The Politics Thread 2019

[Foxin_Mad]

 

10 hours ago, lgfualol said:

Omg the country is ****ed. Get out while you can, folks.

Corbos not been elected PM yet has he? Then we are really ****ed! The many not the few!

[Alf Bentley]

9 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

In its heyday this used to have some decent political discussion and analysis, if sometimes heated and disagreeable, now it's just a vacuous hole of vapidity. Not much of a surprise when most people that might provide some counter balance to many topics were chased away for not dabbling with the groupthink. Sad.

 

You're entitled to your opinion - and I tend to agree that the quality of debate has been poor lately. But that has happened before. It goes in waves, I think, for whatever reason.

 

But who are these people who have been "chased away"? Who has chased them away? Why have they allowed themselves to be "chased away"? What is this "groupthink" that everyone's supposed to dabble in - and why are people who disagree with that "groupthink" unable to challenge it or to present their own ideas?

 

[Alf Bentley]

Are these the big questions now?

- Does Boris want to call an autumn general election himself or wait to be forced into one by parliament?

- What stance will Farage take if we have an election with Brexit still undone?

 

Given Boris' "do or die" by 31st October approach, the following are surely a given:

- While the EU may offer minor concessions, they won't offer what he seems to want or what his Hard Brexiteers want, and certainly not by 31st October

- Given Boris' rhetoric, it is inconceivable that he would ask for an extension beyond 31st October (unless he did it in tandem with calling an election, campaigning on a No Deal platform, perhaps)

- Any attempt to move to No Deal would surely be blocked by parliament, almost certainly resulting in an election

 

Have I missed something? Am I misjudging something? Anyone think the EU will blink and capitulate to demands to rewrite the WA & jettison the backstop by Halloween? Anyone think that Parliament will blink and allow No Deal to proceed? Anyone think that Boris will backslide, accept a few token EU concessions (extra protocols, changes to political declaration or whatever) and get a slightly amended May's Deal through Parliament - with the support of the ERG and/or Labour Brexiteers?

 

 

Edited 25 July 2019 by Alf Bentley

[Grebfromgrebland]

 

 

[Grebfromgrebland]

This is what taking back control means. It means that those in absolute power can now do what they want how they want.

 

This really is what we voted for. 

[Innovindil]

I'm just gonna throw it out there that I'm absolutely loving the hysterics. Top drawer.

 

Not been this much fun since referendum night. 

[Foxin_Mad]

10 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

 

 

And Corbo wouldn't be leader of the Labour party either. A man who has never achieved anything in his entire life, hardly any GCSEs, failed

 

A-Levels, a privileged upbringing, never a proper job, a perennial underachiever, an edgy protestor and activist at best. 

8 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I'm just gonna throw it out there that I'm absolutely loving the hysterics. Top drawer.

 

Not been this much fun since referendum night. 

The hysterics from the lefties here is quite amusing. I haven't been a fan of Boris but he is in now we have to get on with it. He may surprise us a deliver change. 

 

Some of the stuff he proposes is actually good for the country, sensible infrastructure investment, police and education investment. And before the left of all people shout 'magic money tree', it isn't quite on the levels of spending and private asset seizure suggested by Labour (Labour proposed £75billion in nationalising/seizing the Energy companies alone. Which ironically is against EU rules!)

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

@Alf Bentley - something I noted from viewing many of the leader debates and hustings is Johnson talked about transitional arrangements a lot.

 

This leads me to think he’s looking to achieve Brexit in name by 31st Oct, but that a lot of detail will still be up in the air.

 

Could that mean the dropping of the backstop, but a longer transition period? Going back to a border in the Irish Sea? 

 

Difficult to tell - but having less than 100 days gives much less room for manoeuvre, even if ‘no-deal’ is what it comes down to, given that eventuality would need significant planning, organisation and spending.

 

That said - Johnson seems to have a knack of landing on his feet and this positivity drive will be effective to a degree as long as the sky doesn’t fall in.

 

Maybe one unseen danger in all this is “United State Boris” with his continued tariff war, Iran engagement and ever higher debt ceiling - if those combined to cause another global financial meltdown, the UK would be put into a massive bind.

[lgfualol]

43 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

 

Corbos not been elected PM yet has he? Then we are really ****ed! The many not the few!

Well when I think it can't keep getting any worse, it does.

[bovril]

I agree that some of the hysterical reactions are unhelpful, but we've reached a point where a significant number of our politicians and a great number of people seem to think a no-deal Brexit would be a positive resolution and that economic hardship and the breakup of the UK are prices worth paying. I've read some bonkers stuff from Brexiters on this forum, I think it's a tad hypocritical that some of them now feel they've been chased away. 

