Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[fuchsntf]

42 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.

 

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

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.

Share your science mate, educate and enlighten me.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

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.

I don't know what there is to not get your head around. Since Corbyn became leader the labour party had become the biggest party - in europe I believe. The vast majority of members support the move to the left and it is members who have voted for momentum backed candidates. It's an entirely democratic process. 

 

Selections are also conducted democratically at a local level so if what you can moderate candidates do not align with the members views they won't be selected.

 

Isn't that exactly how a party should run?

 

I'd be more interested in what alf thinks about it.

 

1 hour 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

 

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

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

 

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

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

Back to believing in polls eh?

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

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

 

Down from +28 and +34 respectively.

 

Seriously, Webbo, you've got more spin than Shane Warne.

[Guest]

 

[Strokes]

Just now, toddybad said:

 

OMG how awful. 

[Webbo]

12 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Down from +28 and +34 respectively.

 

Seriously, Webbo, you've got more spin than Shane Warne.

A 1 point lead overall after the year we've just had? Corbyn's peaked, he'll never be PM.

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

OMG how awful. 

 

Makes a mockery of the Tories' green credentials.

[The Doctor]

44 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.

Dubious. Gender and sex are a ****ing minefield to try and navigate and research as is, let alone having the gender for every day of the year crowd on one side, the "why can't I identify as an attack helicopter" lot on the other, both fighting to suppress any research that wouldn't or might not support them. But, state of play at the moment suggests being trans has a biological aspect at the very least. Looking mostly at neural imaging studies, which have generally suggested that transmen/women have brains with structural features more common in the gender they identify as than their natal sex. Not to say a bloke who identifies as a woman has a female brain in a male body, it's more a halfway house (and sexing a brain is also a difficult question, they're all mosaics of features, some of which are more common in one than the other), but it suggests at least there might be a neurological reason for it, not just a psychological one.

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

A 1 point lead overall after the year we've just had? Corbyn's peaked, he'll never be PM.

 

I believe that's called whistling in the dark, Webbo.

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Makes a mockery of the Tories' green credentials.

It’s never something that’s really bothered me, I burn oil daily. It needs to come from somewhere.

[Buce]

48 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It’s never something that’s really bothered me, I burn oil daily. It needs to come from somewhere.

 

Yeah, but it wasn't a policy aimed at people already sympathetic to Tory values - it was aimed at attracting votes from the younger generation, who are overwhelming supporting Labour. Just another Tory own goal.

[Rogstanley]

15 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Yeah, but it wasn't a policy aimed at people already sympathetic to Tory values - it was aimed at attracting votes from the younger generation, who are overwhelming supporting Labour. Just another Tory own goal.

If it had been a coal power station or fracking or something I’d be with you, but an oil well in the North Sea isn’t quite the same. With the greatest will in the world we’re not going to reduce demand for oil to zero overnight, and personally I’d rather it be coming from the North Sea than from the Middle East cartel. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

It’s never something that’s really bothered me, I burn oil daily. It needs to come from somewhere.

If you look at the UN reports we need to stop burning fossil fuels AT ALL very, very quickly.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

If it had been a coal power station or fracking or something I’d be with you, but an oil well in the North Sea isn’t quite the same. With the greatest will in the world we’re not going to reduce demand for oil to zero overnight, and personally I’d rather it be coming from the North Sea than from the Middle East cartel. 

As much as we usually agree with each other, it is clear that we cannot continue drilling. There isn't much time left to avert disaster and it should absolutely be the number one priority of our age.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, toddybad said:

If you look at the UN reports we need to stop burning fossil fuels AT ALL very, very quickly.

I wouldn't go that far, but yeah - using fossil fuels for power generation (as opposed to the synthesis of plastics etc which is a necessity for which they're required for now) is something that causes harm now and will cause more in the future - even if one flat-out denies that it doesn't contribute to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels (which, newsflash, it most likely does).

Edited 16 January 2018 by leicsmac

[Guest]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I wouldn't go that far, but yeah - using fossil fuels for power generation (as opposed to the synthesis of plastics etc which is a necessity for which they're required for now) is something that causes harm now and will cause more in the future - even if one flat-out denies that it doesn't contribute to increasing atmospheric CO@ levels (which, newsflash, it most likely does).

The latest predictions show we've got 20 years left. Don't be buying shares in shell...

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The latest predictions show we've got 20 years left. Don't be buying shares in shell...

Until what, exactly?

 

Reserves running out? A major climate shift - over what kind of scale?

 

I firmly believe that if we continue to burn fossil fuels as we are going there will be catastrophic changes in the future, but I wouldn't want to put a timeframe on them without a good margin of error, and more information is needed as to the specifics of the change before we can make predictions of that type IMO.

[Strokes]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Until what, exactly?

 

Reserves running out? A major climate shift - over what kind of scale?

 

I firmly believe that if we continue to burn fossil fuels as we are going there will be catastrophic changes in the future, but I wouldn't want to put a timeframe on them without a good margin of error, and more information is needed as to the specifics of the change before we can make predictions of that type IMO.

It’s the hard sun 

[Buce]

 

The Nasty Party is alive and well (just in case there was any doubt):

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42712180

[Guest]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Until what, exactly?

 

Reserves running out? A major climate shift - over what kind of scale?

 

I firmly believe that if we continue to burn fossil fuels as we are going there will be catastrophic changes in the future, but I wouldn't want to put a timeframe on them without a good margin of error, and more information is needed as to the specifics of the change before we can make predictions of that type IMO.

The U.N. Reports do exactly this. Just because you haven't read them doesn't mean this work hasn't been done. It's all enshrined in the psris accord. We've literally 20-30 years I think it is of burning left at the current rate.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/

 

Edited 17 January 2018 by Guest

[Rogstanley]

47 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The U.N. Reports do exactly this. Just because you haven't read them doesn't mean this work hasn't been done. It's all enshrined in the psris accord. We've literally 20-30 years I think it is of burning left at the current rate.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/

 

20-30 years is a long time. Oil is used mostly for vehicles and most vehicles will be electric before then. In the meantime there is a need for oil and i'd rather it came from the north sea than the middle East.

[Fox Ulike]

15 hours 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.

 

You can't just say "I'm right cos of science."

 

What science?!

 

 

 

[Fox Ulike]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

The Nasty Party is alive and well (just in case there was any doubt):

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42712180

I don't think there's anything nasty to what Bradley says:

 

"Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can't afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free," his post read.

"Families who have never worked a day in their lives having four or five kids and the rest of us having one or two means it's not long before we're drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters that we pay to keep!"

 

It's hard not to agree with that. I think he should have stuck to his guns.

[Guest MattP]

7 hours ago, Buce said:

The Nasty Party is alive and well (just in case there was any doubt):

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42712180

Oh come on, it's not 2006, you might even have got away with this comment in the Miliband years but it's laughable in 2018 to throw this around.

 

Labour currently has a member of parliament suspended for violent sexist and homophobic comments, scores of members up and down the country being investigated for everything from anti-semitism to racism and has a shadow chancellor prepared to stand on a stage and repeat comments about lynching female members of the government.

 

If the Tories are "The Nasty Party" god knows what word you'll need to come up with for the current opposition.