Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[davieG]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/racist-hate-crimes-surge-to-record-high-after-brexit-vote-new-figures-reveal-a7829551.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/11/uk-has-seen-brexit-related-growth-in-racism-says-un-representative

 

 

Probably a lot down to people being encouraged to report them likewise sex crimes and being taken seriously.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/racist-hate-crimes-surge-to-record-high-after-brexit-vote-new-figures-reveal-a7829551.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/11/uk-has-seen-brexit-related-growth-in-racism-says-un-representative

Terrible.

 

Was never any racism before Brexit. Or anti-semitism in political parties. 

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

Probably a lot down to people being encouraged to report them likewise sex crimes and being taken seriously.

One theft of a bicycle was reported as a hate crime.

 

Pinch of salt springs to mind when talking about these figures.

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, davieG said:

Probably a lot down to people being encouraged to report them likewise sex crimes and being taken seriously.

They are also being recorded differently, whereas before a certain amount of evidence was needed before it was registered a racially motivated crime. Now, so long as the victim feels it was racially motivated, that is enough.

Edited 15 July 2018 by Strokes

[Buce]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

They are also being recorded differently, whereas before a certain amount of evidence was needed before it was registered a racially motivated crime. Now, so long as the victim feels it was racially motivated, that is enough.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that's been the case for longer than a couple of years, Strokes.

 

As a point of fact, I think it can even be registered as a hate crime if an observer feels it was, not just the victim.

 

Edit: Taken from CAB.

 

The police and Crown Prosecution Service have agreed a common definition of hate incidents.

They say something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on one of the following things:

• disability
• race
• religion
• transgender identity
• sexual orientation.

This means that if you believe something is a hate incident it should be recorded as such by the person you are reporting it to. All police forces record hate incidents based on these five personal characteristics.

Edited 15 July 2018 by Buce

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

I'm pretty sure that's been the case for longer than a couple of years, Strokes.

 

As a point of fact, I think it can even be registered as a hate crime if an observer feels it was, not just the victim.

 

Edit: Taken from CAB.

 

The police and Crown Prosecution Service have agreed a common definition of hate incidents.

They say something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on one of the following things:

• disability
• race
• religion
• transgender identity
• sexual orientation.

This means that if you believe something is a hate incident it should be recorded as such by the person you are reporting it to. All police forces record hate incidents based on these five personal characteristics.

 

I don’t know when it was changed, it began with it in 2008 and has broadened it’s definions regularly ever since. The police have a website called true vision or it might be police-funded, that allows anyone anywhere to report something they either experienced or witnessed, anonymously if they like. No evidence is needed. Everything is instantly logged as a hate crime. I don’t know how this all can be taken seriously.

 

People were so desperate to link any crime or incident after the referendum to brexit it was warped.

[Buce]

9 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I don’t know when it was changed, it began with it in 2008 and has broadened it’s definions regularly ever since. The police have a website called true vision or it might be police-funded, that allows anyone anywhere to report something they either experienced or witnessed, anonymously if they like. No evidence is needed. Everything is instantly logged as a hate crime. I don’t know how this all can be taken seriously.

1

 

Yeah, I broadly agree with that.

 

Anything that shifts the burden of proof to the accused is against everything that the British justice system is based on.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Strokes said:

 

People were so desperate to link any crime or incident after the referendum to brexit it was warped.

 

While I agree that we need to be careful with statistics, I think certain sections of society have been emboldened by Brexit, (though I accept that these people were always there and not created by Brexit, which I think is what you're saying).

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Yeah, I broadly agree with that.

 

Anything that shifts the burden of proof to the accused is against everything that the British justice system is based on.

 

 

 

While I agree that we need to be careful with statistics, I think certain sections of society have been emboldened by Brexit, (though I accept that these people were always there and not created by Brexit, which I think is what you're saying).

Pretty much....

 

Its like if football fans kick off and cause mayhem or sing a racist/homophobic song. It’s not a representation of us because we follow football and we wouldn’t back them even if they followed the same team or drank in the same pub.

Its not footballs fault, it’s not our fault and it’s not the victims fault. It’s the perpetrator, they take the whole blame 100%, no deflections, no justification.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Terrible.

 

Was never any racism before Brexit. Or anti-semitism in political parties. 

Or islamophobia which isn't properly dealt with.

[Alf Bentley]

New Statesman reckons that opposition to May's Chequers Plan in Tory ranks now extends way beyond the Hard Brexit hardcore.

It concludes that May could well now face defeat on legislation this week (the last before summer recess) - and an immediate leadership challenge: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/07/tory-civil-war-now-inevitable

 

The first phase of a leadership challenge (the one triggered by the 48 letters from MPs) is simply a confidence vote in her leadership.

