British Politics Thread. [Archive] - Page 3 - BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum

Mr Mystery

03-17-2015, 02:13 AM

Psychosplodge

03-17-2015, 02:23 AM

Labour's reasoning is clearly to an attempt to stop haemorrhaging support north of the border, the tories doing it or not doing it is irrelevant as the SNP probably couldn't work with them. I'm pretty sure Cameron has ruled out a UKIP coalition hasn't he?

grimmas

03-17-2015, 04:39 AM

If they are the duly elected MP for their consitutuency, then they should have a voice in Parliament. Particularly as the SNP are apparently on course for quite a win in Scotland. This is setting a dangerous precedent that it won't matter who you vote for if it's not the Big Two, because they'll just close ranks.

Ditto UKIP. I loathe them. Nigel 'I'm not a racist, but' Farage and his cronies want to drag the UK back to an entirely imagined 1950's. They are The Daily Mail incarnate (I blame Teclis).

Yet nobody has chosen to rule out any sort of coalition with UKIP, and nobody should.

But it seems the SNP are totally fair game for the politicial malechickenblock. Why?

Now, irrespective of whether or not you feel Scotland is over represented (that kettle of fish isn't something we spods can do much about), at this election there will be 72 Scottish Seats up for grabs. Assuming a worst case scenario, let's say SNP win all of them.

That's 72 sitting, duly elected MPs out of a total of 649 that will not be allowed to form a coalition. How is that in any way democractic - to remove over 10% of MPs from anything useful?

Psychosplodge has pointed out SNP are only going to take labour seats so its a move by them to secure votes for themselves. Also after SNPs antics over the referendum they are pretty disliked in England and association with them will cost labour votes in England. Seriously SNPs rhetoric does sound quite UKIPish and I supect I'm not the only one who got tired of hearing the term "The English" used as an insult as well as blatant disregard for history ( 2 out of the last 3 British Prime Ministers have been Scottish)

Now they will still have all their full voting rights as MP, West Lothian question and all, they just aren't going to be entering a coalition government with the Labour Party. Scotland has a population of around 5.5 million the UK has one of around 62 million, there is no way there could possible a democratic mandate for SNP to form part of the Government. Running the Scottish Assembly sure but having anything other than a minor say in the UK as a whole they just don't have enough people voting for them for it to be anything else.

Mr Mystery

03-17-2015, 04:50 AM

Antics over the referendum? You mean Westminster Antics surely? Scare tactics, refusing to discuss what might and might not be on the table, refusing to allow a Devo Max option, then suddenly using Devo Max as a reward for doing as Westminster tells you?

Again - I'm far from a Scottish Nationalist in this matter, but Westminster really did show why so many in Scotland wanted the referendum in the first place throughout.

Now, imagine you live where I live, in the South East of England. Tory Heartlands. Birthplace of the NIMBY Classes. And UKIP seem poised to do well (or so they keep telling everyone. I'm far from convinced. Tactical voting will be the death of them. If it's a choice between Tories and UKIP, I know who I'm voting for. And it's Tory, despite being lefty). Imagine this area was in Scotland's boat - and told 'it doesn't matter who you vote for, because we'll just ignore you anyway'....there would be an entirely righteous uproar.

The representation of Scotland within the UK Government is not the issue here. It's that the main political parties feel they can dictate who gets into power by actively deciding certain parties will simply be a wasted vote. That is not democratic.

And it's not just those who vote SNP who will see their democractic voice stripped away - it's every single voter in Scotland, because Milliband has just decided if they don't have the seat, well sod the country.

And where should it stop? Should Labour and the Tories simply declare 'vote for whom you like. We'll just form a coalition between us and balls to everyone else'? That's getting dangerously close to a dictatorship of sorts.

Seriously. Remove where the seats happen to be from the equation, and consider it again. 10% of the population being told their democratic rights simply don't matter.

Psychosplodge

03-17-2015, 04:55 AM

Now, imagine you live where I live, in the South East of England. Tory Heartlands. Birthplace of the NIMBY Classes. Imagine this area was in Scotland's boat - and told 'it doesn't matter who you vote for, because we'll just ignore you anyway'....there would be an entirely righteous uproar..

But that's exactly what happened for however long labour was in for last time....

Mr Mystery

03-17-2015, 04:57 AM

And lets look at what percentage of the eligible voters in the UK took the Tories into their current position......

The turnout was 65%, so that means that 23.5% of the electorate (those registered to vote) voted for the Conservatives. That is probably the most relevant figure - if you take a % of the total population you are including children and foreigners who are not able to vote. However -

23.5%.....Less than a quarter.

And you're telling me 10% of the voter base of this country shouldn't matter because reasons?

Again, remove the geographic position of the seats in question, and look at what is actually happening here.....

Psychosplodge

03-17-2015, 05:00 AM

the entire voter base is ignored for four, four and a half years at a time

Mr Mystery

03-17-2015, 05:00 AM

But that's exactly what happened for however long labour was in for last time....

This is quite different.

It's looking like no one party will be able to form a majority government from it's own MPs. So it will be coalition time once again (something I feel is better for now. The swings between long term Labour or Tory isn't good).

And a Coalition should reflect the voter base as accurately as possible.

If we switch around the current Labour and Tory ownership of seats, if Labour did form a coalition with the SNP, and again worst case scenario where SNP have a landslide in Scotland - they'd hold more seats between them than the current coalition.

But that's not going to happen, because Milliband.

grimmas

03-17-2015, 07:08 AM

A
And lets look at what percentage of the eligible voters in the UK took the Tories into their current position......

23.5%.....Less than a quarter.

And you're telling me 10% of the voter base of this country shouldn't matter because reasons?

Again, remove the geographic position of the seats in question, and look at what is actually happening here.....

thats still 2 and a half times the total population of Scotland. The 10% is the maximum the SNP can get and not everyone in Scotland votes for them. The fact is by there very nature they represent a small section of the population of the UK and as such it would be undemocratic for them lead, as they will never possess a mandate to do so. Why would Labour enter a coalition with a part who's main desire is to break up the UK ( something The SNP also doesn't have a mandate for) something which would ensure very won't get reeleccted for a very long time if ever. There's more chance the Tories would go for it, it'd work for them quite well.

Mr Mystery

03-17-2015, 07:35 AM

Once more with feeling.....

Ignore exactly which potential coalition party has been ruled out, and instead focus on the representation denied.

Any coalition should, at bare minimum, be comprised of the First and Third place parties, yes?

Last time around, Third Place went to Lib Dems, with 56 seats. They of course formed a coalition with The Conservatives, who held 302, the most of any one party.

Lib Dems are on course for electoral annihilation - this is what happens when you abandon not only your policies but your principles for them merest whiff of power.

That means Third Place is very, very much up for grabs.

If the SNP represented every seat in Scotland, at 72, they would represent more a mandate than the Lib Dems ever did (and let's face it, ever will).

But it's a-ok to just rule out allying with them?

What if it was the other way around. SNP had formed a hypothetical coalition with the Tories, bringing 56 seats in 2010. And this election, Labour had ruled out forming any kind of coalition with the Lib Dems and their potential 72 seats.....

If we were looking at a majority government, no problem. You votes, and your either wins or your loses. That's democracy.

But when we're on an all but unavoidable course for another coalition, nobody should be ruling anyone out ahead of the actual election.

Psychosplodge

03-17-2015, 08:02 AM

We might see a minority government.

Mr Mystery

03-17-2015, 08:21 AM

Nah, I doubt it. Lab/Con coalition? Given their entirely self serving natures, I seriously would not rule it out.

Not sure who that would leave as the opposition thought.

Barry from Accounts?

Psychosplodge

03-17-2015, 08:24 AM

It'd collapse. And then they'd both be in even more **** next election as a lot of people vote to keep a party out don't they? Hence the Libdem supporters bitter about their coalition.

CoffeeGrunt

03-17-2015, 08:40 AM

If I were an impassive, third party Johnny Foreigner type, I'd love to see Labour and Conservatives shack up together like the world's most dysfunctional, forced couple, it'd be somewhat hilarious.

Sadly I don't want to deal with the crap that would entail, though...

Mr Mystery

03-17-2015, 08:41 AM

Has there ever been such a coalition? Not party specific, but first and second place (because UK elections are as predictable as the Scottish Premiership before Rangers sank) forming up together?

Psychosplodge

03-17-2015, 08:43 AM

During the war I believe was uttered this morning on the radio discussing it...

Al Shut

03-17-2015, 10:14 AM

You'd probably get the worst of both parties, combined with a nagging feeling that it doesn't matter who you vote for and that the whole system is rigged from the get go.

And I say that as someone living under a grand coalition.

grimmas

03-18-2015, 04:27 AM

Fine but you're still not showing anything Undemocratic going on, well other than the wholly undemocratic act of forming a coalition government, you've just put a list of reasons for why
you'd like something to happen, and that isn't the same thing. The fact remains If one votes for a party that isn't going to win then that isn't going to happen. You say geography isn't important but I notice you aren't mentioning that the Greens won't be entering into coalitions or that Labour won't be entering a coalition with UKIP (they don't have to say it, they won't) and it is central to The SNPs restricted appeal.

No one is being ignored if you don't get enough votes you can't expect to form the government, and if the reason for you not getting enough votes is your own restrictive policies then that's your fault. The further more the SNP is not the defacto voice of all Scottish people it's just the choice of SOME Scottish people (they have 65 out of 129 seats In the Scottish assembly) and it remains to be seen how many seats they will win in the General election, may be they will win all 59 but the situation you claim does not exist ( they changed the number of Scottish seats in 2005 I believe)

The real reason labour say they won't enter a coalition with them is that Labour need to maintain their hold over Scottish seats to have any chance of gaining power, if they lose seats to SNP a coalition won't help them as that will only put them back where they started. Far from suggesting those vote don't matter they are actually saying they really do matter. In fact almost all past Labour governments wouldn't have been elected without their Scottish seats. Think about that and link it with SNPs prime policy of Scottish independence, a collation with the SNP would destroy Labour as a party, they'll be in for one term and then never again. They simply cannot afford a coalition with the SNP. In terms of actually increasing their seats the only party that would gain from a coalition with the SNP (if they increase their seats) is the Tories as they won't be losing any seats in the process. Why do you think the Better together campaign was run byScottish Labour Party MP.

Come on are you really surprised the Two main political parties don't want to work with a party who's expressed intention is breaking up the union.

Of course we are talking about politicians here who's to say labour won't change their minds when the votes are counted in May.

Mr Mystery

03-18-2015, 04:39 AM

Anyways, moving on....

Budget Day today folks, potentially Little Georgie Osborne's last one ever.

Rumours are changes to savings tax (welcome) and online realtime tax stuff for the self employed - no opinion on this as I'm PAYE.

What I hope? Another extension to our tax free lump sum (goes to £10,500 as of April anyways), and a cut or at least freeze of Beer Duty. That would be nice and put more money in my skyrocket,

Psychosplodge

03-18-2015, 04:53 AM

I don't think we'll see a giveaway, trying to buy votes labour style would undermine the deficit reduction. But I think we'll probably see a freeze on most stuff and possibly a further increase in the tax allowance or whatever its called like you say. Beyond that I'm confident I shouldn't be worse off like after everytime Brown did one...

Mr Mystery

03-18-2015, 05:03 AM

I've done well the past few, but was never in a position for previous budgets to really affect me enough to garner my attention.

If I'm right in thinking, Lib Dems were wanting the tax free sum to be £12,000, and even Osborne was keen to see those on minimum wage pay no tax on that rate. Not sure anyone could object to that.

Psychosplodge

03-18-2015, 05:39 AM

One particularly sticks in mind, they scrapped the ten pence rate and not only wiped out my payrise but left me worse off as well, at the same time as putting about 4p on a litre of fuel and beer. It might not be a lot but at the time I was particularly poorly paid and well labour are supposed to be helping the poorly paid employed aren't they? Before and after that I was always technically worse off as duties went up but never in such an obviously noticeable manner.

