Off Topic Politics Thread

The question was not aimed at you but at a public less discerning, ie those who think that privatisation is quite a good idea, less state interference, and so on. Maybe the non questioning Tories that may come on to this board. By my count it is 4, which is 3 more than support New Labour.

 

That's my weakness of all dessert weaknesses. I stay well away from that stuff unless it is shoved under my nose with orders to eat it. Or a custard tart [OMG, I can't walk past bakeries because of custard pies]. Here's a photo I've posted here before. From Sept 2017, Pezenas, South France [within reason, where else?]. IIRC, that's a cheap and cheerful Aldi chardonnay in the glass, which cost less than 1.5 Euros a bottle. It might even have been as low as 1.10. And it was lovely The custard tart is quite local to the region, although you could get it elsewhere:

Anyway, this is the Politics Thread, so if you want to talk about cake, let's go to Ralph's. ​

 

Please see my early posts. I voted for Hunt, seeing that was our alternative. The hard facts are, whatever we as individuals might think or wish to happen, he is in office and until the election to come, will stay there. If he’s still there after such an election then democratically he’s been re-elected by the process we all call democratic choice. Those of us who saw through some of Blair’s appeal accepted the run of victories he had and took it on the chin. Likewise if Johnson wins an election then unless he is indicted for illegal practice, behaviour or whatever, then there is an uncomfortable and probably for some, inconvenient truth to deal with. Am I comfortable with this, probably not but will keep writing to MP’s etc expressing my views as a member, as will many others in the party. In the meantime, I’ll discuss issues with my more left wing friends in a way which keeps us as friends and let those who hurl abuse and insult to my way of looking at politics to talk amongst themselves, rather than return such comments in kind.

 

Would like to see more evidence of this than just a random meme..

If true it's truly horrendous

 

I would not hurl abuse at any individual but I do feel that some politicians are game for abuse. All I was asking and debating was the concept that Johnson is only a Conservative in name as he does not aspire to true Conservative values of decency, fairness and moderation. For me the true Conservatives are those like Clarke, Major, Heseltine, Rudd, Chris Patton, Edwina Currie, David Mellor, Rory Stewart, the guys who have gone to the Lib Dems, Anna Soubry, Dominic Grieve and others as well. The ERG are an aberration, a poison that needs removing. True Conservtives have nothing to do with Brexit, and seek closer ties with our fellow Conservatives like Germany´s Christian Democrats. If I was in the UK, I would join the local association and I would be fighting for those very things.

 

And there was me thinking you wanted Tony Bliar to return!

 

Sort of. Clinton didn't have a lot to offer the rust belt communities, because honestly there is nothing to offer them. The twin forces of automation and cheaper (but not necessarily humane) labor elsewhere doomed the factories. That and corporate greed.

What she didn't do was lie like Trump and tell them she was going to restore the manufacturing industries. Read up about the Foxconn factory in Wisconsin for an example of Trump's asshole-ry and incompetence.

She told them the truth, which is that they needed to move on and get with the modern economy. Of course this is not going to provide much solace to most voters. It's not like a 38 year old high school graduate with zero computer training, two kids and a mountain of bills is going to find it easy to drop everything and get an Associate's Degree in Computer Science. And even if they did, they're still going to lose out on jobs to young students with college degrees. The smart people are all on the coasts. Why would a high tech, modern industry move to Detroit? It will take them years to dig their way out. Most of them probably never will. That's why they are so mad. But blaming it on foreigners and the government isn't going to help.

Clinton made a big speech at one point. She talked about how coal mining was a brutal and dying profession and how coal was really bad for the environment. She said something like (paraphrasing) "We're going to make sure we shut the mines down. But because that will leave people out of work, so it's imperative we provide a way for them to survive and adapt." The intent there was to show she was aware of the plight of coal miners. What the right did was edit out the last half of the quote and plaster everywhere that Clinton said she would shut down coal mining, like she was doing it out of spite.

Trump said that coal mining was being shut down due to government's attack on the blue collar man or whatever, and that he would deregulate to restore the industry. And he did deregulate. Problem is, he also made fracking much easier. And natural gas from fracking is much cheaper than coal mining. So the miners are still screwed. Probably worse than they would have been under Clinton though I can also understand their perspective that they have nothing to lose because they are ****ed either way.

No. This is blatantly false. There was some dirty political dealing there, but really on both sides. What happened is that Sanders is not a Democrat, and not really that big a friend of Democrats. Every year, he runs as a Democrat in Vermont so he can simultaneously take advantage of being in the big party while also shutting down any other liberal who might run against them. Then, as soon as he wins he leaves the party and becomes an Independent.

From Sanders' perspective I can be a little sympathetic. The US two party system is such that you really can't win as a third party so Sanders has to play this game. At the same time, the Democrats let him do this. They don't have to. The GOP certainly wouldn't. There's all sorts of Democrats out there who would also like to be a third party but they toe the line and play party politics.

The Democrats actually made an exception to party rules to allow Bernie to run as a Democrat. They didn't do this to be nice, of course. But the understanding was that Bernie would play the kindly old, idealistic man and draw in the young crowd and far left, while Clinton appealed to the moderates. Neither side would attack the other. Bernie would lose, throw his support behind Clinton, and maybe get to be VP out of it. He was supposed to lay down.