In theory, if she wins that (still quite likely, I'd imagine), she can stay on without a leadership contest for 12 months.

However, someone on Marr this morning (Amanda Platell?) was suggesting that she'd have to go if more than 100 MPs voted "no confidence" in her, even if she won the vote.

I've no idea whether that's true. But it's roughly what happened with the overthrow of Thatcher, wasn't it? She won the first party vote but not by enough to stay on.

 

If May went, in theory the MPs could agree on a new leader to replace her without it having to go to the party membership (as happened when May became leader). 

But that seems massively unlikely. There would surely be at least 2 candidates (at the very least a Hard Brexit/No Deal candidate and a compromise candidate - not sure the Remainers would put anyone up, as they know they'd lose a membership vote).

 

It would surely be impossible for the party to complete a membership vote before September? The membership would almost certainly support a Hard Brexit/No Deal candidate.

Thus, with the final deal due to be done in 3 months time, we could spend the next 2 months with a deposed lame duck PM (May) or an acting PM (Lidington?) and no agreed policy on Brexit.

Just 4-5 weeks before the final deal is due, we could then have a new PM, probably seeking a Hard Brexit deal or ready to walk away with No Deal.....whose policy will then be rejected by Parliament as soon as it is presented in Oct/Nov!

 

Where the hell that will lead us, I'm not sure: Possibly heading for No Deal, but with the govt collapsing and a December general election, change of govt without an election or even a parliament-ordered second referendum?!?

What a mess, if that happens....

[Guest]

15 hours ago, davieG said:

Probably a lot down to people being encouraged to report them likewise sex crimes and being taken seriously.

 

15 hours ago, Strokes said:

They are also being recorded differently, whereas before a certain amount of evidence was needed before it was registered a racially motivated crime. Now, so long as the victim feels it was racially motivated, that is enough.

 

This was the outcome of the McPherson enquiry folllwing the Stephen Lawrence murder. So what the figures are telling us is that, since Brexit, more people believe they have been subject to race crime. The threshold for that crime is really irrelevant, more people feel they are being discriminated against. I'm not sure that should be so easily ignored just because it doesn't suit people's agenda.

 

9 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

New Statesman reckons that opposition to May's Chequers Plan in Tory ranks now extends way beyond the Hard Brexit hardcore.

It concludes that May could well now face defeat on legislation this week (the last before summer recess) - and an immediate leadership challenge: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/07/tory-civil-war-now-inevitable

 

The first phase of a leadership challenge (the one triggered by the 48 letters from MPs) is simply a confidence vote in her leadership.

In theory, if she wins that (still quite likely, I'd imagine), she can stay on without a leadership contest for 12 months.

However, someone on Marr this morning (Amanda Platell?) was suggesting that she'd have to go if more than 100 MPs voted "no confidence" in her, even if she won the vote.

I've no idea whether that's true. But it's roughly what happened with the overthrow of Thatcher, wasn't it? She won the first party vote but not by enough to stay on.

 

If May went, in theory the MPs could agree on a new leader to replace her without it having to go to the party membership (as happened when May became leader). 

But that seems massively unlikely. There would surely be at least 2 candidates (at the very least a Hard Brexit/No Deal candidate and a compromise candidate - not sure the Remainers would put anyone up, as they know they'd lose a membership vote).

 

It would surely be impossible for the party to complete a membership vote before September? The membership would almost certainly support a Hard Brexit/No Deal candidate.

Thus, with the final deal due to be done in 3 months time, we could spend the next 2 months with a deposed lame duck PM (May) or an acting PM (Lidington?) and no agreed policy on Brexit.

Just 4-5 weeks before the final deal is due, we could then have a new PM, probably seeking a Hard Brexit deal or ready to walk away with No Deal.....whose policy will then be rejected by Parliament as soon as it is presented in Oct/Nov!

 

Where the hell that will lead us, I'm not sure: Possibly heading for No Deal, but with the govt collapsing and a December general election, change of govt without an election or even a parliament-ordered second referendum?!?

What a mess, if that happens....

The biggest question is whether TM can be defeated in a vote of no confidence. Everybody knows the membership will go for a true believer in a hard Brexit so remainer/soft Brexit MPs are likely to be reticent to see her lose. Who knows what will happen?

 

I can certainly see any deal being voted down at this point as it seems no one camp can command enough MPs. There's a majority against no deal/hard Brexit bit not a majority for any other position either.