I agree I don't think people on minimum wage should be paying income tax.

Mr Mystery

03-18-2015, 05:41 AM

BBC reckons a basic allowance of £11,000 will be announced,

But if memory serves, previous raises were higher than predicted?

Psychosplodge

03-18-2015, 05:52 AM

I think the jump to what ever it's currently at was more than expected that year wasn't it?

Mr Mystery

03-18-2015, 05:54 AM

Sounds about right - though I think the previous one was similar?

Either way it's a bit extra cash in my pocket, which is always nicer than a bit less.

Dare we hope for a VAT reduction as well? I may have done alright, but the VAT rise still annoys me!

Psychosplodge

03-18-2015, 05:59 AM

I doubt we'll get any change in VAT. Look at how much business moaned when it went down then up then up again with all the repricing.

Mr Mystery

03-18-2015, 06:00 AM

BBC has live updates.

Many businesses seem to want a raise in the VAT threshold. Would be nice, especially give a recent resurgence of small businesses the government seem so proud of.

And if Beer doesn't go down, I'll be writing to my MP, explaining my feelings on Pubs having to carry the can of supermarket's irresponsible pricing, whilst struggling to turn a profit themselves... Far as I'm concerned, we need two rates on Beer. Drink in - lower. Take away - Higher. Pubs after all can control who drinks how much. It's in their interests to do so.

Psychosplodge

03-18-2015, 06:43 AM

I'm not sure that'd do it, or be fair to the responsible working man who buys in quantity because that's how he affords to drink. I think they should ban the dirt cheap vodka of the type teens/students use for pre-loading - that might do more about antisocial behaviour related to drinking than anything on beer.

Mr Mystery

03-18-2015, 06:48 AM

I just don't see how it's fair Pubs have to carry the can for a problem which is not of their making.

Compare the previous (may not have been this thread) cost of Hobgoblin.

Pub? £3.70.

Tesco? £1.25

Yet pubs have to make up for supermarkets selling booze as a loss leader.

Psychosplodge

03-18-2015, 06:52 AM

True, they should probably reduce it for pubs, but I think whacking a massive hike on supermarkets hurts everybody, possibly including pubs if it effects peoples disposable income..

Mr Mystery

03-18-2015, 06:53 AM

Supermarkets would just absorb it as they do already. It's about reducing the burden on the one source of booze which isn't really contributing to the problem.

Not that binge drinking is a problem, not when 4 pints up the pub is counted as binge drinking....

Psychosplodge

03-18-2015, 07:03 AM

True, people would take efforts against binge drinking more seriously if the definition of binge was more realistic.

Psychosplodge

03-18-2015, 07:33 AM

So largely a freeze then on the things people look at first?

Mr Mystery

03-18-2015, 08:26 AM

Seems so.

Not so much in it for me this year, but I don't appear to have lost out.

Psychosplodge

03-18-2015, 08:28 AM

I missed about the threshold, has that gone up?

Mr Mystery

03-18-2015, 08:33 AM

£10,500 up to £10,800.

From there, up to £11,000

Better than a slap in the chops like.

Psychosplodge

03-18-2015, 08:36 AM

Certainly better than nothing.

Mr Mystery

03-18-2015, 09:51 AM

Yup.

And a penny off Beer Duty.

Wolfshade

03-18-2015, 05:05 PM

I need to caluclate how much better off I am. (Probably)

Mr Mystery

03-19-2015, 03:51 AM

I've not seen anything going up that would affect me.

Savings is a big one. First £1,000 interest is now tax free. Whilst yes, those with significant savings will benefit the most, this also benefits anyone and everyone with savings.

Cider Duty reduced by 2p (which is important, as most UK Cider is made by small scale producers), and Whisky Excise gets a 2% cut.

Though didn't see any headlines about my tobacco.

And interestingly, despite calling it a 'pretty empty budget' Ed Balls has said Labour wouldn't referse any of it...

NI abolished for the under 21's, Fuel Duty frozen again.

First Time Buyer ISA has tickled my fancy...might just go for one of those.

Psychosplodge

03-19-2015, 03:54 AM

First Time Buyer ISA has tickled my fancy...might just go for one of those.

That certainly sounds interesting. A free £50 for every £200 you save? Wonder what strings are attached?

Mr Mystery

03-19-2015, 04:04 AM

Not sure yet, but seems to work in concert with the rest of Help To Buy.

Give how pissed off I am at the post-war generation for wrecking the housing market by treating it as nothing but a 'get rich quick and screw everyone else' scheme, help to buy is something I should take advantage of.

Psychosplodge

03-19-2015, 04:09 AM

I don't like help to buy cause you have to have a new build don't you? Which idk round you but they're all small, cramped together, lack of parking and massivly overpriced

Mr Mystery

03-19-2015, 04:10 AM

At first, but I understand it's being expanded to include all property.

And there's some good value stuff in Tunbridge Wells!

Psychosplodge

03-23-2015, 04:20 AM

Like him or loathe him, behaviour like this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32009961) is more like something out of 20s/30s Germany.

Mr Mystery

03-23-2015, 04:28 AM

I would have an ounce of sympathy if his party wasn't endorsed by Britain First, who get up to much, much worse.

The man is an odious little Weasel with bigoted views. Bigoted views to which he is entitled of course. But the whole 'well I never, how rude of them' when people call him out just doesn't wash.

Psychosplodge

03-23-2015, 04:32 AM

There's a time and a place. Any political appearance is fair game. A sunday lunch with the family? that's harassment like the ****s engaged in.

Mr Mystery

03-23-2015, 04:36 AM

How about people at prayer in Mosques? That's not fair game, but Farage hasn't denounced Britain First, or done anything to distance his politics from their politics - because it's all votes to the chinless little fascist.

If you use your freedom of speech to spout bile and bigotry, especially when you do so from behind the shield of 'patriotism' then you expose yourself to this sort of cretinous behaviour.

It's not something I would ever condone, but Farage has to take the rough with the smooth.

Psychosplodge

03-23-2015, 04:40 AM

What's Britain first got to do with farrage? They're a bunch of nutters that most of the people that reblog their **** don't realise its some sort of religious organisation.

Mr Mystery

03-23-2015, 04:42 AM

They've thrown their weight behind UKIP, and are encouraging people to vote for them now.

Farage, to my knowledge, hasn't denounced this either.

Psychosplodge

03-23-2015, 04:47 AM

Why would he? They're not his party.

I just find the idea of stopping politicians speaking rather than challenging their words disturbing.

How did the BNP go away? They were given the platform to make themselves look stupid.

Mr Mystery

03-23-2015, 04:57 AM

Whereas Farage goes on with absolutely no policies whatsoever - that's dangerous.

We know his party are riddle with racists and assorted other bigots. Yet that gets shut down.

But as I said, I don't condone hassling the guy during his family lunch, but when you're a nasty little opportunistic weasel, it's not entirely surprising like calls to like.

- - - Updated - - -

This is fun. Quick questionnaire to find out how lefty or righty you are compared to the last election's centre ground. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31973051)

No surprises I scored 9 out of 25!

Psychosplodge

03-23-2015, 05:06 AM

I scored the same.
not really what I expected.

Mr Mystery

03-23-2015, 05:08 AM

Nyeh nyeh :p

I suspect it is a little loaded really, given the questions asked are about how fairly employees are treated (i.e. not at all) and whether you feel business does this for profit (yes, yes they do, because everything they do is for profit...)

Give me questions about the Welfare State (yes, it needs restricting. No, it should never have been outsourced to a target driven 3rd party etc) and you'd see me move quite a bit Right.

Psychosplodge

03-23-2015, 05:13 AM

Aye, ask me about utilities and transport and I'd be looking left again :D

Wolfshade

03-23-2015, 05:13 PM

14 hmmm

Mr Mystery

03-24-2015, 02:24 AM

So, Cameron has said he won't serve a third term. Interesting.

I think I might nip down the bookies and put £10 on BoJo to be the next Tory Leader....and Prime Minister in 2020....

Psychosplodge

03-24-2015, 02:28 AM

It does seem calculated to stop him being unseated in a pro-Boris coup.

Mr Mystery

03-24-2015, 02:31 AM

Possibly - though apparently it was during a fairly candid interview, so could be 100% genuine sentiment

Either way, it's kind of pleasing to see a politician putting his party first if it is a defensive move. Putting that white flag up now prevents the next Parliament (which could still be Tory) being disrupted by people trying to winkle him out. When you put your party first like that, you're closer to putting the country first (though I don't think we could accuse any political party of putting their country first, sadly)

Psychosplodge

03-24-2015, 02:36 AM

Well it could also be a case of retiring from politics while still young enough to milk the financial advantages of having been prime minister (see Blair for example).

The next one that does that will be the first won't it?

Mr Mystery

03-24-2015, 02:46 AM

I guess - but then Cameron has never had quite the same international clout as Blair.

I'm not at all convinced he'll be particularly well remembered in 50 years time, except for the 'Typical Tory' type stuff, like committing to permanent austerity whilst at a posh dinner, having risen from his gilded chair to speak.

Whilst far from a fan of many of their policies, I don't think they've done massive amounts of damage. Certainly nothing on the scale Thatcher managed.

Psychosplodge

03-24-2015, 02:50 AM

I'm not sure either will be particularly remembered, they're no Churchill afterall...

Mr Mystery

03-24-2015, 02:59 AM

It won't be for positive reasons, but I'm pretty sure Blair will be remembered.

Psychosplodge

03-24-2015, 03:08 AM

That's assuming we don't have any similar scale conflict...

Mr Mystery

03-24-2015, 03:19 AM

I doubt it to be honest - country doesn't want it, and we certainly don't seem to be able to afford it.

Also, once again - people of Thanet - keep Farage out, and he said he'll go away. Two very good reasons not to vote UKIP!

Psychosplodge

03-24-2015, 03:34 AM

I think we need UKIP. We used to have the LibDems as the other option that was a minor threat to dishonest politicians, but they've now been proven to be just like the others. Until UKIP are proven to be just like the others they've become that threat.

Mr Mystery

03-24-2015, 03:40 AM

That's the thing - they seem inexplicably Teflon coated as a party, and that worries me greatly.

Exposed as fiddling their expense, exposed as racists, exposed as nutters - all just seems to wash off the party, when it should be ringing major, major alarm bells. Especially given how prone BBC are to giving Farage air time - who does he know within the corporation??

Psychosplodge

03-24-2015, 04:08 AM

You know why that is don't you? Because farage has sacked everyone caught out swiftly. None of this closing ranks while we have an inquiry. None of this waiting while the MP is dragged through the court system. He appears to be doing something about it in comparison to his rivals. And people are still pissed about the expenses scandal hence why its currently still working...

At end of the day Mystery if voting changed anything they'd scrap, but it doesn't because you still end up with a politician.

Mr Mystery

03-24-2015, 04:15 AM

I guess.

Just alarmed that people fall for the whole 'we're different from the other parties', particularly when given they're largely comprised of disgruntled Tories, that statement couldn't be further from the truth. And that they have their snouts deep in the EU trough they claim to hate so much is frankly laughable.

Psychosplodge

03-24-2015, 04:23 AM

They're patriotically repatriating money from Brussels :D

Mr Mystery

03-24-2015, 04:26 AM

Aye, straight into their secret off shore bank accounts.

Other worrying thing about Farage?

That time he was caught in a tax dodge with his brother? Apparently, that's alright because he lost money.....

So, being greedy, dishonest and incompetent is somehow better than plain old greedy and dishonest???

Kirsten

03-27-2015, 12:36 PM

Katie Hopkins will leave Britain if Ed Millipede wins the election.

everybody, quick, vote labour.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/03/27/katie-hopkins-promises-to-leave-the-uk-if-ed-miliband-becomes-pm/?utm_source=PNFBimg&utm_medium=socialFBimg&utm_campaign=PNFacebook

- - - Updated - - -

equally essential, politicians that look like peppers...