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

I agree that some of the hysterical reactions are unhelpful, but we've reached a point where a significant number of our politicians and a great number of people seem to think a no-deal Brexit would be a positive resolution and that economic hardship and the breakup of the UK are prices worth paying. I've read some bonkers stuff from Brexiters on this forum, I think it's a tad hypocritical that some of them now feel they've been chased away. 

 

"Chased away" is just a nice way of saying "realised the errors of their ways and snuck out quietly." 

[Alf Bentley]

15 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

@Alf Bentley - something I noted from viewing many of the leader debates and hustings is Johnson talked about transitional arrangements a lot.

 

This leads me to think he’s looking to achieve Brexit in name by 31st Oct, but that a lot of detail will still be up in the air.

 

Could that mean the dropping of the backstop, but a longer transition period? Going back to a border in the Irish Sea? 

 

Difficult to tell - but having less than 100 days gives much less room for manoeuvre, even if ‘no-deal’ is what it comes down to, given that eventuality would need significant planning, organisation and spending.

 

That said - Johnson seems to have a knack of landing on his feet and this positivity drive will be effective to a degree as long as the sky doesn’t fall in.

 

Maybe one unseen danger in all this is “United State Boris” with his continued tariff war, Iran engagement and ever higher debt ceiling - if those combined to cause another global financial meltdown, the UK would be put into a massive bind.

 

I saw some discussion of a longer transition period but didn't pay enough attention. I got the impression that the EU might have been prepared to discuss it, at least, but that it was seen as a non-starter on the UK side?

 

The DUP would surely reject going back to a border in the Irish Sea? I suppose Boris could always shaft them and try to cobble together a majority by getting a few Labour MPs onside..... but some strongly pro-Unionist Tories would back the DUP, wouldn't they, not wanting to be the ones who facilitated Irish reunification?

 

The idea of a long transition period would also surely be massively controversial among Tory Hard Brexiteers (and potentially an election loser), even if they somehow got rid of the backstop?

 

I don't doubt either the risk of PM Boris - or the potential for him to be an electoral/popular success in the short-term. That's why I raised the issue of Farage's stance if there is an early pre-Brexit election. I know that both he and Boris have dismissed ideas of a Tory-Brexit Party pact, but it must be a possibility, even if it's unofficial or limited to certain seats. A Tory-Brexit Party pact in an early election could easily yield either a Tory majority prepared to vote through No Deal or a Boris-Nigel coalition ready to do the same. Whereas, if Farage rejects the idea of any such electoral pact and runs a full campaign, that greatly reduces Boris' chance of winning the election - and makes it possible that some combination of Labour, Lib Dems & SNP could form a majority.

 

Edited 25 July 2019 by Alf Bentley

[bovril]

18 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

"Chased away" is just a nice way of saying "realised the errors of their ways and snuck out quietly." 

They're exhausted from all the winning. 

[Innovindil]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49109307

 

Ouch Nissan. Proper in the shit. Another story where the Brexit hysteria doesn't quite tally up with just how badly run a company has been. 

[David Guiza]

31 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

And Corbo wouldn't be leader of the Labour party either. A man who has never achieved anything in his entire life, hardly any GCSEs, failed

 

A-Levels, a privileged upbringing, never a proper job, a perennial underachiever, an edgy protestor and activist at best. 

The hysterics from the lefties here is quite amusing. I haven't been a fan of Boris but he is in now we have to get on with it. He may surprise us a deliver change. 

 

Some of the stuff he proposes is actually good for the country, sensible infrastructure investment, police and education investment. And before the left of all people shout 'magic money tree', it isn't quite on the levels of spending and private asset seizure suggested by Labour (Labour proposed £75billion in nationalising/seizing the Energy companies alone. Which ironically is against EU rules!)

I cannot beleive that you are citing being privileged as an argument against Corbyn and in favour of Boris. Incredible effort. 

I really haven't seen a great deal of hysteria on here, but I do skim some pages so maybe I've missed it. What I will say however is that being unhappy and having reservations about one of the most uncertain times in decades is accetapble, is it not? Are people not allowed to be dismayed at the cabinet including people in favour of abortion and the death penalty? Must we just sit on our hands and back Boris to the hills come what may? I imagine the right would have reservations if the cabinet were made up of entirely remain voting MPs with questionnable backgrounds , so why can't anybody else? Yet again the 'left' are just written off as being hysterical, soft, moaners for having reservations. Suddenly we all have to be quiet and back the moron to the hills for the good of the nation.  

