Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

Of course not, all the experts said it would raise taxes for everybody once that fantasy you could hammer rich bogeyman and business evaporated. 

I'm less than convinced that the tax rises proposed were anything even slightly akin to 'hammering' business. 

 

The experts also discredited the tory plan. And the Tories have failed to meet their spending targets pretty much ever.

[Kopfkino]

Good little R4 mini-series by Steve Richards on The Cameron Years. 2 episodes so far and the final one on Monday. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09kxt2g

 

As much as I believe Brexit can be better for us long-term (will require the miracle of May doing her best to not **** something up) I do wish it had never happened. Aside from being politically homeless as a result of Cameron's departure, we would be motoring along quite nicely with top growth levels still, wages would have picked up, government would be strong, Corbyn still a no-go. We'd be over halfway through the parliament and attention would likely have turned to who would be Cameron's successor. Things would certainly have been a damn-site more interesting.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/transgender-woman-woman-shortlist-labour-1063476

 

What do the Labour members on here think of this?

 

Can see this causing some arguments between traditional feminists and the new left.

I'm no Labour member, but good for her - and good to see Labour offering representation from a demographic that is representative of somewhere between 1 in 500 and 1 in 1000 people in the UK. There will probably be some arguments, but the TERF's can think what they like. 

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/transgender-woman-woman-shortlist-labour-1063476

 

What do the Labour members on here think of this?

 

Can see this causing some arguments between traditional feminists and the new left.

 

"Intensely relaxed", to quote Mandelson. Also interested to read that there were several trans candidates at the General Election, which I didn't realise. Good. Parliament needs a wider range of people with different experiences so long as they're up to the job. At first, I thought that Labour had set up an all trans shortlist, which would have been a step too far.

 

Anyone in Rushcliffe Labour who doesn't approve can vote for one of the other candidates. A few people might disapprove, just as I'm sure some Tories disapprove of their party having gay and lesbian MPs. I'd hope that most people will judge the candidates on their individual merits. Doesn't sound as if she's standing as "the trans candidate" if she mainly campaigned on an anti-Brexit ticket, which is good. Reading between the lines, my guess is that the other woman who highlights her support for the party manifesto is the favourite - effectively announcing that she's the Corbynista candidate, I presume.

 

The article says that the winner will "stand against Clarke", but I assumed he'd be standing down? He planned to stand down in 2020 until the early election was called, didn't he? I suppose he'd stand again if Brexit was still up in the air, but would surely retire by 2022 if the parliament runs its full term. Brexit will have been decided by then, one way or another, surely? Labour might have a chance in Rushcliffe when he stands down. I'm sure he has a big personal vote and it's the sort of liberal middle-class / university seat where Labour has been making big inroads recently......though a lot could change by 2022.

Edited 16 January 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

"Intensely relaxed", to quote Mandelson. Also interested to read that there were several trans candidates at the General Election, which I didn't realise. Good. Parliament needs a wider range of people with different experiences so long as they're up to the job. At first, I thought that Labour had set up an all trans shortlist, which would have been a step too far.

 

Anyone in Rushcliffe Labour who doesn't approve can vote for one of the other candidates. A few people might disapprove, just as I'm sure some Tories disapprove of their party having gay and lesbian MPs. I'd hope that most people will judge the candidates on their individual merits. Doesn't sound as if she's standing as "the trans candidate" if she mainly campaigned on an anti-Brexit ticket, which is good. Reading between the lines, my guess is that the other woman who highlights her support for the party manifesto is the favourite - effectively announcing that she's the Corbynista candidate, I presume.

 

The article says that the winner will "stand against Clarke", but I assumed he'd be standing down? He planned to stand down in 2020 until the early election was called, didn't he? I suppose he'd stand again if Brexit was still up in the air, but would surely retire by 2022 if the parliament runs its full term. Brexit will have been decided by then, one way or another, surely? Labour might have a chance in Rushcliffe when he stands down. I'm sure he has a big personal vote and it's the sort of liberal middle-class / university seat where Labour has been making big inroads recently......though a lot could change by 

http://www.lbc.co.uk//radio/presenters/shelagh-fogarty/shelagh-fogarty-takes-aim-at-paul-mason-momentum/

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

"Intensely relaxed", to quote Mandelson. Also interested to read that there were several trans candidates at the General Election, which I didn't realise. Good. Parliament needs a wider range of people with different experiences so long as they're up to the job. At first, I thought that Labour had set up an all trans shortlist, which would have been a step too far.