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2013/06/26/politicians-that-look-like-peppers/

Kirsten

03-29-2015, 04:09 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=103&v=vbLGG5UGEKw

this week in britain first

http://edlreview.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/what-britain-first-proved-to-us-this-week.html

Psychosplodge

03-29-2015, 04:25 PM

Mr Mystery

03-30-2015, 05:45 AM

Not in the least!

And....they're off! Official Campaign Season for the 2015 General Election has begun.

Expect mindless scaremongering of the middle classes from the Express and Mail 'boobs, boobs, ARRRRRRGH FOREIGNERS' from the Sun and Star, 'effing Tories' from The Grauniad and Mirror, fence sitting from The Independent, and 'tcoch, Labour' from pretty much everyone else.

So far, it's looking like we'll be seeing a Labour lead coalition of some sort, with the small chance of a Labour Majority, but it still very much remains up in the air.

Whilst I don't agree with many of their policies, there is truth to the Tory rhetoric of needing economic stability, and as already covered I'm happy to vote Tory this time around because a) I've benefitted from the last five years in terms of basic tax, and they did scrap the moronic Beer Escalator* b) UKIP need a proper bloody nose to shut up and go away, the nasty little bigots c) an EU referendum seems largely inevitable, if only to silence the peanut gallery.

Other than that, I remain at heart a Labour voter!

*Sadly not a mechanised stairway to beer. It was a way of hiking up beer tax way above inflation, because on no account must the working person ever enjoy themselves ever. and especially not together.

Psychosplodge

03-30-2015, 06:13 AM

I fully expect to be unhappy with whatever result, but for different reasons depending who wins.

Psychosplodge

04-01-2015, 08:27 AM

And I wonder why people find our politics childish (http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32142307)

Path Walker

04-01-2015, 08:35 AM

*Sadly not a mechanised stairway to beer. It was a way of hiking up beer tax way above inflation, because on no account must the working person ever enjoy themselves ever. and especially not together.

its often said that alcohol is the greatest threat to the trade union movement and that cheap and easy access to booze is a diversion for the working class from the exploitation of the capitalist system, thus restricting access to that particular drug works to empower the working classes by concentrating them on the bosses.

Also, voting Tory is an inherently evil act that will forever tarnish your soul.

- - - Updated - - -

And I wonder why people find our politics childish (http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32142307)

Pretty sure deliberately copying another campaigns style is illegal, so I imagine this is an april fools joke

Psychosplodge

04-01-2015, 08:38 AM

I thought they did it everytime? Or do they parody the one before?

Mr Mystery

04-01-2015, 08:43 AM

Path Walker

04-01-2015, 08:47 AM

Speaking of childish - UKIP claim children brainwashed to be pro-EU in schools, and should have no say at all in how the country they're ultimately going to inherit should be run (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32144437).

I really, REALLY loathe UKIP.

Alternativly - they're less exposed to anti EU propaganda

- - - Updated - - -

I thought they did it everytime? Or do they parody the one before?

I've only seen Tories do that one, Labour have had a good run of success with the mugs, except the controversial Immigration Control one.

Psychosplodge

04-01-2015, 08:50 AM

Path Walker

04-01-2015, 08:53 AM

Well regardless of the propaganda I don't think we should be letting under 18s vote. Especially as they have now upped the school leaving age to 18, the they work and pay tax argument is so thin it barely exists.

Why? Is a person at 16 really that that different from someone at 18? And we're talking about for a referendum, not an election here, I'd say a 16 year old in school is probably more clued up on the EU than the average taxpayer.

Psychosplodge

04-01-2015, 09:01 AM

I'm not sure I agree with 18 year olds voting, but thats where we have drawn the line of legal adult hood.

Mr Mystery

04-01-2015, 12:25 PM

Path Walker

04-01-2015, 12:59 PM

Or.. get rid of voting and introduce a socialist anarchy?

Mr Mystery

04-01-2015, 01:26 PM

No.

That would just lead to more Hipster arses like Brand pontificating about obvious problems, without offering anything even closely resembling a solution.

Path Walker

04-01-2015, 01:58 PM

No.

That would just lead to more Hipster arses like Brand pontificating about obvious problems, without offering anything even closely resembling a solution.

Well, no, socialist anarchy is the answer, but Brand will never actually say that, because it doesn't sell books

Psychosplodge

04-02-2015, 02:19 AM

Except for procreation, which is about the most adult thing one can do in life....

Lower voting age, introduce political studies to secondary schools so they understand the importance. Dispel the ignorance, help dispel the apathy.

You can procreate from younger than that physically, but I think if you've actually reproduced sub eighteen(not just gone through the motions) I think that probably suggests you're not responsible enough to be allowed to vote.

Anyway...

The campaign is getting silly

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/82072000/jpg/_82072313_campaignspotting-uk-short.jpg

Denzark

04-02-2015, 03:33 PM

On the subject of voting before 18... Just no. What teenagers know anything about anything? Really? Does anyone think their 16 year old self competent to consider all the issues? OK there are exceptions and some 16 year olds are more intelligent than voters twice their age.

But they are a minority. Not old enough to smoke, drink alcohol and serve in a combat zone, not old enough to vote.

- - - Updated - - -

I just watched all the leader debate that just took place. I thought:

Green was on cloud cuckoo - al very well intentioned but financially impossible.
Plaid Cymru cleverly sniped against her only real opposition - Miliband.
Wee Killy Kranky of Scotland did as well as expected fighting her own pitch.
Cameron looked quite statesman like and had the figures to hand. He defended the extent to which he has polished the turd.
Clegg - actually came over well to me although trying to distance himself from Cameron at the start looked contrived.
Farage - came across as a one-trick pony - but his justification of why it is a good trick - everyone else avoided it.
Milliband. Oh my gods please do not let him lead 70million of us on the world stage. I see more leader-like things in the pan after I have had a heavy night on Guinness.

Deadlift

04-02-2015, 03:38 PM

Absolutely right, no way should under 18s be given the right to vote. Most just don't have the inclination to find out how politics effects them and are far too easily swayed by retoric to vote sensible. Sure when they interviewed 16 year olds in Scotland during the independence vote some came across well, most didn't and how many interviews were so bad they weren't shown at all.
Not all, but most under 18s are far too immature to be making decisions like voting.

Haighus

04-02-2015, 04:56 PM

I don't agree that under 18's should be given the vote either. I know I've learned a load more about politics in the last 4 years since turning 16, and I would say I was fairly clued in at 16, and I still don't think I should have had the vote then.

Not old enough to smoke
Hmm... as an advocate of the smoke-free generation policy, current people who are underage for smoking should stay that way. Paediatric disease, adult addiction.

Mr Mystery

04-03-2015, 02:19 AM

I was just as clueless at 21 as I was at 16 (got gypped on timings!)

Most people are. Indeed, most people are utterly clueless throughout their entire lives, yet they have suffrage.

What's the difference? 16 year olds have to live in the same world as us, give them the vote. At least being in school they can be kept from mind numbing, scaremongering, border line racist NIMBY propaganda.

Wolfshade

04-03-2015, 02:41 AM

Clearly age isn't the problem, there are young [political party] groups and those minorities (pun intended boom) are definietely policitcally educated.

Instead we should have an eligibility criteria, like at least being a tax payer. Or some minimum education criteria.

Like the people who voted UKIP in the local elections, while I don't have an issue with them as a legitmate politcal party, they are a one trick pony which can only be done in national / eu level, there is no platform for them as local councillors.

I don't know what the solution is, benevolent dictator, which I would more than happily run ;).

Just consider the Anglican Communion vs. the Roman Catholic Church, both have a similiar structure. The big difference is that the Pope is the voice that matters so if he sees something wrong he can rapidly change the course of the RC through his will (or holy ghost depending on your theological leanings) the Anglican Communion is instead left having to table motions as general synod that happens infrequently and any change from the status quo requires a 2/3rds majority.

This is the issue that we have with parliament is that opposition will often vote against the government just for the sake of voting against them and scoring political points for making the government seem ineffective. Whereas we need people who have conviction to see what needs to be done and vote for that regardless of which side it comes from.

It does scare me Labour's forecast spending and I really can't see how they are going to do that without taking more money out of my pocket. That is without looking at what labour did to NHS wales : shudder : . Plus I think we totally got the wrong milliband.

UKIP: Withdrawl from the EU worries me. I am in favour of the EEC, the whole open free and fair trade within the european bloc is essential and to put but barriers into out largest trading partner is economic suicide.

The Greens, they are more worrisome for me than UKIP, but that could be because I lean more right than left. In a lot of ways I do like some of their ecological views and certainly sustainability should be a the core of what we do. Though being pro nuclear and trident it would worry me that we would be removing ourselves from the top military table just at the time when Russia are becoming resurgent.

SNP/Plaid : I doubt I will have an option to vote for them ;)

LibDems: Clegg is certainly a very good orator, though I am not sure that they might not flp flop all over the place.

Tories: Well they still haven't sorted out the debt as promised and I'm not entirely sold with free schools, they need mroe regulation i think.

Al Shut

04-03-2015, 03:08 AM

Everybody keep in mind that the right to vote is not given to somebody, it's a basic right that is taken away from somebody. For that you need a damn good reason and I'm not sure 'everybody from 16-18 is automatically unable to make an important decision for themselves' is good enough.

Denzark

04-03-2015, 04:12 AM

I don't see how the state can say (in the UK, YMMV elsewhere) 'Righto 16 year old, you are incapable of deciding whether or not to drink alcohol or pollute your body with cigarettes, we'll make that call for you. You can join the military at 16 and 3/4 (with your parents permission) but you are too young to go on operational service until 18. However, your opinion as to which political wunderkind is in charge is really well formed on all that life experience so please come and vote'.

I find that a touch hypocritical (of the UK policy makers not you Al Shut).

18 is a reasonable age to say someone is now an adult, and 18 is therefore a reasonable age to vote.

Mr Mystery

04-03-2015, 04:40 AM

Why? What's the difference? You don't magically become wise and knowing at 18. Instead you properly discover nights out without the fear of being hoofed out due to fake id.

CoffeeGrunt

04-03-2015, 05:09 AM

As someone who's pretty young, there's a pretty big difference between 16 year olds and 18 year olds in terms of mentality, but from the perspective of the older people here, probably not so much.

The difference is two years of college or work and being outside of the coddling of school. Trust me when I say it grants perspective, experience and insight you simply can't have when you've only just left school. The problem is that 16 year olds will feel pretty smart due to a handful of GCSEs, but ultimately, don't really understand any of the systems government is using.

People are pointing out how marriage, military service and such can come at 16, but my viewpoint is that those should be left until 18. How many marriages at 16 even last, how many 16 year old kids wash out of military boot camp? I'd dig up some research and answer these myself, but I've got a busy day ahead. :P

Denzark

04-03-2015, 05:15 AM

Why? What's the difference? You don't magically become wise and knowing at 18. Instead you properly discover nights out without the fear of being hoofed out due to fake id.

Because those extra 2 years of life experience, increasing your life by 12.5% from 16, should give you slightly more context.

Maybe we should let people shag, drink, smoke and vote from 12? If you don't agree, then you are haggling over what the age should be. Letting 16 year olds vote is a gimmick, that Alex Salmond wanted - for the precise reason that the vast majority simply haven't the combined intelligence and life experience to make a well reasoned choice.

Mr Mystery

04-03-2015, 07:04 AM

Again, which is different from the rest of the population, how?

To quote one exit poll from 1997.......'Good enough for the Sun, good enough for me'. That from some middle aged dude.

Denzark

04-03-2015, 07:26 AM

Every thing is a matter of risk management. And yes you are correct actually, whichever way you cut it there are a lot of numpties/clueless people/clueless numpties.

