Support NeoGAF

[Lego Boss]

Last weekend I visited Bath and the bath city sign had

'Strong and Stable, killing the disabled'

on it.

It was a good job too, almost like it was done by professionals.

 

[Meadows]

I think elevating the ability to stay in the job over the disgusting things she did while in office when it comes to evaluating her performance is extremely morally questionable

You're talking about the sexual abuse of hundreds of women as if it was a minor operational problem, and less critical than a scandal over energy subsidies. What the fuck

The sexual abuse of those women is appalling, but - as I've said - it isn't possible for every single aspect of her brief to perform perfectly, such is the nature of her position.

And regarding the scandal over energy subsidies. That cost Northern Ireland £500m. 1/40th of its entire budget.

That's enough money to completely revamp NI's poor ambulance service, which would save hundreds of lives per year, perhaps tens of thousands over the course of a few decades.

Just because the initial shock of the act isn't as bad (an energy scandal vs the appalling conditions of that facility), doesn't mean that its results aren't many leagues worse.

 

[Audioboxer]

Does anyone aside from politics nerds like us actually read the manifestos?

They read the Daily Mails interpretation of the manifestos. Or whoever else they follow. So now you will have people just going around saying "Labour are trying to take us back to the 70s".

Then you ask then what that means?

"LABOUR ARE TRYING TO TAKE US BACK TO THE 70s! BACK IN TIME! WORSE TIMES! IT WAS BAD BACK THEN!"

"VOTE MAY! STRONG STABLE FUTURE! NO 70s!"

But sure, people do, however not enough and as usual many do not think for themselves. There's a smallish % who you have to fight for and that's the reality of political battles. It is possible to sway opinion, Scotland is proof of that, even if we are talking a far smaller population than England.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I thought going back in time was what the Mail wanted.

 

[nitronite]

I think elevating the ability to stay in the job over the disgusting things she did while in office when it comes to evaluating her performance is extremely morally questionable

Can I just say that I absolutely detest when people accuse others of moral failings due to them supporting a different party. Besides the fact that morality is in general a very difficult concept far above the paygrade of posters on Neogaf, I don't think that accusations of this sort help ANYONE.

What's the point of political discussion, right before an election? Is it to blast others for their failings, or is it to potentially have an illuminating discussion with an open mind, potentially learning about a perspective you may not have thought of before, or maybe even helping someone else see things in a different light? If you want to achieve the second, then personal attacks are not the way to go.

In life, when arguing/discussing things with others, I always try to keep in mind Dale Carnegie's book How to Win Friends and Influence People. One of the main rules listed there about trying to influence/change someone's position on a matter, is to never say the words "You're wrong". By extension I think "You're bad/evil" can fall into that as well. The reason being, that when you say "you're wrong", you are more likely to make the person you said that to defensive and less likely to get them to keep an open mind with respect to your arguments.

 

[Moobabe]

Meh, there's no point having a politics thread if people use it to just bash and put down others. Like it or not the only way labour can win an election is by persuading people w ho voted conservative in 2010 and 2015 to now vote labour - that's the only mathematical solution. You won't ever accomplish that by calling those voters racist evil murders who hate disabled people.

All it does is shut down conversation and ultimately ensure labour won't ever win. So you get a quick thrill from shouting at someone, but ultimately you don't accomplish anything and actually harm what you are trying to do in the long run.

Theresa May isn't Donald Tump, or Erdogan, or Putin. There's plenty of legitimate room to criticsse her, without feeling the need to question other people's morals or behaviour.

Well, in theory Labour could win by mobilising people who haven't voted before as well, but I take your point.

 

[Ghost]

whenever i speak to Tory voters i try to make it personal to them.

Sometimes we have mutual friends that have / will be hit hard by the cuts to disability.

I tried to convince my own father by pointing out that he has to take 3 months off work due to stress after his council job was trying to make him do the job of 2-3 people due to cuts in funding. He doesnt see the link to that with him voting conservative, but I tried i guess

I think I can see that line of reasoning because the line between Labour & Conservative has been pretty slim for the last 2 elections, the reality of your Dad's situation might have been very different under an Ed Miliband government but from what was presented to the voters, it came across as very similar.

This time round though no matter where the Tory's drop their manifesto, or how little they put in it, there's a definite choice to be made, so hopefully conversations like that will be a bit easier to have. I still see the Tory's walking the election but hopefully to a certain extent the people the Tories are really screwing over will start to realise there are alternative ways of doing things.

