Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

48 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

When it gets serious...!!!!! I said.

I hope for some reshuffling....

She was shadow Home Secretary when they were campaigning to be elected in the last General Election. That’s about as serious as it gets.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

Re the gay cake thing, why didn't the bakery just make a really really awful cake, spelling mistakes on it etc.

They would've done their bit, the person buying it would've been angry, probably got their money back and gone elsewhere and it wouldn't have been a story.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I'd ignore anyone who accuses you of having white privilege unless you are off to Eton or inheriting the Dorchester or something, for a start the worst performing children in schools now are the poorest white boys, we have huge problems with wealth privledge in the country, but very little is now based on race.

It's weird to be honest, the white privilege argument is now almost solely the groupthink of the middle classes to show how much more virtuous they are than (often, far poorer) white people, kind of like a weird 2018 PC version of White Power. Many see victimhood as a new way to exert power, don't fall for it.

2

It isn't really a thing in the UK, true - class and money play much more of a part.

 

Where the term was coined, however (the US, obvs), it most certainly is a thing as the dividing lines there are still very stark, even though money has its own part to play there too - so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the whole concept out of hand.

[fuchsntf]

26 minutes ago, Strokes said:

She was shadow Home Secretary when they were campaigning to be elected in the last General Election. That’s about as serious as it gets.

Serious question ...??   

I am not on the home front...could she be a politician in cabinett,that would stop,a lot of would be socialists supporting labour...??

 

She's dropped some clangers of late, in fact over the last few years,and way off form and Bground knowledge and somewhat dithering naive ,when on political panels/shows.

In the early and middle years, she was an honest upfront irritant,fought on some good issues...(not all)

Now...I haven't liked what I have seen before and during the Brexit campaign....

 

The horror of it..B.Johnson pm,   Abbot honourable leader of the opposition!!!  Or visa-versa!

If the British public went for that...I'd go to Tibet and succomb to the teachings of a honourable Lama.

 

 

 

 

[Strokes]

28 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

Serious question ...??   

I am not on the home front...could she be a politician in cabinett,that would stop,a lot of would be socialists supporting labour...??

 

She's dropped some clangers of late, in fact over the last few years,and way off form and Bground knowledge and somewhat dithering naive ,when on political panels/shows.

In the early and middle years, she was an honest upfront irritant,fought on some good issues...(not all)

Now...I haven't liked what I have seen before and during the Brexit campaign....

 

The horror of it..B.Johnson pm,   Abbot honourable leader of the opposition!!!  Or visa-versa!

If the British public went for that...I'd go to Tibet and succomb to the teachings of a honourable Lama.

 

 

 

 

No offence mate but I’ve no idea how to answer that.

 

She is well past her sell by date and should be nowhere near a position of power but standing against the worst government of living memory, appears to be the worst opposition of living memory.

British politics is a complete shambles.

 

 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

It isn't really a thing in the UK, true - class and money play much more of a part.

 

Where the term was coined, however (the US, obvs), it most certainly is a thing as the dividing lines there are still very stark, even though money has its own part to play there too - so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the whole concept out of hand.

I think that’s a fair comment.

I often wonder if groups are battling for equal opportunities for all or just better standing for themselves/their own group..

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

I think that’s a fair comment.

I often wonder if groups are battling for equal opportunities for all or just better standing for themselves/their own group..

That's a massive question, and there would be big interest in the answer.

 

I'd like to hope that there are at least some parties out there who are interested in equality of opportunity in terms of power, rather than merely more power for them and theirs. Otherwise, it's all just going to be a giant game of Tyrant Roulette in perpetuity with a fresh spin every so often.

 

[fuchsntf]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

No offence mate but I’ve no idea how to answer that.

 

She is well past her sell by date and should be nowhere near a position of power but standing against the worst government of living memory, appears to be the worst opposition of living memory.

British politics is a complete shambles.

 

 

Looking from the outside in,though from an expats angle...I couldn't agree more...

[Guest Foxin_mad]

She is a Socialist though, so I imagine Socialists would love her misguided ways and financial incompetence. Really you have to be financially incompetent to be a Socialist anyway.  Socialist economics is to give more away than you earn in your weekly wage then ask the bank if you can borrow a bit more because you are going to stimulate 'big growth' or something and you will be able to pay it back later. 

 

Most of the mad far left extremists including commie Corbyn are right behind her, in more ways than one. 