But proportionately those whose numptiness is based on inexperience, there is naturally less experience of life in the first 16 years of the average base line citizen, than there is with the extra 2 years.

Mr Mystery

04-03-2015, 07:47 AM

I disagree.

It's not until you've worked for a few years that you properly find your feet in the adult world. Whether secondary school, University or College, you're not fully exposed to life's possibilities.

Yoof these days are kept in education until 18 - so we're already producing a generation of educated numpties who will end up voting.

And with the majority of the electorate largely unengaged, what's the difference? Naiivety and Ignorance are interchangeable.

Who knows, engaging with those in school, teaching them something about the political process (though for gods sake, keep it secular!) and giving them the vote might just shake things up enough to make a difference.

Otherwise we're just going to get more morons listening to Russell Brand, and feeling that somehow not exercising your vote is the best way to make a difference, as opposed to giving fringe loonies free reign.

Denzark

04-03-2015, 08:24 AM

Well OK then, the age of criminal responsibility in England Wales (Don't know about Scotland) is 10. If you are old enough to be responsible for your own actions, why not voting?

Al Shut

04-03-2015, 09:30 AM

I'm not saying other age limits are reasonable, some might be others might not, some might be comparable to voting others are not. Criminal responsability for instance seems to be more about a basic understanding of right and wrong, I can see that having a lower age than voting.

Voting is not about asking a lot of people to come up with the best result, it's about giving the whole system the legitimacy to rule the people by force. It has to be as inclusive as possible and a certain amount of cluelessness or unengagement doesn't seem good enough a reason to deny the right the vote for me

Denzark

04-03-2015, 09:55 AM

It is best for the franchise to be wide, but surely there is a limit? Why not 12? If the answer is because they are still children, so are 16 year olds.

I cannot see any possible benefit to society to widening the vote to include 16 year olds.

To explain this, I have had recent exposure to 12-18 year olds. Firstly, I have been an adult instructor with 2 different Air Training Corps units. Secondly, my wife is a secondary science teacher.

Absolutely none of that interaction, either directly with Air Cadets, who are specifically taught about leadership, responsibility and service - or by hearing about the antics of the other children at a typical secondary school, can bring me to conclude we would be better as a whole by including those 16 year olds.

Psychosplodge

04-07-2015, 03:03 AM

What's the difference? 16 year olds have to live in the same world as us, give them the vote. At least being in school they can be kept from mind numbing, scaremongering, border line racist NIMBY propaganda.

Or fed the correct propaganda?

Mr Mystery

04-07-2015, 03:39 AM

Not if schools are doing it right. Cover all angles like. Explain and explore schools of political thought.

Psychosplodge

04-07-2015, 03:42 AM

Yeah that's not how I remember school.

Mr Mystery

04-07-2015, 03:49 AM

Still better than allowing in the bias of the media.

Psychosplodge

04-07-2015, 03:56 AM

But the teachers are generally only repeating the bias form the media they agree with.

Wildeybeast

04-07-2015, 05:37 AM

As someone who has daily contact with them, the average 16 year old is in no position to make an informed decision on voting. This isn't a criticism of them as I wouldn't expect them to be. They are children. They have absolutely no experience of adult life or the impact voting decisions make. How can you expect them to appreciate tax bands when they have never had a taxable income? Or the ramifications of fuel duty and 'green car' subsidies when they are not allowed to drive? The simple fact is, their world consists of their friends, family and those life deciding exams they are all sitting. They don't really care who is in power as it has so little direct impact on them.

Al Shut

04-08-2015, 09:17 AM

How on earth has whoever is in power no direct impact on the live of juveniles. Who bans them from driving? Who determines at what point and to what conditions they are allowed to take a job? Who determines to what extend the parents have a say in all that? And last but not least who decides if they are allowed to vote?

Wildeybeast

04-08-2015, 11:09 AM

I should clarify. I meant no direct impact as far as they can discern. Education policies have a massive impact on them, but they often don't know actually see the impact of the changes in they way I would as a teacher. They get one go round, so to speak, and their education is whatever current policy dictates it is. I know there are better and worse ways to educate children, but they don't because they only have one experience.

They have never had any of those things you have listed, so they have no real impact on them, which limits how much they care about them. They probably have views about the examples you give, but having never experienced voting or driving, a 16 year old isn't really in a position to make a qualified decision about whether they should be allowed to do them. Plus, no party ever campaigns on those things. Why on earth would you create policies to appeal to people who cannot vote for you?

Al Shut

04-08-2015, 11:39 AM

Plus, no party ever campaigns on those things. Why on earth would you create policies to appeal to people who cannot vote for you?

They shouldn't vote because nobody campaigns on issues that concern them because they can't vote? Sounds mighty strange to me.

CoffeeGrunt

04-09-2015, 03:39 AM

They shouldn't vote because they don't have any understanding on the issues at hand. It's pretty simple, really.

Mr Mystery

04-09-2015, 04:59 AM

They shouldn't vote because they don't have any understanding on the issues at hand. It's pretty simple, really.

Same is true of a vast swathe of the electorate.

CoffeeGrunt

04-09-2015, 05:24 AM

Same is true of a vast swathe of the electorate.

But there's ignorance and there's simply not having had the chance to learn. If an adult has chosen not to bother learning about the policies of the parties and how they affect their life, then that's their decision. A kid fresh out of high school has just learned how to find the length of the hypotenuse before you're asking them to understand things like tax increases, how it affects the nation economically, social and wealth divisions, etc.

I'll say it again, I'm 21, and trust me when I say there's a massive leap between my thinking now, and my thinking five years ago. Those years of working and paying attention to the politics at play makes a difference. I'm old enough to remember the Labour administration in order to weigh it against the current Conservative one, against the backdrop of the global economy, and even then I'm not sure I'm fully informed and am still on the fence about which party to vote for.

A 16 year old this year last saw an election when they were 12, and wouldn't have comprehended it anyway near properly. If you only know one administration, you're either going to assume that things were always like this, or buy into the opposition's viewpoint that the current party is to blame for all the ills today. You're not going to remember what the party before was like, and whether it was in fact responsible for the current situation or not.

Hell, economic analysts aren't even sure about that one. IMO, it's the most important factor on deciding who to vote for, aside from f**k UKIP.

Psychosplodge

04-09-2015, 08:35 AM

Do the Trident claims (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/32227680) worry anyone else?

How credible is it that Red Ed might bargain them away to secure SNP backing in event of a hung parliament?

Kirsten

04-09-2015, 08:37 AM

they need getting rid of anyway, they are an affront to Poseidon.

they do need to go though, spending billions on a nuclear deterrent is mental.

Psychosplodge

04-09-2015, 08:42 AM

:eek:

It's good value for money really, and thousands of jobs.

Kirsten

04-09-2015, 08:44 AM

they aren't good value for money if we don't need them in the first place. we have far too many nukes as it is, we don't want stupidly expensive high tech delivery methods as well. spend the money on conventional arms, spend it on hospitals and education

Psychosplodge

04-09-2015, 08:55 AM

I thought they wanted a straight replacement of the current system?

I'm not sure why you think we wouldn't need them?

Kirsten

04-09-2015, 08:57 AM

because we don't need them.

they are a nuclear deterrent, and we don't need any more of those. it is obscene to spend billions of pounds on weapons of mass destruction we will never use when we have an NHS in crisis, schools short of funding, and so on.

Psychosplodge

04-09-2015, 09:02 AM

The point of a deterrent is hopefully never having to use it?
They've kept the peace in europe for what seventy years? A conventional world war three would cost significantly more.

Kirsten

04-09-2015, 09:07 AM

well we can't actually tell whether or not they have been effective, it is all conjecture.

we would still have a deterrent, tens of thousands of deterrents, just not a multi billion pound submarine deterrent.

Psychosplodge

04-09-2015, 09:11 AM

Contemplating your cities vanishing in an eyeblink is a bit more deterring for some reason.

Kirsten

04-09-2015, 09:14 AM

yes, and as I pointed out, Britain will still have that deterrent.

Psychosplodge

04-09-2015, 09:16 AM

Why will we? They need replacing due to age, not for the sake of it. I'd imagine a submarine has a metal fatigue issue similar to plane wings have a limited lifespan.

Kirsten

04-09-2015, 09:18 AM

forget the submarines, think instead about the vast numbers of other nuclear weapons held by Britain. and France, Germany, the US... submarines are not the only way to deliver them.

pressuring Iran over its' nuclear program, whilst maintaining stockpiles of tens of thousands of weapons, and renewing state of the art vehicles designed for destroying other nations is beyond ridiculous.

Psychosplodge

04-09-2015, 09:22 AM

We only hold about 250 I think, and they're all designed to be sub launched?

Kirsten

04-09-2015, 09:23 AM

well the western allies between them have ludicrous quantities of them, we don't need any at all.

Psychosplodge

04-09-2015, 09:26 AM

I wouldn't want to have to rely entirely on France and the US to make the decision to use them.
We need that independence.

Kirsten

04-09-2015, 09:28 AM

the independence to kill millions of people? no thanks.

Psychosplodge

04-09-2015, 09:31 AM

I'd rather be avenged, but then again I live somewhere that did have Soviet nukes pointing at it :p

CoffeeGrunt

04-09-2015, 09:42 AM

Kirsten, would you have us remove our standing army for the same reason? It's pretty expensive, and well, we don't need it right now, so why not sell it off?

Then hope no-one attacks us because they're nice.

I dunno, with Russia deliberately flying aircraft at our airspace with no explanation, I'm gunna advocate keeping them until we work out what the Kremlin is playing at.

YorkNecromancer

04-09-2015, 09:56 AM

until we work out what the Kremlin is playing at.

It's not exactly hard to work out what the Kremlin is after. (http://io9.com/ukraine-is-just-the-beginning-welcome-to-the-age-of-sh-1691073647)

Vladimir Putin is basically a criminal overlord who just happens to run a country. He knows that an actual war, fought with soldiers, well. It won't get him what he wants.

Which is everything.

You see, he's got no ideology beyond 'I want all the monies'; he's just significantly more shameless about his greed than his Western equivalents because his absolute control of the people who matter in Russia? It means he doesn't need to hide it. I mean, he's the richest man in the world; it's just not advertised because he hides his absurd wealth. The man is a Tzar in all but name, and his time in the KGB is what taught him warfare. He was not a warrior - not in the sense the West wants him to be, because that would make him easy to fight. He's not. And that's because at heart, he was, and remains, a spy. So that's how he fights: with a style that is dirty, complex, and unfair. That style of 'everything and the kitchen sink' warfare is also why he'll win.

Look at the Litvinenko poisoning. A Russian defector dies of an extremely hard-to-find poison... Hard to find unless you happen to have reactors. The murder is perfectly carried out... Apart from a too-obvious trail of radiation all over London. Putin denies it, because of course he does - he's no criminal - and because everyone knows he did it. He doesn't need to claim responsibility because the message couldn't be louder. Everyone who needs to know, knows: this is what happens if you f*** with Putin. You die, slowly, and in horrible pain, and everyone knows why.

The danger from Russia isn't that Putin is mad. His unpredictability isn't random; it's a gambit. No, the danger Putin represents is that he is completely and utterly unfettered. He has absolutely no compunctions, moral or otherwise, and finances that are, to all intents and purposes, infinite. Therefore there are no limitations to what he can and will do. There is no line he will not cross. Unlike someone like, say, Stalin or Adolf, he's smart enough to avoid poking the sleeping dragon that is the West (or China) so hard that a war is called for. Oh, he'll send planes into our airspace, but that's like the Litvinenko killing: it's a message:

'I can reach out and touch you whenever I want. I am not some terrorist group you can attack for polling numbers, or to make some money for those rich businessmen friends of yours. I do not represent poor brown people whose deaths will go unquestioned. No, I am an actual threat. I am bigger than you. If you fight me, there is a very good chance you will die. Not your soldiers, all those poor teenaged boys whose lives you spend like pocket change: you. You people in power.'