 

Anyone in Rushcliffe Labour who doesn't approve can vote for one of the other candidates. A few people might disapprove, just as I'm sure some Tories disapprove of their party having gay and lesbian MPs. I'd hope that most people will judge the candidates on their individual merits. Doesn't sound as if she's standing as "the trans candidate" if she mainly campaigned on an anti-Brexit ticket, which is good. Reading between the lines, my guess is that the other woman who highlights her support for the party manifesto is the favourite - effectively announcing that she's the Corbynista candidate, I presume.

 

The article says that the winner will "stand against Clarke", but I assumed he'd be standing down? He planned to stand down in 2020 until the early election was called, didn't he? I suppose he'd stand again if Brexit was still up in the air, but would surely retire by 2022 if the parliament runs its full term. Brexit will have been decided by then, one way or another, surely? Labour might have a chance in Rushcliffe when he stands down. I'm sure he has a big personal vote and it's the sort of liberal middle-class / university seat where Labour has been making big inroads recently......though a lot could change by 2022.

Agree completely on the last bit, middle class areas are now swinging towards Labour and working class ones will head towards the Tories - fully expect that to continue. Seats like Rushcliffe are exactly why the Tories have to get Brexit done and dusted by the time of the next election. 

 

The trans issue is a baffling one for me, people born as men in parliament claiming to be women is something I'll never get my head around and it's not really something I want to get my head around. People can identify as what they like but the can't expect everyone to get behind something that goes against science.

 

I'll bet good money the places these people stand will be politically motivated though, you won't see them up in Bradford West.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, Strokes said:

http://www.lbc.co.uk//radio/presenters/shelagh-fogarty/shelagh-fogarty-takes-aim-at-paul-mason-momentum/

This guy used to be a political researcher for the BBC. Let that sink in. Imagine someone ever being as far right as he is far left having worked in politics for the impartial state broadcaster. Would be uproar.

 

He's a complete nutjob from what I've seen and heard, a video of him earlier was on my timeline ranting about deselections. 

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

http://www.lbc.co.uk//radio/presenters/shelagh-fogarty/shelagh-fogarty-takes-aim-at-paul-mason-momentum/

 

Difficult to judge this situation without hearing a recording of Mason's call.

 

What she says is quite believable, though. I've seen Mason get quite aggressive and paranoid in TV interviews once or twice. That's a shame, as he's an intelligent bloke with interesting things to say, even if I don't agree with all of them - and he's not entirely uncritical of Corbyn, either.

 

I agree with her point that the Corbynistas winning the NEC elections IS worthy of discussion....so long as that isn't all that is discussed. If that's one issue up for debate, alongside Labour's policies, Tory policies, that's fine and Mason is wrong to object, assuming he did. 

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Difficult to judge this situation without hearing a recording of Mason's call.

 

What she says is quite believable, though. I've seen Mason get quite aggressive and paranoid in TV interviews once or twice. That's a shame, as he's an intelligent bloke with interesting things to say, even if I don't agree with all of them - and he's not entirely uncritical of Corbyn, either.

 

I agree with her point that the Corbynistas winning the NEC elections IS worthy of discussion....so long as that isn't all that is discussed. If that's one issue up for debate, alongside Labour's policies, Tory policies, that's fine and Mason is wrong to object, assuming he did. 

It will only get more interesting.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/momentum-director-labour-discipline-committee-christine-shawcroft-nec-elections-jeremy-corbyn-anti-a8161906.html

 

This doesn't surprise me, soon as they control this they can end all the suspensions etc for a lot of the momentum activists who are banned because of Twitter comments, anti-semitism etc - anyone will any sense can surely see a body like this should be neutral? 

 

Expect a few moderates to be strung up quite quickly as the first warning. Galloway surely going to be back in at some point as well.

Edited 16 January 2018 by MattP

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

Agree completely on the last bit, middle class areas are now swinging towards Labour and working class ones will head towards the Tories - fully expect that to continue. Seats like Rushcliffe are exactly why the Tories have to get Brexit done and dusted by the time of the next election. 

 

The trans issue is a baffling one for me, people born as men in parliament claiming to be women is something I'll never get my head around and it's not really something I want to get my head around. People can identify as what they like but the can't expect everyone to get behind something that goes against science.

 

I'll bet good money the places these people stand will be politically motivated though, you won't see them up in Bradford West.