Sanders though, decided he wasn't going to lay down and instead attacked Clinton as part of the evil establishment. Now, on the one hand you could say "Well why should Sanders run a sham campaign and do what the Democrats want?" But, my response to that is that Sanders could have run (and lost) as an Independent. The Democrats gave him a much, MUCH bigger platform to get his views across, so he got something out of it. He didn't have to accept the conditions, but he he did and then used it to screw over Democrats.

The other thing Sanders did was attract the "Bernie Bros." They're basically the left wing equivalent of Trump supporters, and in fact quite a few of them voted for Trump or refused to vote for Clinton a la Susan Sarandon. They were dickheads who went online and attacked everyone else viciously and trolled and spread memes and fake news, etc. just like the diehard Trump supporters. That's why after the campaign was over, we later found out that Sanders campaign had all sorts of problems with sexual harassment. It's also why Sanders supporters continually moan that Sanders would have won the election because he polled better in the manufacturing states.

That argument is stupid because when it came down to it, while Sanders is somewhat populist/nationalist a la Corbyn, he was not (to his credit) ever going to say that Mexicans are rapists, etc. He was never going to out-Trump Trump. The other argument I'd have is that I don't give a **** about those voters. They are stupid, and they are hostile and vindictive. I'm not going to sell out to that group because a left wing Trump is no better than a right wing Trump.

But no, the primaries were not rigged. That's just Bernie Bro assholery. They were whining about how the Democratic Party screws the voter by having
"super delegates" who can override the popular vote. Problem is, Clinton won the popular vote by a landslide and at the same time the Bernie Bros were complaining about how undemocratic the primaries were, they were pressuring the super delegates to vote for Bernie despite the fact he was trailing heavily.

The other damning thing was the wikileak of the emails between party members. Most of it was just like "How do we stop Bernie?" That's seen as evidence that the primaries were "rigged." To me, it's nothing. Of course the Democrats wanted to stop Sanders, because the Sanders is not a Democrat. Of course when you look inside the sausage factory, there's some slimy **** where Democrats were like "Let's tell them Bernie rapes babies" or whatever. I don't condone that but... that's politics. Sanders was doing the same sort of thing.

I would say that basically Clinton was your standard politician. She was fairly competent, had some principles she really believed in, but of course like all politicians she lies a bit. And, if she could sort of help her or her friends on the side of course she would do it. So she was not really a candidate to get super excited about, but hardly the demon she was made out to be. Just par for the course. Same is true of the Democrats in general. Not really a group people should be proud of, but no worse than things have always been.

No. This is just blatant stupidity. It ignores the fact that the GOP nominated DONALD ****ING TRUMP. If people cared at all about corruption or competence how do you pick Trump over Clinton? I don't dispute that many people voted for Trump because they BELIEVED Clinton was awful, but those people are basically stupid and ignored the fact that Trump is infinitely more corrupt and incompetent.

The idea that the Democrats could have played the perfect game and won conveniently ignores the fact that Trump played essentially a worse game than anyone really even conceived was possible and won. Not despite those failings, but because of them.

It also overlooks how badly Sanders sold out. This is a guy who legit has done more for black people in the US today. Like he's the only one who was actually out there on civil rights marches in the 60's. But his platform was basically a twin platform of isolationism for the racists and free college tuition for the young voters. It's why he had no traction among minority groups. Which is a shame, because I think Sanders would have done a lot for them and they should have considered his history. But Sanders chose to go after the Trump crowd using Trump-like tactics so he reaps what he sows.

Yes well culture/religion/economics due tend to go hand-in-hand. It's the same in the US. They feel abandoned by every political party. My point is that in the US, the way to reach them and not make them feel abandoned is to appeal to their religious viewpoints.

And again, I'm gonna straight out say, **** them. They have for the most part always been socially backwards assholes who stayed loyal to the Democrats only because of unions. And the unions in the US are corrupt as hell. I'm liberal, and in favor of unions in theory but I hate the unions in the US. What happened is the GOP broke all the unions and/or cost those workers their jobs and so without the unions, they felt free to vote like the assholes they've always been.

The funny thing is, because Trump propped up the economy temporarily by going into massive debt, some of them actually DID get their jobs back. Not a lot, but some. Unemployment is at an all time low. So what happens? Yeah, they went on strike. And Trump isn't going to help them because he's fundamentally a rich dude, on the side of rich dudes, politically supported by rich dudes. And at the same time, in an equally unshocking development, the union head is going to jail for bribery and corruption.

I would help those people if I could, but all they want to do is vote for people who will screw them over. And any sympathy I might have for them evaporates when they are actively trying to screw over everyone else. If you are a racist, or a bigot, or you think that God is the solution for the country than I don't want to appeal to your vote. It only drags us all down in the long run.