It's all messages, but they're not for us. They're for the people in charge.

Putin is utterly, utterly terrifying. And not because he'll launch nukes (he's not mad in that way), but because he wants everything, doesn't care who or how many have to die for him to get it, and is clever enough to employ a hundred thousand forms of attack... All of which are more effective and more powerful than anything so prosaic as an actual war.

If you want to know more, I strongly recommend this book. It's terrifying. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mafia-State-Reporter-Became-Brutal/dp/0852652496)

Kirsten

04-09-2015, 10:40 AM

no we shouldn't lose the army. the armed services are doing important work. they are not just a deterrent, they undertake peacekeeping roles, they help in emergencies, they are active on the ground trying to defend people. nuclear weapons however only do one thing, and that is threaten millions of lives. we also have no evidence whatsoever that they do actually function as a deterrent, it is massively debated. so we spend billions of pounds on something massively unpopular, something we are condemning other nations for having, or trying to have, when there is no evidence at all that they actually do what they are supposed to.

Mr Mystery

04-09-2015, 11:20 AM

Are Nukes a deterrent?

Let's ask countries who have none if they've been secretly nuked and media just covered it up.

Mr Mystery

04-09-2015, 11:52 AM

It's not exactly hard to work out what the Kremlin is after. (http://io9.com/ukraine-is-just-the-beginning-welcome-to-the-age-of-sh-1691073647)

Vladimir Putin is basically a criminal overlord who just happens to run a country. He knows that an actual war, fought with soldiers, well. It won't get him what he wants.

Which is everything.

You see, he's got no ideology beyond 'I want all the monies'; he's just significantly more shameless about his greed than his Western equivalents because his absolute control of the people who matter in Russia? It means he doesn't need to hide it. I mean, he's the richest man in the world; it's just not advertised because he hides his absurd wealth. The man is a Tzar in all but name, and his time in the KGB is what taught him warfare. He was not a warrior - not in the sense the West wants him to be, because that would make him easy to fight. He's not. And that's because at heart, he was, and remains, a spy. So that's how he fights: with a style that is dirty, complex, and unfair. That style of 'everything and the kitchen sink' warfare is also why he'll win.

Look at the Litvinenko poisoning. A Russian defector dies of an extremely hard-to-find poison... Hard to find unless you happen to have reactors. The murder is perfectly carried out... Apart from a too-obvious trail of radiation all over London. Putin denies it, because of course he does - he's no criminal - and because everyone knows he did it. He doesn't need to claim responsibility because the message couldn't be louder. Everyone who needs to know, knows: this is what happens if you f*** with Putin. You die, slowly, and in horrible pain, and everyone knows why.

The danger from Russia isn't that Putin is mad. His unpredictability isn't random; it's a gambit. No, the danger Putin represents is that he is completely and utterly unfettered. He has absolutely no compunctions, moral or otherwise, and finances that are, to all intents and purposes, infinite. Therefore there are no limitations to what he can and will do. There is no line he will not cross. Unlike someone like, say, Stalin or Adolf, he's smart enough to avoid poking the sleeping dragon that is the West (or China) so hard that a war is called for. Oh, he'll send planes into our airspace, but that's like the Litvinenko killing: it's a message:

'I can reach out and touch you whenever I want. I am not some terrorist group you can attack for polling numbers, or to make some money for those rich businessmen friends of yours. I do not represent poor brown people whose deaths will go unquestioned. No, I am an actual threat. I am bigger than you. If you fight me, there is a very good chance you will die. Not your soldiers, all those poor teenaged boys whose lives you spend like pocket change: you. You people in power.'

It's all messages, but they're not for us. They're for the people in charge.

Putin is utterly, utterly terrifying. And not because he'll launch nukes (he's not mad in that way), but because he wants everything, doesn't care who or how many have to die for him to get it, and is clever enough to employ a hundred thousand forms of attack... All of which are more effective and more powerful than anything so prosaic as an actual war.

If you want to know more, I strongly recommend this book. It's terrifying. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mafia-State-Reporter-Became-Brutal/dp/0852652496)

Patrician of Ankh-Morpork.

grimmas

04-09-2015, 12:56 PM

Are Nukes a deterrent?

Let's ask countries who have none if they've been secretly nuked and media just covered it up.

True, but it is noticeable how much s**t the countries that have get away with.

- - - Updated - - -

Just heard of the radio that nominations have closes and we have the largest number of candidates ever to choose from. I know it's probably going to be the same old faces at the top but it is a step in the right direction. I think more choice is no bad thing in these circumstances

Wolfshade

04-10-2015, 03:47 PM

Trident is our method for delivering nuclear missiles currently.

But yes, there is the question of the NHS and how it is managed. Certainly, it is important, though so are so many other things, like "the arts". For instance. But need determine what is and isn't important.

Denzark

04-11-2015, 12:50 PM

Ask the Japs whether they will take part in a war of aggression against a nuclear armed power.

The military reason for submarine based weapons is that if they are deployed properly, it is well nigh impossible for the enemy to find them and neutralise them. You need 4 minimum - one training, one repairing, one starting a 6 month patrol one finishing a six month patrol.

If you think that one's country should have nuclear weapons for any reason, then you want the best option. Which is not silos that can be spotted from google maps and is not air-launched - airfields are too vulnerable compared to a black steely killer of the depths.

And I say that as RAF who would benefit from 1000s of extra jobs if the big stick came our way.

- - - Updated - - -

Just heard of the radio that nominations have closes and we have the largest number of candidates ever to choose from. I know it's probably going to be the same old faces at the top but it is a step in the right direction. I think more choice is no bad thing in these circumstances

This is all very well Grimmas but I saw a report in the telegraph (can't find linky) that reckons over 50% of the sitting politicians are polling as getting back in - it was either 56% or65%, can't remember which.

YorkNecromancer

04-11-2015, 01:40 PM

Just ask the Japanese

Fixed that for you.

I know you're all pumped up over the Allies' recent victory over the Japanese Empire, but really, there's no call for ugly discourtesy.

Denzark

04-11-2015, 04:41 PM

Thank you York that is very kind. Whilst I could go into a discourse about the widespread cruelties conducted in the name of Bushido culture to the Allies (don't get me started on what they did in China) and how as a result, one should always remain 'pumped' about said victory, in the interests of avoiding digression, I will point out I did not intend this as a racial slur. Indeed the battalion sent by our Japanese allies to serve alongside us in Iraq circa 2004, were referred to in military shorthand and by themselves as 'Jap Bat' and it was in that vein I shortened Japanese.

I therefore apologise fully and will avoid using that terminology again.

grimmas

04-11-2015, 05:06 PM

Yeah Denzark it's a bit disappointing and it leads to the sort of entitlement where Kenneth Clarke seems to believe he belongs to some sort of political class, bloody cheek they're elected representatives nothing more.

DarkLink

04-11-2015, 09:28 PM

True, but it is noticeable how much s**t the countries that have get away with.

- - - Updated - - -

Just heard of the radio that nominations have closes and we have the largest number of candidates ever to choose from. I know it's probably going to be the same old faces at the top but it is a step in the right direction. I think more choice is no bad thing in these circumstances

Ask the ye olde British Empire how many nukes you need to exploit third world countries.

grimmas

04-12-2015, 02:20 AM

Ask the ye olde British Empire how many nukes you need to exploit third world countries.

If they'd existed they would have had them, for the time threat of the Royal Navy had the desired effect.

Psychosplodge

04-12-2015, 04:47 PM

Ask the ye olde British Empire how many nukes you need to exploit third world countries.

we had something equally baffling to them....civil service bureaucracy.

Psychosplodge

04-15-2015, 05:47 AM

(lib dems would) add a heart to a Conservative government and add a brain to a Labour one

Doesn't say a lot about his opinion on red Ed.

Deadlift

04-17-2015, 08:53 PM

I'm voting UKIP, especially after seeing this poster.
http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab3/joenortonjones/230bcf9599fd43033fa8bf428189902c.jpg

Mr Mystery

04-18-2015, 03:18 AM

Doesn't say a lot about his opinion on red Ed.

Shame they donated their spine to the Tory cause in 2010.

Debates are proving.....interesting.

I think they're a good thing overall, but as a country we're not that used to them. Though it's always funny to watch Farage get ganged up on.

Mr Mystery

04-19-2015, 02:08 PM

Is everyone registered to vote?

I am. Bring on the polls.

eldargal

04-20-2015, 02:40 AM

I'm voting UKIP, especially after seeing this poster.
http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab3/joenortonjones/230bcf9599fd43033fa8bf428189902c.jpg

I didn't realize that was a parody until quite late...

Mr Mystery

04-20-2015, 03:21 AM

Farage is going to try to sue the BBC for bias, all because he lost a debate and was more or less laughed at by the audience.

I guess it's easier than accepting only a minority really support your scaremongering and mindless bigotry.

Kirsten

04-20-2015, 03:24 AM

his attack on the audience was ridiculous. especially when it was apparently independently selected based on support for each party. there were no UKIP supporters there because there are virtually none anywhere.

Mr Mystery

04-20-2015, 03:31 AM

Yup.

Plus, you have 3 left wing parties - SNP, Plaid Cymru and The Green Party, with Labour (kind of slightly right of centre these days, but with lefty elements). What did he expect?

Ah yes. Of course. A crowd of bigoted swivel eyed loons desperately denying their racist views, calling themselves patriots etc. The sort he doesn't actually have to try with.

Kirsten

04-20-2015, 04:02 AM

yup, rabid Britain First types

Mr Mystery

04-20-2015, 04:08 AM

That's the ones.

And the detritus of the Daily Mail readership.

- - - Updated - - -

Seems UKIP are steadily losing support as well.

BBC Opinion Poll tracker shows them going only one way from original 19% to a much less impressive 13%....

I really, really hope they get a massively bloody nose at the polls. I am sick to death of Farage claiming they're a major player in politics, rather than an irritating fascist novelty act.

Kirsten

04-20-2015, 04:15 AM

yeah, not even my elections but it is still incredibly embarrassing that such a party exists in Britain at all. He came to the Isle of Man to give a speech, which was really bizarre

Mr Mystery

04-20-2015, 04:24 AM

More likely nipped over to see his bank manager....

Mr Mystery

04-20-2015, 04:59 AM

Also, the Tory plan to sell off Lloyds shares.....

So they're going to sell me something, that my taxes bought and paid for, at a loss. So I can hope to make a profit?

But....but.....the country already owns the shares...why should we have to pay for them again?

Denzark

04-20-2015, 07:22 AM

I’m going to write something here that may be contentious. Before I do, let me caveat that I am a Tory voter, not a UKIP supporter.

But here I go:

UKIP supporters -

They are not all racists or bigots. Some of their concerns are genuine based on the massive effect that immigration, especially Eastern European, has on the limited infrastructure in rural communities.

With regards to getting out of Europe:

If you listen to Farage, he specifically says he is not about cutting the UK off from Europe – he is about accessing the rest of the world.

The idea that the EU has changed beyond all recognition from what we joined 40+ years ago and therefore another vote should be had, is not bad – it is actually pure democracy and to deny the country that is to patronisingly assume the populace isn’t capable of making such a decision.

The idea that the economy will crash if we pull out is bonkers.

Finally – to assume wrongly that all UKIP supporters are racist or bigots, represents a form of intolerance and prejudice that I find equally as distasteful as that displayed by the handful of racists and bigots that do support them.

Oh and Kirsten, to say that there are no UKIP supporters in the face of poll data that shows bigger support than for several other ‘mainstream’ parties, is frankly ridiculous.