Agree that the standings would be politically motivated - of course they're going to be, I wish they weren't but that's obvs going to be the case.

 

I know you've said that you don't really want to get your head round it more, but the whole trans issue is a lot more nuanced than the kind of essentialism you speak of here - but I'll leave it at that.

[Guest MattP]

On the removal of Black, they are so brazen now they openly talk about it on Facebook - it will happen within days.

[Strokes]

14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Difficult to judge this situation without hearing a recording of Mason's call.

 

What she says is quite believable, though. I've seen Mason get quite aggressive and paranoid in TV interviews once or twice. That's a shame, as he's an intelligent bloke with interesting things to say, even if I don't agree with all of them - and he's not entirely uncritical of Corbyn, either.

 

I agree with her point that the Corbynistas winning the NEC elections IS worthy of discussion....so long as that isn't all that is discussed. If that's one issue up for debate, alongside Labour's policies, Tory policies, that's fine and Mason is wrong to object, assuming he did. 

Sorry Alf I don’t know why i quoted you on that post.

Yeah I heard it this afternoon on the radio and thought it sounded odd, so thought I would share. Until today I had never even heard of him tbh.

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

On the removal of Black, they are so brazen now they openly talk about it on Facebook - it will happen within days.

Edit, it’s alright I can read it now.

Edited 16 January 2018 by Strokes

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It’s not coming up very well on my phone Matt, any chance of a brief summary of what’s being said?

Basically a person demanding they step up efforts to remove her.

 

Then Jackie Walker (she was suspended from the party herself for anti-semitism) saying not to attack individuals but the system, which basically reads as we'll get it done but lets not attack individuals or name names as we'll be seen to be victimising.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Basically a person demanding they step up efforts to remove her.

 

Then Jackie Walker (she was suspended from the party herself for anti-semitism) saying not to attack individuals but the system, which basically reads as we'll get it done but lets not attack individuals or name names as we'll be seen to be victimising.

Kinder, gentler.......

 

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Kinder, gentler.......

 

I'm actually a bit behind, she was ousted a couple of hours ago and already getting down to overturning some referrals of antisemitism. (If you believe the source)

 

They are bloody efficient, I'll give them that.

Edited 16 January 2018 by MattP

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

The trans issue is a baffling one for me, people born as men in parliament claiming to be women is something I'll never get my head around and it's not really something I want to get my head around. People can identify as what they like but the can't expect everyone to get behind something that goes against science.

 

I'll bet good money the places these people stand will be politically motivated though, you won't see them up in Bradford West.

 

I'm not very knowledgeable about the whole transgender issue, but don't find it baffling. As I understand it, it's all about gender not being purely physical, but partly psychological. If someone says they were born physically male but feel female, see themselves as female and would like others to do so (or vice-versa), I don't see why anyone else should have a problem with that - except in some utterly exceptional case where someone was a fraud and was doing it for the purpose of self-advancement. 

 

I'm sure you're right about Bradford West. Likewise, I'm sure the Tories wouldn't stand a gay/lesbian candidate there. Maybe both parties should challenge such prejudice (which wouldn't be universal in Bradford, anyway)? But they'd know they risked losing the seat. That probably happened to the Tories in 1992 when John Taylor (black Tory) stood in Cheltenham, a very white Con/LD marginal and narrowly lost the seat, though a majority of Tories voted for him. All parties generally shy away from standing candidates who would alienate part of their support base in a marginal seat, don't they, even if that alienation is due to bigotry?

 

Mind you, there are good reasons for such decisions as well as bad ones. It makes sense to select a candidate who will suit the social make-up of a constituency - or to whom the electorate will be able to relate, even if he/she is a different class, race or whatever. A more valid criticism of Labour would be over them standing very middle-class candidates in very working-class seats, I think (same probably applies to Tories).

 

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

This guy used to be a political researcher for the BBC. Let that sink in. Imagine someone ever being as far right as he is far left having worked in politics for the impartial state broadcaster. Would be uproar.

 

He's a complete nutjob from what I've seen and heard, a video of him earlier was on my timeline ranting about deselections. 

 

I have to disagree with this, although I'd admit that as an interviewee he can get excessively irate, even a bit paranoid - a shame as he's an intelligent and thoughtful commentator when he keeps calm.