They're mad because they think liberals and people like myself are trying to destroy their culture. They're 100% correct. I AM trying to destroy their culture. As quickly as possible. And yes, so was Clinton. I don't want them to exist. I'm happy to offer them the best way out we can, but they don't want a way out. They want to continue being assholes. So **** them. The quote above and her calling Trump supporters "deplorable" got so much play and were politically unwise, but to me, they are also the truest things she ever said.

 

I hugely question our method of democratically electing those who govern us. The First Past The Post [FPTP] system of election is hugely undemocratic, when most of the time, the population who vote for the opposition parties outnumber those who vote for the elected party. We need some form of fair Proportional Representation. Arguments against any form of PR reduce to it leading to undynamic government. Which means Coalition Government could also be accused of being undynamic, being more representative if, in the last incarnation of it, was a total disappointment, even though it got even worse once the Tories got their majority. Governing a people is not about dynamism for a few but about about governing fairly across the electoral spectrum, and arriving at the right balanced decision for the whole country. Something that we've never actually done.
Once we get PR in the UK I think people will find themselves represented, and therefore the unrest in the country will properly come to an end.

 

You do realise that if you don't edit that post pronto, FLT will descend upon it.

 

Polls since Buffoon became PM.
Is the will of the people more important from 2016 than it is now? And yes I do realise that this is just a sample, but it clearly shows the desire to change away from what is happening now.

 

Farage: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...n-passports-and-says-he-wouldnt-a3989496.html
Chandler: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ler-single-market-customs-union-a8185336.html
Rothermere: https://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/from-private-eye-lord-rothermeres-non-dom-tax-scam/
Ratcliffe: https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-selfish-jim-ratcliffe-leaves-new-forest-home
Wigmore: https://vip.politicsmeanspolitics.c...rexit-big-sugar-and-the-bad-boys-from-belize/
Murdoch: too many to mention
Edmiston and Banks: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/09/brexiters-put-money-offshore-tax-haven
Lawson: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...aison-but-hes-staying-put-in-france-9spr97wb2
Rees-Mogg: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-city-move-eu-withdrawal-dublin-a8398041.html
Dyson: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-singapores-expensive-apartment-44m-prepares/
Barclays: https://thebrexitsyndicate.com/2018/07/04/the-barclay-brothers/

So plenty of evidence. You’re welcome. There’s this thing called Google if you ever feel moved to do your own fact-checking.

 

It was deliberate. Bliar is a more appropriate spelling.

 

What would your opinion of Blair be if he hadn't backed George Bush?

 

If he hadn’t stood up in the Commons and told blatant lies about WMD’s in Iraq I would feel more kindly disposed towards him, as I would if he hadn’t taken Britain into a ruinous and pointless war, with thousands of British casualties, not to mention hundreds of thousands of displaced Iraqi’s, and not to mention that the most significant outcome of that war was the emergence of ISIS.
I would also feel more kindly disposed to him if he hadn’t continued the privatisation of the NHS and initiated tuition fees for students, and a host of other things, including the continued internal divisions in the Labour Party which is currently keeping the worst PM in history in power.

 

Yeah, that's fair enough. I think he made a grave error in following Bush into that war. I was very sympathetic with calls from Iraq to come and remove Saddam Hussein. He was a terrible, terrible leader, and I was split between doing what I saw was the right thing and intervening, and keeping well out. Of course, the US was doing it so save the FF industry, and nothing else. I'm not so sure about Blair. Intervention has proven never to go well in history, and this has been no different, in retrospect. At the time I blamed the UK's "special relationship" for the UK getting itself embroiled in that war, but since I have become more aligned with the your opinion. There's also no doubt that his centralist or even right of centre policies made Labour Party supporters loathe him in the end, after thinking he was the best thing since sliced bread, because he got the Labour Party elected. As a result, there is a definite split in the party to this day. The "broad church" has polarised somewhat. That is now their problem and they need to solve it pronto. I wish Jeremy was as dynamic a leader as Bernie Sanders in the US, because he'd lauded here, and the ghost of Blair would go away.

The one thing I can agree with Tony Blair on is his pro-EU view. In that he talks a lot of sense. He was always a good speaker. What about Gordon Brown, by the way?

 

Was he responsible for zero hours contracts, as well?

 

A spoof interview with JC, from The Post Truth Post (TPTP)
Well, I think it’s a spoof.

“The prime minister clearly stated that he would rather be dead in a ditch than ask the EU for another extension,” a sweaty Mr Corbyn told reporters while resting on his spade.

“I have spent my political life opposing the Tory party, but in this time of national crisis, the country must pull together.

“So I will not hinder the prime minister in achieving his goal, in fact, the Labour Party are proud to provide a ditch for the prime minister to call his final resting place.

Mr Corbyn told reporters that once the prime minister has had sufficient time to mulch down, his carcass will be used to fertilise a crop of tomatoes and beans that will be distributed to local food banks.

“Given the bullshit Mr Johnson is so clearly full of, I expect to get a bumper crop next spring,” Corbyn chuckled.

 

To his credit, he brought in the National Minimum Wage Act in 1998 which regulated zero hours contracts.

 

No politician is perfect. My own view is that Blair was conned into his actions by deliberately false information provided by the security services, quite likely in cahoots with the CIA. Anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of how these people operate will find that not too fantastical a suspicion.