 

[Theonik]

e: Not sure what happened here.

 

[TomWaitsForNoMan]

The sexual abuse of those women is appalling, but - as I've said - it isn't possible for every single aspect of her brief to perform perfectly, such is the nature of her position.

There's a wide gap between "not performing perfectly" and "actively covering up a mass sexual abuse scandal". There are a number of courses she could have taken, she chose the vey worst one.

Can I just say that I absolutely detest when people accuse others of moral failings due to them supporting a different party. Besides the fact that morality is in general a very difficult concept far above the paygrade of posters on Neogaf, I don't think that accusations of this sort help ANYONE.

What's the point of political discussion, right before an election? Is it to blast others for their failings, or is it to potentially have an illuminating discussion with an open mind, potentially learning about a perspective you may not have thought of before, or maybe even helping someone else see things in a different light? If you want to achieve the second, then personal attacks are not the way to go.

In life, when arguing/discussing things with others, I always try to keep in mind Dale Carnegie's book How to Make Friends and Influence People. One of the main rules listed there about trying to influence/change someone's position on a matter, is to never say the words "You're wrong". By extension I think "You're bad/evil" can fall into that as well. The reason being, that when you say "you're wrong", you are more likely to make the person you said that to defensive and less likely to get them to keep an open mind with respect to your arguments.

I said nothing about supporting a different party, I'm talking about downplaying sexual abuse on a massive scale. And I have no problem with calling such minimisation "wrong". I don't think saying "defending someone who covered up mass rape is bad" is above my pay grade, Jesus fucking christ

 

[hodgy100]

I think I can see that line of reasoning because the line between Labour & Conservative has been pretty slim for the last 2 elections, the reality of your Dad's situation might have been very different under an Ed Miliband government but from what was presented to the voters, it came across as very similar.

This time round though no matter where the Tory's drop their manifesto, or how little they put in it, there's a definite choice to be made, so hopefully conversations like that will be a bit easier to have. I still see the Tory's walking the election but hopefully to a certain extent the people the Tories are really screwing over will start to realise there are alternative ways of doing things.

I hope so. I've just been trying to get people to empathise with others or look at how it affects themselves. It rarely works but its gotta be better than telling people they are bad people right?

I thought going back in time was what the Mail wanted.

theyd love to go back to the 3rd reich

 

[PJV3]

I hope so. I've just been trying to get people to empathise with others or look at how it affects themselves. It rarely works but its gotta be better than telling people they are bad people right?

I don't know anymore, looking at conservatives in the US prepared to die for Trump over healthcare, I think it's hard sometimes to get through on any level.

 

[suedester]

Wait, your response to me was that she hung around? During an absolutely laughable period of politics where her peers were the likes of Jeremy Hunt and their main issue was UKIP? Oh, and no major terrorist attacks? She's a nasty, racist cretin who only desires power.

You're posting that while at the same time playing the no discourse/echo chamber left card? lol pull the other one mate

Great way to get discourse going, bravo.

 

[Spaghetti]

There were no notable terrorist attacks in her time at the helm

Sorry to drag this bit up again, Meadows, but that's a pretty bold claim there.

 

[Audioboxer]

Well, in theory Labour could win by mobilising people who haven't voted before as well, but I take your point.

That's astronomically challenging. Even the 2014 indyref turnout up here at an outstanding 84.59% still had 15% of those registered and able to vote not doing so. I think it would be great though if that 85 % up here that proved they know how to vote and can do it translated into 85% who voted regularly. Just a bit of a dream with the public and politics. If you don't force people to do something (not advocating for this in the slightest), no matter how important it is, some will just refrain and/or not care.

The better aim just now is to focus on the youth. They tend to be far more open to voting for an inclusive, tolerant, forward-thinking country and do have some of the highest Labour votes (and up here, SNP). There are some issues with turnout and youth, but I think that can be tackled more easily than middle aged stay at homes. Our country is largely youth vs old when it comes to politics. The old seem to be centre-right, veering further right, and the youth centre-left. Not that these labels are all that useful. America tends to rely on them way more than we do.

edit: I posted some of the notable stats about youth here ~ http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=236205024&postcount=4492

In terms of Labour/Conservative split this image says it all really (combine that UKIP bar and Conservative for the over 65s now)

The problem with youth turnout is also shown figure wise in that post. As above, the youth, most likely to vote the likes of Labour/Greens while the least UKIP/Tories.