 

Also,as an aside, maybe it's just me but you referencing Corbyn on 99% of your posts is amusing. I haven't seen you post outside of the news related threads but I can only imagine that you somehow manage to crowbar him into the transfer talk and potential line up threads. I haven't seen any or many people on here suggest he would be a viable option at all, so I don't really know who you are debating with on that point? The fact that Boris is, hopefully, better than Corbyn does not mean he will be a success or worthy of his position. Musa is a better option than myself upfront (though I would debate that), but I would prefer somebody with a slight knowledge and comprehension as to what they're doing in said role. 

[Kopfkino]

16 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

You're entitled to your opinion - and I tend to agree that the quality of debate has been poor lately. But that has happened before. It goes in waves, I think, for whatever reason.

 

But who are these people who have been "chased away"? Who has chased them away? Why have they allowed themselves to be "chased away"? What is this "groupthink" that everyone's supposed to dabble in - and why are people who disagree with that "groupthink" unable to challenge it or to present their own ideas?

 

Tbf Alf, terrible phrasing to say 'chased away', closer to 'pushed away' and not by anyone in particular. FT has a bias at a particular point on the political spectrum and it seems to me that the smaller pool of those that have provided some of the balance or alternate views are much less active. Just for a few names off the top of my head, Webbo (used to be attacked personally) was turned off it even before he stopped posting altogether, Matt (always baited) has said he is fed up of it, Strokes and Inno have said similar, Jon less active, Beechey rarely seen, Milo never in here. Obviously, posters inevitably come and they go, their situations change, their lives change, their interests change so you get natural wastage. But my thoughts, and maybe I'm projecting incorrectly my own thoughts onto those people, but increasingly it seems saying something is so is enough to make it so and thus actually discussing a topic, paying attention to a point and challenging or countering it, let alone accepting someone has a point but disagreeing, is now absent majority of the time. As Lionator effectively said, its just an embodiment of society where opposing views are just seen as illegitimate now. You Alf look at something, give an opinion, enquire into what others are thinking and might have a robust discussion, rather than projecting with your fingers in your ears. Much of this iteration of politics on FT, albeit in its infancy, has just been histrionics, and it's a turn off for anyone that might seek to counter (or actually the better quality debaters even if they agree) and you end up with a thread that's effectively groupthink.

 

I have little interest in US politics and pay little attention to it, but from the outside looking in, the Trump thread was, in recent times, an embodiment of this. It seemed tough enough to express any opinion that wasn't 'Trump is an awful monster' in earlier times but that became near impossible by the end. In the end, it became about playing the man rather than ball wrt the two posters that weren't subscribed to the groupthink, albeit with a brief interlude of decent discussion. 

 

 

[Innovindil]

True enough @Kopfkino

 

Last time I actually tried to engage greb in one of his rants I was just completely ignored and he moved onto the next rant. Ironically usually a rant that says something along the lines of "why won't the Brexiters answer?!" 

[Buce]

 

How ironic that someone called Priti has such ugly political views.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/25/priti-patel-record-human-rights-extreme-concern

[Finnegan]

@David Guiza

 

Calling your valid concerns "hysteria" is alt right Internet troll 101. It's like calling all "libtards" "snowflakes" for being "offended" and "triggered" (Read: calmly pointing out that it's not really acceptable) at badly disguised racism.

 

They then, of course, fly off the handle and go burning their trainers and threatening assassinations when their favourite sporting goods manufacturers sponsor a black athlete. Snowflakes indeed. 

 

The brexiteer version has been to shout "get over it", "you lost, its democracy" and "we all need to pull together" when it's their politics that's specifically divisive, when it's their supporters intimidating politicians outside Parliament and will absolutely be them going ****ing ballistic in the street if a 100% democratic general election ends up producing a Labour win and a 100% democratic second, informed referendum and a 100% democratic defeat of Brexit now we all know what's on the cards. 

 

Take it with a pinch of salt. Its not worth getting upset about. 

 

What's that quote about arguing with idiots? They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience? 

 

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Tbf Alf, terrible phrasing to say 'chased away', closer to 'pushed away' and not by anyone in particular. FT has a bias at a particular point on the political spectrum and it seems to me that the smaller pool of those that have provided some of the balance or alternate views are much less active. Just for a few names off the top of my head, Webbo (used to be attacked personally) was turned off it even before he stopped posting altogether, Matt (always baited) has said he is fed up of it, Strokes and Inno have said similar, Jon less active, Beechey rarely seen, Milo never in here. Obviously, posters inevitably come and they go, their situations change, their lives change, their interests change so you get natural wastage. But my thoughts, and maybe I'm projecting incorrectly my own thoughts onto those people, but increasingly it seems saying something is so is enough to make it so and thus actually discussing a topic, paying attention to a point and challenging or countering it, let alone accepting someone has a point but disagreeing, is now absent majority of the time. As Lionator effectively said, its just an embodiment of society where opposing views are just seen as illegitimate now. You Alf look at something, give an opinion, enquire into what others are thinking and might have a robust discussion, rather than projecting with your fingers in your ears. Much of this iteration of politics on FT, albeit in its infancy, has just been histrionics, and it's a turn off for anyone that might seek to counter (or actually the better quality debaters even if they agree) and you end up with a thread that's effectively groupthink.