Haighus

04-20-2015, 08:34 AM

Had a debate at York University last Friday on the topic of Health policy, with the local MP candidates for York Outer (I think, may have been inner) from UKIP, Lib Dems, Tories, Greens and Labour. It was organised by the campus branch of Medsin (hence the health topic) and was mostly attended by medical students to give an idea of the demographic. Also chaired by Alan Maynard, a big name in health economics and previous head of the local CCG, as well as being a funny guy who is happy to speak his mind. Was a very interesting debate.
Of course, most of the audience had a vested interest in the policies being stated, but in essence, Labour wants another massive reshuffle of the NHS (again...), probably costing a couple of billion and wasting yet more cash on something with pretty much no evidence base (like pretty much every major NHS change since the 1970's). They really came up with nothing concrete for the next few years other than another expensive change, but had long term policy ideas about increasing staffing levels.
The Conservatives were advocating an idea of stability, which with reference to the above idea of more reshuffles, is actually very appealing. they had more short-term goals about staffing increases iirc.
Lib Dems sort of wobbled around between Labour and Conservatives, and sat on the fence mostly, although I think they leant more on the side of stability.
Greens had similar sorts of policies to Labour, and wanted to add free tuition fees for all students, including med students. They were the only party to really entirely cover the funding deficit well, mainly by scrapping Trident to do so (which is pretty much their plan to fund everything they want to add...).
UKIP... well... didn't do terribly for most of the debate, but literally every point the candidate made was based on an anecdote of some description- someone they had talked to on the street or in an organisation next to the one they worked in etc, no hard facts. Their biggest ideas basically revolved around removing NICE (not a good idea IMO), as they saw it as just a vehicle for setting the caps for when interventions no longer become cost effective (also not totally true), and to remove said caps for British citizens, mainly funded supposedly by cracking down on health tourism and reducing the foreign aid budget. The candidate clearly decided he hadn't said anything controversial enough and finished the debate by stating that all homeless people are druggies, and also chose to be homeless and on drugs. The collective "WHAT?!" from the audience was quite incredible to witness :D

As for the various funding ideas, there was a general mess around where an additional £8bn per year would come from, and a general ignoring of the fact that another £20bn was estimated to be needed by 2020. Tories were going to carry on cuttting but not raise taxes, Labour wanted to raise taxes, but reverse the cuts. Greens cutting Trident as mentioned, UKIP cutting anything international, and I think Lib Dems wanted to mostly maintain the Tory plan.

On a side note, the topic of Uni fees came up, and I thought the Labour plans were interesting. They want to cut them down to £6000 a year, but I agree that this actually benefits the better off than the very poor, as the better off will pay it off sooner and be debt free for longer, but people only just earning enough to begin to pay off the fee will still never pay it off, because they only pay back £3000 worth, for example, anyway. £3000 out of £6000 is the same as out of £9000 so it makes little difference for the poorest Uni-goers. I think from Labour, that is either a poorly thought through policy (wouldn't be surprising) or one that is actually not intended to really help, just look good.

Mr Mystery

04-20-2015, 09:27 AM

Path Walker

04-20-2015, 09:34 AM

Accessing the rest of the world is nonsense, Farage advocates a free market economy and is using lies about immigration to try and get it, his policies are based on the entirely fictional idea that we could negotiate a way our of the EU keeping all the benefits but getting rid of the obligations, its insane and impossible.

There are no real UKIP supporters because UKIP don't actually stand for anything

Kirsten

04-20-2015, 10:27 AM

UKIP had a brief spell of popularity at a point where it didn't matter. their only MPs are people who were already popular where they were. now that elections that matter are approaching fast, their popularity is fading rapidly, nobody wants to be associated with a far right group.

Denzark

04-20-2015, 10:31 AM

For the sake of internal consistency, care to remind the class how you referred to SNP voters?

I don't remember although I would full concede it probably would have been dripping with bigotry and prejudice.

That is the difference between me and a lot of 'enlightened' commentators who stereotype 100% of UKIP voters as one thing or another. I am an honest bigot, they (not 100% but a lot) would never get even the gentlest whiff of hypocrisy about castigating UKIP for allegedly writing off 100% of one group (foreigners) as bad - but then similarly writing off 100% of UKIPers as bad.

Anyhow SNP and UKIP have exactly the same motivation. They both want what is best for their country and think there should be a democratic exercise to ratify that option by the electorate. The difference is that UKIP haven't had that option.

Accessing the rest of the world is nonsense, Farage advocates a free market economy and is using lies about immigration to try and get it, his policies are based on the entirely fictional idea that we could negotiate a way our of the EU keeping all the benefits but getting rid of the obligations, its insane and impossible.

There are no real UKIP supporters because UKIP don't actually stand for anything

Without wanting to debate my understanding of UKIP's policies is against your understanding PW, I will simply say there are 'credible' polls by which I mean ones that a large proportion of political commentators think give credibility, that disprove the first piece of your last sentence; the UKIP manifesto disproves the last.

Path Walker

04-20-2015, 10:43 AM

I don't remember although I would full concede it probably would have been dripping with bigotry and prejudice.

That is the difference between me and a lot of 'enlightened' commentators who stereotype 100% of UKIP voters as one thing or another. I am an honest bigot, they (not 100% but a lot) would never get even the gentlest whiff of hypocrisy about castigating UKIP for allegedly writing off 100% of one group (foreigners) as bad - but then similarly writing off 100% of UKIPers as bad.

Anyhow SNP and UKIP have exactly the same motivation. They both want what is best for their country and think there should be a democratic exercise to ratify that option by the electorate. The difference is that UKIP haven't had that option.

Without wanting to debate my understanding of UKIP's policies is against your understanding PW, I will simply say there are 'credible' polls by which I mean ones that a large proportion of political commentators think give credibility, that disprove the first piece of your last sentence; the UKIP manifesto disproves the last.

Writing a manifesto of things you have no ability or interest in delivering isn't the same as standing for something, see also Tory Party. So far, UKIP have said they'd save 17 Billion by reducing foreign aid and leaving the EU, even ignoring how much EU gives us, they're in a massive black hole with all their promises, massively reducing tax and abolishing inheritance tax on top of spending more on the military and all the little nonsensical ideas they have?

http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people

Seriously, its wacky bull**** for idiots and racists. Except for the few sneaky libertarian ****tery bits hidden in there, repealing the Agency Workers Directive, coming out of the European Court of Human Rights, removing laws that "hamper British competitiveness" are all basically about ****ing over the working people in favour of the business owners.

Kirsten

04-20-2015, 10:46 AM

yup, independent groups have demonstrated that it is totally impossible to fund UKIPs policies even a little bit.

Nasty Nige's hatred of Europe hasn't stopped him claiming vast sums of money from them either.

Has there been even a single week in the last two years where UKIP haven't had to defend or condemn someone in their party for spouting bigoted rubbish?

Mr Mystery

04-20-2015, 10:57 AM

And let's not forget....increasing renewable energy sources.....but halting wind farms

Erm......1+2=hedgehog, it would seem in UKIPland.

Path Walker

04-20-2015, 11:04 AM

Ignoring everything but increasing taxable earnings to 13,000 and abolishing inheritance tax, you're looking at losing over 12 Billion a year (estimating 17 million in employment and using an average inheritance tax of about 2B) , thats all of the apparent "savings" from leaving Europe gone and most of the reduction in foreign aid too, then there is another tax cut as they reduce the Higher rate and introduce another threshold between basic and higher rate tax.

- - - Updated - - -

They pretty much come out and say they're skeptical of climate change in the manifesto. Bonkers.

Denzark

04-20-2015, 11:26 AM

Irrespective of the achievability or desirability of their policies/manifesto, to assume 100% of their supporters are racists or bigots is a form of prejudice.

Psychosplodge

04-21-2015, 02:01 AM

I didn't realise that was a parody until quite late...

Not a fan of The league of gentleman?

because UKIP don't actually stand for anything

So they've achieved their apparent aim of replacing the LibDems as the third party in UK politics then? :D

Denzark

04-21-2015, 04:15 AM

This can't be Psycho - because to admit they have an aim would be to admit they DO stand for something...

Path Walker

04-21-2015, 04:19 AM

Their proposed policies are contradictory too, showing they're not standing for anything, they want votes but they don't know what for, they were a single issue party, which was to leave the EU for the economic benefit of the few over the workers, that played on the fears of ignorant racists to gain influence. The supporters of UKIP would be entirely at odds with the aims of UKIP.

Denzark

04-21-2015, 04:38 AM

If they are a single issue party - they must stand for something - to whit, said single issue.

Still this is just semantics. UKIP are an electoral sideshow at best.

Psychosplodge

04-21-2015, 04:45 AM

This can't be Psycho - because to admit they have an aim would be to admit they DO stand for something...

Yes just like the libdems, whatever they think the people in that constituency want to hear :D
never mind that libdem A is contradicting libdem B whos also promising the opposite of libdem C.

Mr Mystery

04-21-2015, 05:20 AM

If they are a single issue party - they must stand for something - to whit, said single issue.

Still this is just semantics. UKIP are an electoral sideshow at best.

I just wish UKIP would remember that.

As for their claim 'we're the only party than can get you out of Europe'.....well, if you don't count the 'may yet be the next Government' Conservative Party, who have promised a referendum on the matter. Because, you know. I'd rather have the Tories in for another five years than let UKIP through the door.

That to me is arguably my ideal outcome. Whilst no fan of the Conservatives and their general values, I have done alright out of the last Parliament - that I've got my life into gear has helped the most, but nothing they have done has really hurt my position. So five more years of poor bashing won't affect me directly - though I still find it distasteful given their inaction on tax dodging.

But the EU referendum is a must. It will utterly collapse UKIP one way or another - vote to stay, and they become STFUKIP. Vote to leave, and they have no reason to exist.

For my money, it would be the former. Too many fingers in too many very important pies for us to leave.

Also, it might make The Daily Express actually explode - and that would be good for a laugh.

Path Walker

04-21-2015, 05:34 AM

I've not done well, the Tories have frozen public sector wages and attacked terms and conditions massively, yet, I wouldn't care if a Labour Government did the same next time because at least the Tories wouldn't be there to actually attack those worse off than me. Demonising the poor, the disabled and the less fortunate for the benefit of the rich is utterly despicable.

Mr Mystery

04-21-2015, 05:43 AM

And there's the rub. Voting should be an inherently selfish affair.

Don't vote on anyone else's account, just your own.

Now, how you decide which party is for you? That's also your call.

I'm very much a lefty - I believe in social mobility, and giving a leg up to those born toward the bottom. I believe in the rights of the individual and the worker. No working person should suffer the indignity of stagnant, suppressed wage levels whilst those at the top award themselves large salaries and bonuses.

Then comes my more Conservative leanings. Everyone should pay their fair share, and nobody should be allowed a free lunch. The working person should not be expected to support the bone idle. Benefits should provide a safety net, not an alternative.

So whilst happily voting Labour this time around (UKIP it seems don't stand a chance in my constituency, which is nice), I'm kind of happy with a Tory government on the whole.

I too loathe how they vilify benefit claimants whilst having their noses rooted in the Westminster trough. It's very, very easy to walk into the centre of any town and find parasites sitting on benches out their skull on Spesh and White Lightning. It's altogether far harder to acknowledge and address that the majority of benefit claimants are in paid employment. That's shameful. That's pititful. It should be a national embarrassment that we have allowed wages to sink and stagnate to the point where working families need a governmental leg up to help pay the bills.

Path Walker

04-21-2015, 05:47 AM

Thats not true, your vote should be about what you think is for the best, not what is best for you, its your duty as a citizen to act in the greater interests of the country and its people.

And yes, for every lazy person claiming benefits and not working there are many, many more that are working hard and looking for work, after all, only 2% of benefit claims are fraudulent, wish we could say the same for tax returns!

Mr Mystery

04-21-2015, 05:50 AM

I totally disagree.

Vote for what's in it for you. There is literally no other rationale.

One man, one vote. Think about yourself first.

This is why the Baby Boomers still get everything they want on a silver platter - from 'triple locked' pensions whilst all other benefits are slashed to tax relief on savings etc. Because they know what they wants and they votes for it.