Might as well just dump that turnout image here too instead of asking people to go back pages

Labour HAS to focus on increasing that 18-24 bracket. University tuition pledges is a good move.

Aww, stick around Meadows. Be strong like Theresa May!

It's not that much of an echo chamber really. At the moment we seem to have three or four Tories, a couple of LibDems doing Libdemmy things and a bunch of two different flavours of Labour. Nothing like the pre-election US PoliGAF for certain.

Gets a bit heated from time to time, but I find people settle down a bit with reasonable arguments.

Plus, I could do with the company. (And whatever happened to zomgbbqftw by the way, did the lefties chase him off a few years back?)

Yeah, if anyone thinks UK political GAF is heated spend a week or two with American political GAF, lol.

What most of us need to remember is Brexit is one of the largest and most polarising things to ever happen to this country. That is going to translate into strong feelings. Unlike America which tends to flip Dems/Republicans every other election cycle, the UK is flying towards continued reign of one party for a long spell of time and that is causing unrest for many as well. Mostly because like it or not the party in question are objectively the most selfish of the lot in terms of being for the upper-middle-class/rich, and they do have a hard-on for hating one of the things we should be most proud of, the NHS.

 

[phisheep]

Yeah I am pretty close to giving up tbh, this UK poligaf has been such an echo chamber for the left in the last few years that any dissenting opinions or posts are treated with hostility.

This is crazy to me considering I am not a right-winger. I just wish people had more critical thinking beyond everything left = good, everything right = evil.

Aww, stick around Meadows. Be strong like Theresa May!

It's not that much of an echo chamber really. At the moment we seem to have three or four Tories, a couple of LibDems doing Libdemmy things and a bunch of two different flavours of Labour. Nothing like the pre-election US PoliGAF for certain.

Gets a bit heated from time to time, but I find people settle down a bit with reasonable arguments.

Plus, I could do with the company. (And whatever happened to zomgbbqftw by the way, did the lefties chase him off a few years back?)

 

[Meadows]

There's a wide gap between "not performing perfectly" and "actively covering up a mass sexual abuse scandal". There are a number of courses she could have taken, she chose the vey worst one.

First off, for the record, the sexual abuse of women is always wrong. There is no doubt about that. I don't want you to think that I don't think that is an issue, because it is. I'm a feminist and deplore the conditions that there were at Yarl Wood.

But think of the following:

1) I cannot find any credible evidence that Theresa May covered up this abuse.

2) Michael Howard said "at some corner of the Home Office, there is always someone doing something that will ruin your career" such is the capability for things to go wrong.

3) There have been reports of cover ups within that facility since the mid-2000s, when Labour were in power.

My point is that the running of a single facility - as awful as it may be (refer to my opening) - is not something that can be used to substantially denigrate the competency of the longest serving home sec since the 1800s.

 

[Meadows]

Sorry to drag this bit up again, Meadows, but that's a pretty bold claim there.

No problem.

Apologies, I got the wording on this wrong. It's hard to define what I meant by that without wanting to downplay how horrific such an act was. To call it "not major" would be insulting to his memory, but I think we could all agree that this was a "minor" attack in the grand scheme of things.

Aww, stick around Meadows. Be strong like Theresa May!

It's not that much of an echo chamber really. At the moment we seem to have three or four Tories, a couple of LibDems doing Libdemmy things and a bunch of two different flavours of Labour. Nothing like the pre-election US PoliGAF for certain.

Gets a bit heated from time to time, but I find people settle down a bit with reasonable arguments.

Plus, I could do with the company. (And whatever happened to zomgbbqftw by the way, did the lefties chase him off a few years back?)

Thanks!

 

[Spaghetti]

Mark Carney: Real wages will fall this year.

Still ongoing but other information includes growth forecasts cut, inflation on the rise, pound falls again, and living standard set to fall.

 

[PJV3]

Aww, stick around Meadows. Be strong like Theresa May!

It's not that much of an echo chamber really. At the moment we seem to have three or four Tories, a couple of LibDems doing Libdemmy things and a bunch of two different flavours of Labour. Nothing like the pre-election US PoliGAF for certain.

Gets a bit heated from time to time, but I find people settle down a bit with reasonable arguments.

Plus, I could do with the company. (And whatever happened to zomgbbqftw by the way, did the lefties chase him off a few years back?)

zomgbbqftw declared he was too busy for the threads or something, I don't think he would get chased away, he could statistic the thread to death in defence if he needed to.