 

I have little interest in US politics and pay little attention to it, but from the outside looking in, the Trump thread was, in recent times, an embodiment of this. It seemed tough enough to express any opinion that wasn't 'Trump is an awful monster' in earlier times but that became near impossible by the end. In the end, it became about playing the man rather than ball wrt the two posters that weren't subscribed to the groupthink, albeit with a brief interlude of decent discussion. 

 

 

With respect, Kopf, on the Trump thread (and I can only speak for myself here) I made a concerted effort to discuss Trump's policies rather than the man himself (at the request of one of those two posters) and was largely ignored or such posts were dismissed with sophistry.

 

I would also be happy to talk about the same topic here.

[Facecloth]

1 hour ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

 

 

Gotta say I don't think I've seen any of the Friends episodes mentioned in that bottom tweet.

[Jon the Hat]

10 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Yes, but the exchange rate now is much lower than it would have been have been had the Brexit vote gone the other way. You would have got many more AUD for your pounds, I suspect as much as 40 or 50 cents per pound, who knows, maybe more. It can make an absolutely huge difference when emigrating.

 

When we decided to move here the pound stood at around $2.80, but while waiting for completion on the sale of our house it dropped to around $2.50, and I was worried that we’d have to cancel the move it it went much further. Fortunately it bounced back up just in time and we ended up on about $2.85. Happy days!

 

Likewise, I suspect that UK house prices are lower than they would otherwise have been, if only due to EU citizens leaving, but also I’d imagine due to falling confidence in the population at large.

 

If you don’t resent these knock-on effects then I truly admire your devotion to your principles.

I can't change the BREXIT vote, though on a personal note it hasn't helped.  UK housing market is very slow - we have been trying to sell since the start of the year and not had an offer yet despite a price drop.  There are few buyers.  On the other hand Perth house prices are also lower and still dropping I believe.  Had I moved 4 years ago instead of buying my house I would have had more $ but now have lost probably 20% of my house value in Perth. 

[Mike Oxlong]

 

[Innovindil]

18 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

@David Guiza

 

Calling your valid concerns "hysteria" is alt right Internet troll 101. It's like calling all "libtards" "snowflakes" for being "offended" and "triggered" (Read: calmly pointing out that it's not really acceptable) at badly disguised racism.

 

They then, of course, fly off the handle and go burning their trainers and threatening assassinations when their favourite sporting goods manufacturers sponsor a black athlete. Snowflakes indeed. 

 

The brexiteer version has been to shout "get over it", "you lost, its democracy" and "we all need to pull together" when it's their politics that's specifically divisive, when it's their supporters intimidating politicians outside Parliament and will absolutely be them going ****ing ballistic in the street if a 100% democratic general election ends up producing a Labour win and a 100% democratic second, informed referendum and a 100% democratic defeat of Brexit now we all know what's on the cards. 

 

Take it with a pinch of salt. Its not worth getting upset about. 

 

What's that quote about arguing with idiots? They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience? 

 

Tbf I'd go ballistic if we even had a second referendum at this point, I was all for it before, genuinely so, but after the new lib dems leader has come out and said she'd ignore it even if it had brexit winning a second time, there's no point to it. It's been suspected all along, but this "people's vote" isn't about getting confirmation, it's about having a shot at reversing it and nothing more. 

[Kopfkino]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

With respect, Kopf, on the Trump thread (and I can only speak for myself here) I made a concerted effort to discuss Trump's policies rather than the man himself (at the request of one of those two posters) and was largely ignored or such posts were dismissed with sophistry.

 

I would also be happy to talk about the same topic here.

No of course I remember and that would have been a good thing to see. I'm certainly not saying they are model posters (there is no holier than thou element to my thoughts) or that we're not all guilty of some of these things, just really an observation that quality of discussion has dropped off a cliff, I attribute it to a lack of balance (and not for personal preference cos I find foxin's Corbyn obsession as tedious as anyone), but also thinking about it the better quality posters (are exceptions) don't appear as much. As I say, I have practically zero interest in American politics (but for crossover with policy areas that interest me) so I have little knowledge beyond the snippets picked up on Twitter but if there was something I know we might well have differing views but the discussion would be proper.