 

She would be in a cabinet as would all the other far left extremist lunatics currently in the Labour party. I mean I bet there would even be a place for Chris Williamson!! 

Edited 12 October 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Jon the Hat]

21 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Re the gay cake thing, why didn't the bakery just make a really really awful cake, spelling mistakes on it etc.

They would've done their bit, the person buying it would've been angry, probably got their money back and gone elsewhere and it wouldn't have been a story.

Why should they make a bad cake?  They were comfortable they were within their rights to decline to make it at all, and thankfully they are finally proven right.  Utterly ridiculous case, and a massive waste of £200k+ of taxpayers money.  Had they said they wouldn't serve him then fine, but the law has no place forcing people to make things with slogans they disagree with on.  

[Countryfox]

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

I know some of these Eurocrats are old ugly buggers, but even they must have standards.

[Alf Bentley]

23 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

She is a Socialist though, so I imagine Socialists would love her misguided ways and financial incompetence. Really you have to be financially incompetent to be a Socialist anyway.  Socialist economics is to give more away than you earn in your weekly wage then ask the bank if you can borrow a bit more because you are going to stimulate 'big growth' or something and you will be able to pay it back later. 

 

Most of the mad far left extremists including commie Corbyn are right behind her, in more ways than one. 

 

She would be in a cabinet as would all the other far left extremist lunatics currently in the Labour party. I mean I bet there would even be a place for Chris Williamson!! 

 

Can't say that I love misguided ways and financial incompetence myself....but then I'm a revisionist libertarian social-democratic sell-out, so my views may not be relevant. 

 

I'm all for investment for sustainable growth and a Keynesian anti-cyclical growth stimulus....but that's another debate.

(Before anyone asks where we are in the cycle, the Tories have matched Gordon Brown's achievement in "ending boom and bust".....we now have permanent bust! )

 

Chris Williamson might not even be reselected as a parliamentary candidate, never mind in the cabinet. He's annoyed the unions and risks being hoist with his own petard.

Pretty hilarious, this:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/chris-williamson-deselection_uk_5bbbcc57e4b0876edaa0f39f

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/09/labour-mp-chris-williamson-reportedly-facing-deselection-threat

 

Mind you, I do have to admit that he's got a nice motorbike and a good taste in film soundtracks.... 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

30 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Chris Williamson might not even be reselected as a parliamentary candidate, never mind in the cabinet. He's annoyed the unions and risks being hoist with his own petard.

Pretty hilarious, this:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/chris-williamson-deselection_uk_5bbbcc57e4b0876edaa0f39f

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/09/labour-mp-chris-williamson-reportedly-facing-deselection-threat

 Incredible that.

 

He's probably the worst MP in the Labour party, still seems to regard Venezuela as a success despite inflation hitting a million % and still campaigned for Pete Willsman after even Momentum dropped him.

Edited 12 October 2018 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

A result last night that shows just how unpopular the two main parties are.

 

Both are clearly only polling highly because of fear and hatred towards the other. There really is ground for a genuine alternative in the middle ground after Brexit in British politics. 

Edited 12 October 2018 by MattP

[urban.spaceman]

My great grandad took a bullet for these cvnts 101 years ago.

[Guest MattP]

23 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

My great grandad took a bullet for these cvnts 101 years ago.

Hardly surprising unfortunately, the wording is terrible though - I can understand, although disagree, with the idea of not wanting to glorify war (not that I think this does that, solemn respect is not glorification) but defending a nation against fascism is certainly not futile in anyway at all.

 

I remember reading a story once that the Oxford Union voted against going to war with Nazi Germany during the conflict.

 

Student idealism over real World reality (even amongst the brightest) isn't something new. 

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

I remember reading a story once that the Oxford Union voted against going to war with Nazi Germany during the conflict.

I wasn't accurate here at all so I apologise, still an interesting read though and related to what we are speaking about.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King_and_Country_debate?wprov=sfla1

 

I've always remembered this quote.

 

I remember very vividly, a few months after the famous pacifist resolution at the Oxford Union visiting Germany and having a talk with a prominent leader of the young Nazis. He was asking about this pacifist motion and I tried to explain it to him. There was an ugly gleam in his eye when he said, "The fact is that you English are soft". Then I realized that the world enemies of peace might be the pacifists.^[18]

Edited 12 October 2018 by MattP

[Buce]

3 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

My great grandad took a bullet for these cvnts 101 years ago.

 

No, he didn't.