Pensioners make up a massive slice of the benefits bill. A massive one. Yet no politician will dare touch it, because they Baby Boomers are who get you into power.

So vote selfish.

Denzark

04-21-2015, 09:12 AM

I'm not sure if Tory policies genuinely represent a 'reverse Robin Hood' wherein money from the poor gets into the pocket of the rich. Because after all, if they are genuinely bone shatteringly poor, they will not have 2 pennies to rub together to take 1 penny off them and pass to the rich - and the rich if they are soe wealthy won't notice it anyway.

Has anyone considered why Labour demonise 'the wealthy' so much and target bankers, but don't ever mention the obscene wages of premiership footballers?

Mr Mystery

04-21-2015, 09:24 AM

To be fair, I'm not sure professional footballers, for all their failings, have ever single handedly pumped the global economy, then somehow passed all the blame onto whichever government was encumbent at the time.

Path Walker

04-21-2015, 09:38 AM

Haighus

04-21-2015, 09:39 AM

Hmm, but it could be argued that the footballers are near-directly taking money out of the pockets of those who go to support them, many of whom, traditionally, were working class.

On the subject of "reverse Robin Hood", some policies that at first seem to be favouring one group or the other (I'm going to consider just rich and poor right now) actually often don't, even if they seem to at face value. I've already mentioned Labour's policy to reduce University fees, which actually is much more likely to benefit the rich. The Tories cutting corporation tax is another example: it seems to favour the big businesses over the common person on the street, yet the government has apparently pulled in more corporate tax, in actual numbers, than it would of if the rate had remained as high. Mainly because if the businesses are doing better, then they pay more, even if it is at a lower rate, and also that more businesses decide to invest in the country because the tax is lower.

Denzark

04-21-2015, 11:17 AM

I've seen figures from the Institute of Fiscal Studies that shows when you put top rate tax up, the first year after doing so shows increased receipts, and the second year then shows a loss on the originals taken at top level.

Happened with 50p rate last time, will happen again.

The top 0.9% earn 11% of GDP and pay 25% of income tax, resulting in having 8% (down from 11%) left. But apparently hitting 'the poor' - will result in massed returns and milk and honey for the rich. Hang on - they are poor! They supposedly have little to take off them!

Seems flawed to me.

Mr Mystery

04-21-2015, 01:12 PM

Oh good.

Russel 'as I say, not as I do' Brand, the multi-millionaire 'anarchist' gob****e has a new film out.

That's right rubes, I mean, right-on folk! He's come up with another way for you to pay for his opinion against capitalism, because making money is bad

Denzark

04-21-2015, 04:08 PM

The horror...

Denzark

04-22-2015, 03:50 PM

Independent Treasury analysis (All Civil Service/Government departments are on Purdah at the moment, meaning apolitical impartiality) puts £6bn interest onto the debt bill for a SNP/Lab coalition. Or £350 per household.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/11556539/George-Osborne-Families-350-worse-off-under-Ed-Miliband-and-the-SNP.html

Mr Mystery

04-22-2015, 11:10 PM

Depends what it's being spent on if you ask me.

Frivolous nonsense, such as millennium domes etc? No ta.

Country's infrastructure? Not an issue.

I guess that's the eternal issue of a semi-socialist state (NHS etc). We're all in favour of the service, but not everyone is all that happy paying for it.

I can't knock the NHS. It's saved my life on multiple occasions. So like school funding, I count my tax as my 'payback' for that.

Psychosplodge

04-23-2015, 02:21 AM

Pointless infrastructure like HS2?

Mr Mystery

04-23-2015, 04:32 AM

Pretty much. I'm in favour of better public transport links, but this just strikes me as a very expensive, one-way-and-that's-to-London cash funnel.

Psychosplodge

04-23-2015, 04:33 AM

Plus it'll be out of date before they even start building it.

Mr Mystery

04-23-2015, 04:40 AM

Not looked that far into it to be honest!

I just don't get the fear of infrastructure investment. No, it's not necessarily gonna be cheap, but it is necessary.

And broken record time, but I know I'm not alone in this thread get public services back out of private hands.

If a private company can run the rail networks, power networks, water supply etc at a profit, why in the name of Satan's portion could the same not be true if publically owned again? It's ludicrous.

Kirsten

04-23-2015, 04:44 AM

I have never really given much thought about public vs private supply, our choices are very limited on the island. but then last year when British Gas announced that they had made £6 billion in profit, you have to wonder why on earth the government aren't in control of it. the British Gas guy was on Radio 2 and was being grilled about why prices kept rising and bills kept going up, when they were making £6 billion in profit, and he said oh but we reinvested £3 billion of that in infrastructure. yes but you still made £3 billion in profit after that. he claimed supply prices were high, but they buy gas supply from themselves, so they set the prices...

Mr Mystery

04-23-2015, 05:04 AM

Yup.

Tasty little cartel they have going.

I know it was sold off to make munneh to pay off debt (or if you're VERY cynical, turn a quick buck for party supporters), but it's time we renationalised our necessary services.

- - - Updated - - -

Tower Hamlets local election declared void.... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648)

Erk!

Mr Mystery

04-23-2015, 11:11 PM

Conservatives setting out 'English votes for English laws' today.

Good. It's about time. There seems to be quite some jealousy about the deal Scotland has, and it's degree of relative autonomy. Yet when that happened, it wasn't the Scots who arranged to be able to vote on English matters still. In fact it's always been slightly baffling to me that it was such a one way street.

I've also always found it a shame that English Nationalists are typically viewed as far-right, racist bull necked ****s. They're not the be all and end all of English Nationalism, but they are the most vocal.

I'd love to see the flag of St George reclaimed from the far right.

Wolfshade

04-25-2015, 04:21 AM

Pointless infrastructure like HS2?

What do you mean? It is delivering a dedicated cycle lane from Birmingham to London! How fantastic is that?!

- - - Updated - - -

Conservatives setting out 'English votes for English laws' today.

Good. It's about time. There seems to be quite some jealousy about the deal Scotland has, and it's degree of relative autonomy. Yet when that happened, it wasn't the Scots who arranged to be able to vote on English matters still. In fact it's always been slightly baffling to me that it was such a one way street.

I've also always found it a shame that English Nationalists are typically viewed as far-right, racist bull necked ****s. They're not the be all and end all of English Nationalism, but they are the most vocal.

I'd love to see the flag of St George reclaimed from the far right.

Yup, for some reason nationalist is only a dirty word in England.

Also on St. George, bloomin immigrants comming here slaying our dragons...

- - - Updated - - -

Tower Hamlets local election declared void.... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648)

Erk!

This is quite worrying it took a private lawsuit as the electoral commission and police failed to investigate. It is like the paedophilia ring, people to scared to be called a racist or "islamaphobic" to investigate or take action.

Al Shut

04-25-2015, 11:29 AM

Yup, for some reason nationalist is only a dirty word in England.

I may not know a lot about British Politics but that is just untrue. Try being a nationalist in Germany

Kirsten

04-25-2015, 11:49 AM

I think he means in Britain, rather than in the world at large

Al Shut

04-25-2015, 12:01 PM

That would make more sense indeed.

CoffeeGrunt

04-25-2015, 04:40 PM

Yup, for some reason nationalist is only a dirty word in England.

Gunna throw it out there, Nationalism is more accepted in Ireland, Scotland and Wales because it's seen as an attempt to return to the local culture that the English rolled over during their medieval invasions. Hence the push to keep dying languages alive and promote the identity of each people beyond, "it's the one up top where they eat haggis, the other one drinks a lot, and the last one have lots of mountains and sheep."

Hence why it's seen as laughable when the English bleat about other cultures, "comin' over 'ere and wiping away our proppa culture." They've done it to dozens of countries for centuries.

Mr Mystery

04-25-2015, 05:53 PM

You're wording points out the wider issue..... 'The English' don't really bleat on about stuff, not in general.

Yet English Nationalism has a very, very ugly face. You'll find racist mouth breathers in all the constituent parts of the UK, but only in England has nationalism been defined by them.

Plus, and this is fairly anecdotal, the cultures of Scotland and Wales (can't speak for Northern Ireland, as have never spent time there) are more defined. They're quite small countries, with small populations. But England? It's that much bigger, and each region is rightfully proud of its own heritage. A Geordie is very different to a Cockney for instance.

Me? I'd love to see English nationalism taken back from the far right.

Deadlift

04-25-2015, 09:18 PM

Hence why it's seen as laughable when the English bleat about other cultures, "comin' over 'ere and wiping away our proppa culture." They've done it to dozens of countries for centuries.

I'm very proud to be both British and English, I don't use the word 'hate' very often but I think that's because I rarely meet new people. "Coffeegrunt" thank you for confirming that my hermit style existence is still the correct choice for both my sanity and the health of people like you.

eldargal

04-26-2015, 04:15 AM

CoffeeGrunt

04-26-2015, 08:02 AM

I'm very proud to be both British and English, I don't use the word 'hate' very often but I think that's because I rarely meet new people. "Coffeegrunt" thank you for confirming that my hermit style existence is still the correct choice for both my sanity and the health of people like you.

Deadlift, I'm not really sure what your point is here, it seems to be somewhere in some poorly-executed sarcasm, so give me a moment.

Ah okay, I think you're saying that I'm a hateful person and you're glad you don't see people like me? I'm sorry to tell you, that my opinion was not hateful, I very much consider myself 'British.' However, I'm able to see the hypocrisy in the British - and specifically, English - right wing politics. See Farage demanding we self-determinate and secede from the EU, while getting angry at Scotland for wanting to do the same.

I'm personally not bothered either way, but much like the Falklands, everyone in the Empire should have a right to self-determinate. India, Australia, America, even the RoI broke away because they'd developed or rediscovered their cultures and ideals, and wanted to pursue their own destiny. England fought to hold onto them tooth-and-nail in many instances, so now it's amusing to see a minority of the Right Wing completely unaware that the thing they're fighting against is the thing England, and specifically England, has done for over a millennium now.

However, much of that is history, and thus isn't relevant to modern politics. However, there are countries in the UK that might want to break away or reclaim heritage that was trodden down by the English, if not exterminated - see the ethnic cleansing in Scotland circa William Wallace times for an example of that.

To ignore that part in history would be to make yourself willfully ignorant of a core part of the means England used to conquer a third of the planet. Gaelic, Irish and Welsh were all but wiped out as languages, as an example. This is just within Britain, as well, if we went on to note instances on a global scale, well...

Deadlift

04-26-2015, 10:47 AM

Deadlift, I'm not really sure what your point is here, it seems to be somewhere in some poorly-executed sarcasm, so give me a moment.

Nope no sarcasm intended.
Im just getting fed up to the back teeth with the constant negativity and finger pointing that members like you seem to be flooding the forums with. Im taking a break from BoLs as I cant be bothered reading the constant bickering and to be frank "bull****" from the keyboard warriors who write mostly inflammatory comments any further.

Time to bring it back to the hobby.

Mr Mystery

04-26-2015, 11:00 AM

CoffeeGrunt

04-26-2015, 05:17 PM

Nope no sarcasm intended.
Im just getting fed up to the back teeth with the constant negativity and finger pointing that members like you seem to be flooding the forums with. Im taking a break from BoLs as I cant be bothered reading the constant bickering and to be frank "bull****" from the keyboard warriors who write mostly inflammatory comments any further.

Time to bring it back to the hobby.

Leave the Oublieete. This is for non-hobby talk. Seriously.

Secondly, you're the only one who's getting angry over this. Try talking to someone from the Republic of Ireland about the English and their influence historically, and you'll possibly gain a new perspective.

Jeez, if you threaten to leave the forum every time someone talks about the bad aspects of a country's history that you don't even live in anymore, you might be slightly unable to handle the real truths of what it's doing right here, right now.

Cap'nSmurfs

04-26-2015, 08:25 PM

I have to say, I'm quite enjoying being 5,000 miles away from the election this time out. I'm shouting at the TV less, anyway.