 

He wasn't just a researcher at the BBC, he was Economics Editor for Newsnight - and a very good one. I'd have probably guessed that he was left-of-centre, just as I'd have guessed that Andrew Neil was right-of-centre, but he certainly wasn't a ranting nutjob back then. He was a measured, thoughtful analyst and quite prepared to give analysis detrimental to the Left, as I recall.

[Webbo]

Something for both sides in this;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/16/brexit-boris-johnson-condemned-for-escalating-discredited-claim-about-saving-uk-350m-per-week-politics-live?page=with:block-5a5dddcfe4b0cb50d2972172#block-5a5dddcfe4b0cb50d2972172

[Buce]

27 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Something for both sides in this;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/16/brexit-boris-johnson-condemned-for-escalating-discredited-claim-about-saving-uk-350m-per-week-politics-live?page=with:block-5a5dddcfe4b0cb50d2972172#block-5a5dddcfe4b0cb50d2972172

 

As I read it there is nothing there for the Tories - every single question shows a swing towards Labour since last year.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

As I read it there is nothing there for the Tories - every single question shows a swing towards Labour since last year.

12 point lead on the economy, 16 point lead on brexit, no movement on the NHS despite all the negative publicity.

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

 

The trans issue is a baffling one for me, people born as men in parliament claiming to be women is something I'll never get my head around and it's not really something I want to get my head around. People can identify as what they like but the can't expect everyone to get behind something that goes against science.

History will certainly judge comments like the above with the same disdain enlightened society judges homophobia and racism today, but fair play for admitting that your mind is effectively closed to new ideas, that makes your opinion a lot easier to disregard.

[fuchsntf]

4 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

Good little R4 mini-series by Steve Richards on The Cameron Years. 2 episodes so far and the final one on Monday. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09kxt2g

 

As much as I believe Brexit can be better for us long-term (will require the miracle of May doing her best to not **** something up) I do wish it had never happened. Aside from being politically homeless as a result of Cameron's departure, we would be motoring along quite nicely with top growth levels still, wages would have picked up, government would be strong, Corbyn still a no-go. We'd be over halfway through the parliament and attention would likely have turned to who would be Cameron's successor. Things would certainly have been a damn-site more interesting.

The problem for many generations..is they wont see > can be better <   because long term, is a longway off.

[Guest MattP]

19 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

History will certainly judge comments like the above with the same disdain enlightened society judges homophobia and racism today, but fair play for admitting that your mind is effectively closed to new ideas, that makes your opinion a lot easier to disregard.

No problem, history is written by the winners. Although I think liberal societies will only get smaller as globalisation takes hold so not sure you'll be right, neither of us will ever know though. We'll all be barbarians anyway for some reason in 500 years, for things we wouldn't even consider now.

   

The issues are totally different mind so you are wrong, I have science behind me on this one. I have no problem with people identifying as whatever gender they but biologically and scientifically being born what we consider a man will never make you a woman, you won't ever be born what we define as the male with a womb and even man made progression can never change that no matter how desperate you might be to do so. I'm right behind the feminists on this one.

 

Homophobia and Racism are so so different to that, they never had widespread biological backing that the opposition to the trans lobby will always have. They had a few cranks who went on about smaller brains etc - we have millions of years of evolution.

[Guest MattP]

50 minutes ago, Webbo said:

12 point lead on the economy, 16 point lead on brexit, no movement on the NHS despite all the negative publicity.

Who still actually backs Labour on the economy when their own ministers openly describe it as "shit or bust"? FFS.

[Rogstanley]

18 minutes ago, MattP said:

No problem, history is written by the winners. Although I think liberal societies will only get smaller as globalisation takes hold so not sure you'll be right, neither of us will ever know though. We'll all be barbarians anyway for some reason in 500 years, for things we wouldn't even consider now.

   

The issues are totally different mind so you are wrong, I have science behind me on this one. I have no problem with people identifying as whatever gender they but biologically and scientifically being born what we consider a man will never make you a woman, you won't ever be born what we define as the male with a womb and even man made progression can never change that no matter how desperate you might be to do so. I'm right behind the feminists on this one.

 

Homophobia and Racism are so so different to that, they never had widespread biological backing that the opposition to the trans lobby will always have. They had a few cranks who went on about smaller brains etc - we have millions of years of evolution.

I’m quite sure it could be explained to you that your application of ‘science’ there is so simplistic as to be laughable, but since you’ve said you’ve no interest in hearing or attempting to understand new or different views of any sort then there’s not really any point.

Edited 16 January 2018 by Rogstanley