 

[TomWaitsForNoMan]

First off, for the record, the sexual abuse of women is always wrong. There is no doubt about that. I don't want you to think that I don't think that is an issue, because it is. I'm a feminist and deplore the conditions that there were at Yarl Wood.

But think of the following:

1) I cannot find any credible evidence that Theresa May covered up this abuse.

2) Michael Howard said "at some corner of the Home Office, there is always someone doing something that will ruin your career" such is the capability for things to go wrong.

3) There have been reports of cover ups within that facility since the mid-2000s, when Labour were in power.

My point is that the running of a single facility - as awful as it may be (refer to my opening) - is not something that can be used to substantially denigrate the competency of the longest serving home sec since the 1800s.

1) she prevented the UN special rapporteur for women from inspecting the facility https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/03/yarls-wood-un-special-rapporteur-censure as well as doing almost nothing to stop the abuse which continues to this day including ignoring repeated calls for a full inquiry

2) Irrelevant

3) I am not disputing that Labour has an equally reprehensible record when it comes to the treatment of refugees. But we were talking about May specifically.

Your last point is just a rewording of what you've said several times already so I'll restate my position: downplaying the abuse at Yarl's Wood by saying that it alone can't denigrate her competency and implying that her longevity in the position outweighs it is beneath contempt. Handling even a single facility the way she did should disqualify her from being regarded as a decent human being, let alone a good Home Secretary.

 

[Meadows]

1) she prevented the UN special rapporteur for women from inspecting the facility https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/03/yarls-wood-un-special-rapporteur-censure as well as doing almost nothing to stop the abuse which continues to this day

2) Irrelevant

3) I am not disputing that Labour has an equally reprehensible record when it comes to the treatment of refugees. But we were talking about May specifically.

Your last point is just a rewording of what you've said several times already so I'll restate my position: downplaying the abuse at Yarl's Wood by saying that it alone can't denigrate her competency and implying that her longevity in the position outweighs it is beneath contempt. Handling even a single facility the way she did should disqualify her from being regarded as a decent human being, let alone a good Home Secretary.

1) It seems as though she never requested to visit until she was there. You also overlook the positive fact that this was the first ever allowed tour of these facilities in British history by an independent UN envoy.

Here is the quote from the Home Office: "A visit to Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre was never agreed as part of this fact-finding mission. However, as part of her visit, the special rapporteur has met the home secretary. Violence against women and girls in any form is unacceptable and the government has shown its commitment to ending it."

2) Just saying "irrelevant" isn't really helping your point.

3) Fair enough.

In terms of your closing statement:

Your last point is just a rewording of what you've said several times already so I'll restate my position: downplaying the abuse at Yarl's Wood by saying that it alone can't denigrate her competency and implying that her longevity in the position outweighs it is beneath contempt. Handling even a single facility the way she did should disqualify her from being regarded as a decent human being, let alone a good Home Secretary.

I really disagree with the bolded. Theresa May had a huge brief for 6 years. There has never been any evidence that she was involved in any cover up. She was not the Sec of State for Yarl's Wood, she was the Home Secretary. That facility covers, let's say, 0.0001% of her brief.

You do seem rather angry about this, which is fair enough, I'm sure you are a very moral person who has the correct intentions in terms of fighting injustice and highlighting wrongdoing, but I don't agree in your conclusions.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kRnxGU8Z9M

"Relax with the conservatives" - A Peter Cook sketch

I saw this linked on my facebook feed and despite being many decades old it is scarily accurate to how modern day tories operate.

Now repeat after me: STRONG AND STABLE.

 

[TomWaitsForNoMan]

1) It seems as though she never requested to visit until she was there. You also overlook the positive fact that this was the first ever allowed tour of these facilities in British history by an independent UN envoy.

Here is the quote from the Home Office: "A visit to Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre was never agreed as part of this fact-finding mission. However, as part of her visit, the special rapporteur has met the home secretary. Violence against women and girls in any form is unacceptable and the government has shown its commitment to ending it."

2) Just saying "irrelevant" isn't really helping your point.

3) Fair enough.

In terms of your closing statement:



I really disagree with the bolded. Theresa May had a huge brief for 6 years. There has never been any evidence that she was involved in any cover up. She was not the Sec of State for Yarl's Wood, she was the Home Secretary. That facility covers, let's say, 0.0001% of her brief.