I'm somewhere to the left of Vladimir Lenin so there's never a chance of getting what I actually want at election time; all the same, I'd be just fine with Ed Miliband calling the shots for a bit. If nothing else, I'd rather an awkward politics dork who played too much Manic Miner as a kid (one-of-us! one-of-us!) than the Born To Rule, how-can-I-make-my-rich-friends-richer-today *******s who've been in charge for the last five years.

The Labour Party sucks, like, a lot, but it sucks less than the alternative, and that's not nothing.

Psychosplodge

04-27-2015, 01:56 AM

Nah Cap'n you line five rows of **** up and the best pile of **** is still a pile of ****. Whoevers in its still a politician, and now days its probably a politician thats never had a proper job.

What do you mean? It is delivering a dedicated cycle lane from Birmingham to London! How fantastic is that?!

Completely underwhelming.

Also on St. George, bloomin immigrants comming here slaying our dragons...

.

That explains our lack of dragons :mad:

Mr Mystery

04-27-2015, 02:07 AM

Except poor old Nigel 'I'm not a racist, but' Farage. He doesn't quite seem to have cottoned on you're meant to be Mr Nice-as-pie during the election, and become Mr Utter-******* after.

Though I suppose The Walking Daily Mail could well be his Mr Nice-as-pie persona, in which case I have no wish to see his Mr Utter-*******....

eldargal

04-27-2015, 07:36 AM

Trouble is, the 'no immagrunts in are country' bunch show a disturbing lack of historical context.

Not only is it shockingly hypocritical to bang on about 'coming over here, taking our jobs' given our Imperial history, but they long for a Britain which, put simply, has never actually existed. England in particular has been incredibly multicultural ever since Roman times.

A 'culturally pure' England is a Daily Mail invention, based on their whitewashing of history. From the Polish pilots who fought in The Battle of Britain to the long history of Britain playing host to migrants, it's all ignored in the name of shocking bigotry.

There were 50,000 black English in the 1500s who could trace their ancestry back far enough that even under virtually absolute monarchy they couldn't legally be deported. There were Anglo-Indian gentry in the 18th-19th century, there were black suburbs in nineteenth century London etc. We've always taken people in like you say. Farages' ****ing great grandfather was German and his fathers family is descended from Huguenots (hence the name) who came here in the 17th century.

Psychosplodge

04-27-2015, 07:47 AM

Isn't their point that the numbers were a lot lower historically than having the entire town of Rotherham immigrate annually?

eldargal

04-27-2015, 07:54 AM

Proportionally it's impossible to say, we don't have the kind of records to work out what % of population it was before. Like until the 18th century we didn't even have a concept of race, skin colour wasn't a big deal. Religion was and to some extent nationality. So you could have trade ships from Africa with African Christians coming here and some of those traders and their families might stay and in the census they become just more English peeps. They were probably more accepted than French migrants could be because at this time we didn't have white supremacy as a Thing. But we are so accustomed to viewing the world through racial and white supremacy tinted glasses (now I'm not saying everyone is a white supremacist) that we find it inconceivable to look at our own history like that.
So Farage gets accepted as English because he is white, Idris Elba doesn't because he is black. My friend Asha has more parents and grandparents born in the UK than me and she is still viewed as Other while I get accepted as English etc.
Mobile populations and migration are not modern trends, they just have a narrative built around them in an unprecedented way.

Mr Mystery

04-27-2015, 08:58 AM

Yup.

Entire right wing anti-immigration argument is based on scare-mongering.

I recall in the run up to the European elections Mr Farage saying 'I wouldn't want Romanian neighbours' and when asked what he meant? 'You know precisely what I mean' was his response. Typical racist bellend - doesn't even have the courage of convictions to say it in public.

Psychosplodge

05-01-2015, 01:51 AM

So after last nights leaders Q&As I'm surprised no ones pulled Red Ed on his homophobic joke.

CoffeeGrunt

05-01-2015, 03:33 AM

I don't watch TV so I missed it. A quick Google shows nothing on the 'nets about it. What was the joke?

Psychosplodge

05-01-2015, 03:45 AM

Snide remark about Cameron and Clegg in a darkened room

Very tabloidesque look at the gays wink wink nudge nudge

CoffeeGrunt

05-01-2015, 04:18 AM

Hmm, it'd depend on the wording for that, it seems to imply they're in bed together politically more than being homophobic. I dunno, I can't find a clip/transcript of the joke itself to judge it on. :/

Psychosplodge

05-01-2015, 04:22 AM

No it was definitely a gay joke, he even seemed to pause for laughter that didn't come, though it was of the type I wouldn't have noticed before EG's and Kirsten's threads.

Kirsten

05-01-2015, 04:25 AM

educating the masses :cool:

Psychosplodge

05-01-2015, 04:26 AM

I'm not that fat :p

Kirsten

05-01-2015, 05:05 AM

*drumroll*

*tumbleweed*

eldargal

05-01-2015, 05:06 AM

Ha.:p

Mr Mystery

05-05-2015, 01:42 PM

Well, just over 48 hours to go until it's all over for (theoretically) another five years.

I reckon we'll see a minority Labour Government, with some back up from the SNP.

UKIP I really expect to get annihilated in the polls. As a normal Labour voter myself, I'd quite happily vote Tory over the extremely vicious UKIP any day of the week, so in marginal seats we might see the same happen. The Tories might well be seen as unpleasant, but at least UKIP seem to drawn out their nastiest elements like a Lunatic Poultice on a festering wound.

Overall, I wouldn't be massively fussed if the Tories do wind up back in - although I object to them on many points, I'm alright Jack, as the cuts made don't affect my position.

LibDumbs seem almost as delusional as UKIP as to their prospects of success this time around.

This may actually be the best thing to happen to UK Politics in a long, long time. The three main parties have discovered they can't simply spout the same old rhetoric, and people have been at least listening to the smaller parties, and what they would offer - yes, even including UKIP.

Kirsten

05-05-2015, 02:43 PM

personally I am hoping for a coalition of SNP, Greens, and Plaid :p

Mr Mystery

05-05-2015, 03:00 PM

As long as UKIP get pumped and Farage loses South Thanet, I think I'll be happy enough.

Haighus

05-05-2015, 03:29 PM

However, much of that is history, and thus isn't relevant to modern politics. However, there are countries in the UK that might want to break away or reclaim heritage that was trodden down by the English, if not exterminated - see the ethnic cleansing in Scotland circa William Wallace times for an example of that.
I feel like Scotland is the poorest example of that. England never captured Scotland by invasion, and Scotland invaded England plenty of times too. Scotland and England only joined when James the VI of Scotland also became James I of England after Elizabeth I died. There was oppression of the Highlands in particular IIRC, but lowland Scotland was fairly well off from that point on.

Trouble is, the 'no immagrunts in are country' bunch show a disturbing lack of historical context.

Not only is it shockingly hypocritical to bang on about 'coming over here, taking our jobs' given our Imperial history, but they long for a Britain which, put simply, has never actually existed. England in particular has been incredibly multicultural ever since Roman times.

A 'culturally pure' England is a Daily Mail invention, based on their whitewashing of history. From the Polish pilots who fought in The Battle of Britain to the long history of Britain playing host to migrants, it's all ignored in the name of shocking bigotry.

Yeah, our very national identity is founded on multiple invasions and mass immigrations, it is just a bigoted modern view that being English is a 'pure' identity.

Mr Mystery

05-05-2015, 03:39 PM

Britain should be very proud of its heritage - I just wish the right wing weren't so selective.

For instance, claiming multi-cultural experiments have failed. No, no they have not. There is no such thing as a 'no-go' area for white people in the UK. They're myths. Yes, there are a few odd balls out there putting up moronic stickers declaring 'Sharia Area' and making daft claims. But hey, show me a society anywhere without its deluded members.

If there is any failing, it's the casual racism society still exhibits toward anyone not white, middle class and English. Is it any wonder migrants tend to congregate together, especially with the like of Britain First and their 'armoured land rovers' trying to 'take are countree back'?

Psychosplodge

05-06-2015, 01:47 AM

I suggest you're hopelessly optimistic or naive if you believe no go areas don't exist. They might not be big, or numerous but they definitely exist.

Apparently the Independent (left leaning?) came out in favour of continuing the current coalition over a labour/snp one.
I really don't think a party that aims to destroy the country has any place in government.

eldargal

05-06-2015, 02:02 AM

Even if there are rare no go areas they exist in a society that devalues people with dark skin at a societal level, with people of colour being much more likely to be stopped by the police (http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/feb/02/black-drivers-stopped-police), subjected to other police power (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/12/police-stop-and-search-black-people)s and even arrested here in the UK (http://www.irr.org.uk/research/statistics/criminal-justice/). The police do this with virtual impunity (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/20-british-police-officers-sacked-over-racism-since-2010-1481354). So the whole country is something of a no-go zone for them. Not to mention subtler elements of Islamophobia and racism which make people of colour and Muslims even more uncomfortable just being out in the street.

I mean really all a no go zone is in a UK city is an area where ethnic and religious minorities are free from dealing with people who treat them like crap.

Psychosplodge

05-06-2015, 02:23 AM

Not really, they're just being treated like **** by different people generally, the ones I'm familiar with a crime ridden sinkholes.

I don't disagree with your points about misuse of police powers though.

eldargal

05-06-2015, 02:24 AM

Sure but it's a crime ridden sinkhole filled with people like them.

Mr Mystery

05-06-2015, 02:45 AM

Yup.

It's funny how those who point at migrants and scream 'REFUSING TO INTEGRATE' are very often the same ones discouraging integration....not that the far right want it all ways from Sunday. Oh no. Not them.

Kirsten

05-06-2015, 12:37 PM

NSFW failures of the coalition

http://www.dontbea****ingidiot.uk/

"A SWEARY ANGRY YET ACCURATE REPORT ON THE COALITION'S TIME IN OFFICE"

you will need to uncensor the link

Kirsten

05-06-2015, 01:11 PM

economic policy under the coalition

http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2015/05/02/britain-for-the-love-of-god-please-stop-david-cameron/

YorkNecromancer

05-06-2015, 04:04 PM

Denzark

05-06-2015, 04:16 PM

personally I am hoping for a coalition of SNP, Greens, and Plaid :p

Personally I hope, if you are not joking, that you manxers aren't sitting in your tax haven and getting a vote to make batpoo crazy atuff like this happen. I also hope that an outbreak of commons sense prevents people wasting votes on these joke parties.

40kGamer

05-06-2015, 04:17 PM

Excellent summary of the UK election for the benefit of those who don't know anything about anyone or anything involved. (http://gawker.com/meet-the-wankers-who-want-to-be-britain-s-prime-ministe-1702043423)

Plus it made me laugh.

Thanks for posting that. Interesting to see that our forefathers are governed by the same crazy types as us Yanks.

Denzark

05-06-2015, 04:22 PM

Actually this is a win win election.

If Conservatives get in, we can slay the UKIP dragon with the EU referendum and sort out EVEL.

If Labour get in, it will be on the back of the SNP. The SNP are a one trick pony, similar to the UKIP but far more insular. They ONLY want to manoeuvre to such a point they get another referendum. If they get it, they will leave the UK.

If the SNP don't get their referendum, they will make such a hash of things and will show Milliband to be so ineffectual that English voters are bound to push for electoral reform to prevent 1-trick parties holding the majority of the UK to ransom. Or actually push for meaningful English devolution.

If Scotland leaves the UK, the rest of us in the rump, will have a conservative government for a long time. Also, I suspect that the chance of a leave the EU referendum will be higher without the Scottish voters.

The amusing thing will be independent Scotland won't be an EU member because the EU have told them so. The rump UK won't be an EU member because the Jock voters won't get a say.

Seems win win to me, just depends how many years of economic woe and class warfare dressed up as fairness we get, I just hope they don't scare all enterprise away.