more and more clear that we (the UK) are just another thorn in NATO under poor strategic command from the US. This constant attack on Putin is increibly childish, and doesn't answer any of the questions Russia's military are asking. It's not about backing Assad or which side are you on? it's about taking out ISIS, if the Syrian 'moderater' rebels are getting in the way of that then i'm fully backing of Putin. 

 

This is something we need to do with Putin. USA are still thinking imperialistically, wanting to dominate as they have done so badly in the past. We criticise Putin for supporting his friend Assad, put aside the totalarianism for one moment and realise the wrongdoing NATO has actually created in the Arab countries, Iraq and Libya specifically; far worse, far far worse than the perceived human rights attrocities Assad's government has commited.

 

These MPs so critical of Putin really need to understand occam's razor, the Syrian rebels fighting Assad are mercenaries paid for by the highest bidder - which just so happens to be the US, if Russia paid the Syrian Rebels more, they wouldn't be fighting Assad's government (some still would ofcourse,) they would work to fight the real threat in Syria which is ISIS; don't you see MPs, the US has funded militants to fight Assad's army, just as they did with Libyan militants which cripled Libya just a few years ago to devestation. And on top of this delusional political policy the US has commited in the MidEast, the Syrian Rebels funded and trained by the US join ISIS the next day, because they pay even more. 

 

The US and NATO need to rise above it, let Putin handle the situation - then we can talk about the Assad governmental regime reforming. There's a major misconception by the average joe, that Mr. Johnny Foreigner is fleeing Syria just to get away from Assad, this isn't true at all - they're fleeing because of the civil war. They occupy camps in Lebanon and Turkey because they are refugees, they have no home to go back to because the Assad forces have taken it back from the rebels and left destruction, or because either side has looted all their stuff + the loss of civilian life caught up in the civil war mess - which is only fuelled and exaggerated by the money the US has given the rebels to fight the Assad government.

 

And still the US donate millions and give weapons to the Syrian rebels, and then again tomorrow some will join ISIS because of the simple driven fact of money - and the politial commentators will criticise Putin for pressuring the West, and for 'attacking Syrian Rebels as well as ISIS' - And the violence will continue, Syrians civilians will die by Assad/Rebel collataral damage, they will lose their homes, they will flock to the camps, and some will head to Europe. And the US still donates millions, and gives weapons which some end up in to the hands of ISIS, again, and President Obama continues the rhetoric of ending the Assad regime.

 

Edit: Meanwhile we, Germany, France, USA, etc donate billions, literally billions of pounds to Humanitarian Aid because Obama and NATO are so driven by taking out the Assad government. 

 

This is spot on. Unfortunately, the US (and by extension NATO) has to be seen supporting the rebels because hey, we can't be seen getting along with the Russians, can we? They're a bunch of dangerous commie wackjobs!

 

Realpolitik. Again.

 

In other news...

 

 

Context matters, ladies and gentlemen.

[Footballwipe]

Well it was an interesting experience, and I'll say it now but before we started the show the overriding impression I got from the audience was that they were quite a Conservative one, but as the recording began the applause clearly leaned towards Labour.

 

Everyone arrived between 6-6:30 and we were all sat down with a card to ask our second question. We had to e-mail the first over and write the second one on arrival. Behind us was the school's canteen and they had a smart-looking set of tables set up with red/white wine, cutlery etc ready for the cast and crew afterwards. Very swish.

 

It became instantly clear why it was so hard to get tickets for the event. The audience was teaming with Leicester Grammar School associated people, whether parents, staff or a few students. Apparently they had put on their blog that they could get tickets. Easily it seems!

 

David came into our holding pen about 6:45 and spent ten minutes talking through the show, what's going to happen and the dos and do nots, especially not leaving your hand up whilst talking! He seemed really quite stuttery when he was talking to us, but when he got going in the studio he was fine. We had to wait another 20 minutes before we could go into the studio.

 

Once shepherded in we sat as we came in, any conspiracies about putting certain political allegiances at the front or back didn't happen here, you sat as you arrived. The studio lights pointing at us are bright. After 2.5 hours in there I came out with them singed into my eyes! The floor manager talked us through what would happen and asked for five volunteers to act as panelists for the practice.

 

We debated who was responsible for childhood obesity for about 45 minutes I'd say. My god it was boring towards the end, there's only so long you can debate something before making the same point over and over and over again. After that the eight people whose questions had been selected were picked, went outside briefly and then came back. Meanwhile the panel came in and we did a practice question to get them warmed up, this was on whether pregnant women who smoke should be subject to the same sanctions as those smoking with kids in cars. The consensus was that it was pretty much unworkable all round.

 

Then the recording, we were asked to sit up like we'd just come in, and then away, David just launches into it. Introduce panel, applause, question. The hour flew by; there's a moment when David mentions they're 45 minutes in and I was genuinely like whaaa? at that point because I had no concept of time. The panel in the studio came across well. I don't agree with Melanie Phillips much at all but she makes her point eloquently and she doesn't barge in to counter points either. She was quite happy to make her point and leave it. 

 

I think the Labour MP got easy claps which is why it seems so pro Labour. I think it's very easy to attack the current government and say the right things. What doesn't help is when you have the likes of Patel, who doesn't seem very nice in the first place, trying to defend these things so badly. They make a hash of it and that means Labour can be on the offensive saying what can get claps. I still maintain that crowd was predominantly conservative leaning I just don't think they made themselves known during the show.

 

The the recording ended and we were turfed out, nothing more after that!

 

One interesting dynamic was the relationships between the MPs, you have Lisa and Priti laughing and joking beforehand, talking about Lisa's maternity leave, and the show starts and wham, they're at each other. Does go to show they won't have been glaring at each other after the show.

[Carl the Llama]

This is spot on. Unfortunately, the US (and by extension NATO) has to be seen supporting the rebels because hey, we can't be seen getting along with the Russians, can we? They're a bunch of dangerous commie wackjobs!

 

Realpolitik. Again.

 

In other news...

 

 

Context matters, ladies and gentlemen.

+1 for using Cameron's own "Corbyn loves Bin Laden" strategy against him.