 

Justin Greening had now come out to suggest that the people may need a second vote as MPs will likely be unable to reach a decision themselves. It seems the most likely outcome at this point though I suppose that may be me hoping for it. A potential three option vote with no deal/ accept the deal / remain as the options. 

Edited 16 July 2018 by Guest

[Sharpe's Fox]

To avoid another referendum or Mays disasterclass deal the only way for the Tory right is to support another general election with their candidate in charge. Opposition parties and 100 Tories support get through FTPA, GE in November, Labour win 150 seats, badda bing badda boom full communism. Don McJohnnell gotdamn you've done it again

Edited 16 July 2018 by Sharpe's Fox

[Webbo]

How many Labour mps support brexit? Maybe 2or3% , Corbyns Brown shirts certainly dont. If Labour get in brexit finished..

[Carl the Llama]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How many Labour mps support brexit? Maybe 2or3% , Corbyns Brown shirts certainly dont. If Labour get in brexit finished..

I thought Corbyn and his cronies were pro-Brexit? 

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I thought Corbyn and his cronies were pro-Brexit? 

Corbyn is, momentum isnt.

[Carl the Llama]

17 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Corbyn is, momentum isnt.

Oh ok.  Tbh I hope the current 'plan' does get downvoted, it's literally just remain minus the benefits of being a member with any say on policy.

[Buce]

 

What a fvcking mess.

 

Cameron's decision to hold a referendum will surely go down as the worst political decision in history.

[Guest]

A small win in the referendum coupled with a minority government suggests the public are as split as parliament. 

 

It's certainly been the most divisive vote of all time and could yet cause all manner of social breakdowns.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

I don't think everyone can ever be happy.

 

Its pretty much 50%/50 split on leave remain, and like people have said the referendum at no point took into account what kind of leave people wanted. 

 

I think Greening is probably about right:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

 

38 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

What a fvcking mess.

 

Cameron's decision to hold a referendum will surely go down as the worst political decision in history.

The EU Could have made some relatively simple reforms, Cameron could have then sold his reforms as a 'win' to the electorate and this may have been enough to swing the vote. 

 

The EU is as much at fault here for being unable to reform or make compromise in any way shape or form. 

 

They are still in that frame of mind now, whether or not a deal is made is much dependant upon whether national governments support/demand a trade deal to protect their exports.

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I don't think everyone can ever be happy.

 

Its pretty much 50%/50 split on leave remain, and like people have said the referendum at no point took into account what kind of leave people wanted. 

 

I think Greening is probably about right:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

 

The EU Could have made some relatively simple reforms, Cameron could have then sold his reforms as a 'win' to the electorate and this may have been enough to swing the vote. 

 

The EU is as much at fault here for being unable to reform or make compromise in any way shape or form. 

 

They are still in that frame of mind now, whether or not a deal is made is much dependant upon whether national governments support/demand a trade deal to protect their exports.

 

That kinda misses the point, though.

 

If he hadn't have called the referendum, he wouldn't have needed to have sold it at all.

[davieG]

Politics world wide is a mess.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

That kinda misses the point, though.

 

If he hadn't have called the referendum, he wouldn't have needed to have sold it at all.

I think he wanted to try and see the demise of UKIP, which obviously with this promise he did for a period.

 

We probably should have had a referendum on whether to accept the Lisbon Treaty as that was really what has caused all of this and the rise of UKIP anyway.

 

It is no surprise to see UKIP % rising in the polls again due to the apparent 'soft' Brexit being proposed. The only thing I am baffled on is how Labour vote is holding up as they are absolutely trashing the wishes of their voter base in the North.

Edited 16 July 2018 by Foxin_mad

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, davieG said:

Politics world wide is a mess.

Pretty much this. Which is rather worrying, really. Misunderstandings between nations and within nations rarely end well.

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I think he wanted to try and see the demise of UKIP, which obviously with this promise he did for a period.

 

We probably should have had a referendum on whether to accept the Lisbon Treaty as that was really what has caused all of this and the rise of UKIP anyway.

 

It is no surprise to see UKIP % rising in the polls again due to the apparent 'soft' Brexit being proposed. The only thing I am baffled on is how Labour vote is holding up as they are absolutely trashing the wishes of their voter base in the North.

 

 

 

I posted something a while back which pretty much exposed this as a myth. or at the very least, highly exaggerated.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

I posted something a while back which pretty much exposed this as a myth. or at the very least, highly exaggerated.

I would be interested to see this as I cant see how it is to be honest.

 

I live in Stoke, 70% of people here voted Leave, this is one of the safest Labour seats in the country. I can see their reasons for voting Leave, I cant really see their reason other than tribal for voting Labour.