You do seem rather angry about this, which is fair enough, I'm sure you are a very moral person who has the correct intentions in terms of fighting injustice and highlighting wrongdoing, but I don't agree in your conclusions.

Even after the rapporteur left she did nothing. There have been multiple calls for an inquiry and she did nothing. She knew what was happening and did nothing. There's no way to read that other than that she's deliberately covering it up. She was the person in charge, excepting the PM, and so ultimate responsibility lies with her. Carry on blinding yourself to it if you want to, but don't patronise me for actually giving a shit by patting me on the head about my "correct intentions". Because yeah, weirdly enough some people do get "rather angry” about mass rape, as well as those who think allowing it to happen under your watch shouldn't affect your reputation

 

[SoCoRoBo]

Meh, there's no point having a politics thread if people use it to just bash and put down others. Like it or not the only way labour can win an election is by persuading people w ho voted conservative in 2010 and 2015 to now vote labour - that's the only mathematical solution. You won't ever accomplish that by calling those voters racist evil murders who hate disabled people.

All it does is shut down conversation and ultimately ensure labour won't ever win. So you get a quick thrill from shouting at someone, but ultimately you don't accomplish anything and actually harm what you are trying to do in the long run.

Theresa May isn't Donald Tump, or Erdogan, or Putin. There's plenty of legitimate room to criticsse her, without feeling the need to question other people's morals or behaviour.

Out of curiosity, what strategy do you think could make Labour electable at this stage? Because it doesn't seem to be a problem with their policies at all.

Does anyone aside from politics nerds like us actually read the manifestos?

I think you'd be surprised. I know a fair few largely apolitical people who sit down with the manifestos before an election, compare them, and decide to vote based on that. Very quaint but nice. There was an argument doing the rounds a couple of months back on Twitter that a lot of New Labour's success was down to making specific, discrete promises to increase certain benefits by a certain amount, or lower classroom places by a certain amount.

 

[TimmmV]

Apologies, I got the wording on this wrong. It's hard to define what I meant by that without wanting to downplay how horrific such an act was. To call it "not major" would be insulting to his memory, but I think we could all agree that this was a "minor" attack in the grand scheme of things.

It's also worth looking at how preventable the incident was before judging a home secretary about it. I'm not sure how much could have been done to prevent Lee Rigby being killed, or the recent attack on the bridge in Westminster, at least without ridiculously draconian surveillance over the whole country

Unfortunately the price of having an open society is that there will (very, very rarely) be terrorism, its not realistic that everything will be stopped

I think you'd be surprised. I know a fair few largely apolitical people who sit down with the manifestos before an election, compare them, and decide to vote based on that. Very quaint but nice. There was an argument doing the rounds a couple of months back on Twitter that a lot of New Labour's success was down to making specific, discrete promises to increase certain benefits by a certain amount, or lower classroom places by a certain amount.

Ha, that does surprise me!

Good to know it happens at least though

 

[Audioboxer]

Out of curiosity, what strategy do you think could make Labour electable at this stage? Because it doesn't seem to be a problem with their policies at all.



I think you'd be surprised. I know a fair few largely apolitical people who sit down with the manifestos before an election, compare them, and decide to vote based on that. Very quaint but nice. There was an argument doing the rounds a couple of months back on Twitter that a lot of New Labour's success was down to making specific, discrete promises to increase certain benefits by a certain amount, or lower classroom places by a certain amount.

As I said above, focus on youth and also try and buck the trend of families instilling it in their children to vote how their parents do. Empower youth to think for themselves. Engagement in higher education is needed for this.

Corbyn chasing that 16 year old voting age is wise as well. It's working out well in Scotland ~ http://www.syp.org.uk/syp_elections...le_are_engaged_in_politics_now_more_than_ever

If you want to try and tackle laziness/apathy in its tracks it's about getting youth engaged early and not trying* to reclaim back mid 20's/early 30's voters who haven't ever bothered before. Years of reinforcement that voting doesn't matter and not understanding anything political is hard to overturn when many of these minds are obsessively focussing on their jobs/property opportunities and possibly starting families. Ironically at this fairly early adulthood age voting is astronomically important, but when the mind is switched off and obsessing over other things it's like screaming into a megaphone which is switched off.

*That's not to say you give up on everyone not using their right to vote because of their ages, but if you're asking where to focus first and with the most effort, youth. Hence why I think Labours manifesto is focusing on that 16 year old voting age, and University tuition fees. Not to mention youth is supposed to be the future of the country...