 

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Hardly surprising unfortunately, the wording is terrible though - I can understand, although disagree, with the idea of not wanting to glorify war (not that I think this does that, solemn respect is not glorification) but defending a nation against fascism is certainly not futile in anyway at all.

 

I remember reading a story once that the Oxford Union voted against going to war with Nazi Germany during the conflict.

 

Student idealism over real World reality (even amongst the brightest) isn't something new. 

2

,

Remembrance day was originally meant to commemorate those killed in the Great War, not those defending the nation against Fascism.

[davieG]

29 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

No, he didn't.

 

,

Remembrance day was originally meant to commemorate those killed in the Great War, not those defending the nation against Fascism.

....and the Great War was primarily just a Royal Family fued

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

My great grandad took a bullet for these cvnts 101 years ago.

....because the reason he took that bullet was for a world where his descendants and those who came after him could live in a world where they suffered less and were able to speak their piece - exactly what is happening here?

 

8 hours ago, MattP said:

I wasn't accurate here at all so I apologise, still an interesting read though and related to what we are speaking about.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King_and_Country_debate?wprov=sfla1

 

I've always remembered this quote.

 

I remember very vividly, a few months after the famous pacifist resolution at the Oxford Union visiting Germany and having a talk with a prominent leader of the young Nazis. He was asking about this pacifist motion and I tried to explain it to him. There was an ugly gleam in his eye when he said, "The fact is that you English are soft". Then I realized that the world enemies of peace might be the pacifists.^[18]

He and his still lost, thankfully.

 

Yes, there is a time and place where things go too far for words (and people always, always use WWII as that example because it may well be the only one that holds much water) but it's pretty obvious that the more advanced humanity gets the choice will one day be between pacifism and civilisational collapse because some idiot pushed "for the insert country type here!" too far.

 

 

4 hours ago, davieG said:

....and the Great War was primarily just a Royal Family fued

Yup. This.

[Guest MattP]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Yes, there is a time and place where things go too far for words (and people always, always use WWII as that example because it may well be the only one that holds much water) but it's pretty obvious that the more advanced humanity gets the choice will one day be between pacifism and civilisational collapse because some idiot pushed "for the insert country type here!" too far.

There are loads of examples, Kosovo would be one, in hindsight we should have gone to war in Rwanda, many would argue we should be active in the Ukraine and Burma now.

 

Pacifism is never going to be a serious choice, there will always be humans, like any other species, that will seek to dominate others.

 

The most basic history lesson of all is that civilisations incapable of defending themselves cease to exist.

Edited 13 October 2018 by MattP

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

There are loads of examples, Kosovo would be one, in hindsight we should have gone to war in Rwanda, many would argue we should be active in the Ukraine and Burma now.

 

Pacifism is never going to be a serious choice, there will always be humans, like any other species, that will seek to dominate others.

 

The most basic history lesson of all is that civilisations incapable of defending themselves cease to exist.

 

If you're right about the future (and you could be, history is after all pretty clear on the matter), then fair enough. We'll go out just like every other species has done - let the next complex one be smarter than us and, if they piece together what we were and did, have a good long laugh at our expense. We'll have earned every second of it.

 

(Shit Matt, you didn't make me go nihilist again when it's such a lovely weekend day, did you?)

Edited 13 October 2018 by leicsmac

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If you're right about the future (and you could be, history is after all pretty clear on the matter), then fair enough. We'll go out just like every other species has done - let the next complex one be smarter than us and, if they piece together what we were and did, have a good long laugh at our expense. We'll have earned every second of it.

 

(Shit Matt, you didn't make me go nihilist again when it's such a lovely weekend day, did you?)

I love it really ?

[Salisbury Fox]

16 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

My great grandad took a bullet for these cvnts 101 years ago.

It is politicians that direct the military to be used and it is those same politicians that many will have voted for. I suppose that this is where these students cannot be blamed as most will not have voted for a party that sent troops into war.    

 

It is sad that people do not really understand the military covenant that needs to be in place. If the military are ever going to be placed in harms way then there has to be an assurance that if injured or killed then these people and their families should be looked after. I believe that this extends to having a day of remembrance for those fallen out of respect if nothing else.

 

I don't get outraged by this nonsense to be honest, but it is indicative of the loosening of the links with the military which has taken a knock due to falling numbers and what are perceived to be 'unjust' wars. I do however believe that we live in a potentially far more dangerous time in which a strong military is required, which makes the degradation of our capabilities more concerning.