 

[Meadows]

Carry on blinding yourself to it if you want to, but don't patronise me for actually giving a shit by patting me on the head about my "correct intentions". Because yeah, weirdly enough some people do get "rather angry" about mass rape

I think you misunderstood. I wasn't trying to be patronising, but clearly you want to see things in your way, i.e. anyone defending the record of a Home Sec who had something go wrong = condoning and supporting mass rape.

I guess you'd rather lecture than debate.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

People complaining about an echo chamber

Perhaps just take a moment to think about why people get so angry at "dissenting opinions"? Something to do with them supporting policies and politicians causing actual physical and mental harm to real people.

Just a thought.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I fell like you're disagreeing because you didn't agree what exactly the debate was about. Meadows is saying something like: from a careerist perspective, May performed enormously well. She managed to survive an exceptionally long time in one of the most notoriously damaging jobs in British politics and went on to become the Prime Minister from it, which is no mean feat and a testament to her ability to judge the political waters. Tom is saying: from the country's perspective, May performed particularly badly, losing a number of prominent court cases, being held in contempt of court, keeping the sexual abuse of detained women under wraps, pushing for draconian anti-privacy laws, and so on. Both of you would (I think) agree with the other's statements, but you're disagreeing because neither of you set out what you meant by what it means to be a good Home Secretary.

 

[Meadows]

I fell like you're disagreeing because you didn't agree what exactly the debate was about. Meadows is saying something like: from a careerist perspective, May performed enormously well. She managed to survive an exceptionally long time in one of the most notoriously damaging jobs in British politics and went on to become the Prime Minister from it, which is no mean feat and a testament to her ability to judge the political waters. Tom is saying: from the country's perspective, May performed particularly badly, losing a number of prominent court cases, being held in contempt of court, keeping the sexual abuse of detained women under wraps, pushing for draconian anti-privacy laws, and so on. Both of you would (I think) agree with the other's statements, but you're disagreeing because neither of you set out what you meant by what it means to be a good Home Secretary.

I mean, right at the start of all of this I said that I hugely disagree with most of her policies, one of which directly affected me (scrapping of the post study work visa), which personally cost me over £5,000 and years of visa issues in trying to sort out for my partner.

I have never voted Conservative and would call her flavour of authoritarian rule worrying, but as I said all along she is a very good politician. This has never been about whether I agree with her policies. I said that right at the first post.

But no, the easier conclusion is that I hate refugees and love mass rape.

 

[Uzzy]

Spotted a 'Strong and Stable' advert on Instagram this morning! The Tories have a pretty good social media campaign, which surprises me, but shouldn't really given how much money they throw at it.

 

[TomWaitsForNoMan]

I fell like you're disagreeing because you didn't agree what exactly the debate was about. Meadows is saying something like: from a careerist perspective, May performed enormously well. She managed to survive an exceptionally long time in one of the most notoriously damaging jobs in British politics and went on to become the Prime Minister from it, which is no mean feat and a testament to her ability to judge the political waters. Tom is saying: from the country's perspective, May performed particularly badly, losing a number of prominent court cases, being held in contempt of court, keeping the sexual abuse of detained women under wraps, pushing for draconian anti-privacy laws, and so on. Both of you would (I think) agree with the other's statements, but you're disagreeing because neither of you set out what you meant by what it means to be a good Home Secretary.

They explicitly and repeatedly denied that there was a cover up or that she could be blamed for what happened, so no we wouldn't agree even on those terms. And I also said at least once that the elevation of survival over what was actually done is itself disgusting

 

[phisheep]

People complaining about an echo chamber

Perhaps just take a moment to think about why people get so angry at "dissenting opinions"? Something to do with them supporting policies and politicians causing actual physical and mental harm to real people.

Just a thought.

I think this is a rather blunt argument, though it tends to wind people up a bit. All governments cause harm in one way or another. It isn't like the Tories are unique in this or that all would be sweetness and light everywhere under Labour.

 

[WhatNXt]

Yeah I am pretty close to giving up tbh, this UK poligaf has been such an echo chamber for the left in the last few years that any dissenting opinions or posts are treated with hostility.

This is crazy to me considering I am not a right-winger. I just wish people had more critical thinking beyond everything left = good, everything right = evil.

Don't feel pushed away. I've read and disagreed with you on a couple of things, but I welcome challenges to my own views such as your own.

I am pretty left wing, and I have some pretty militant left wing friends on Facebook, I must admit I cringe a bit when some of them go hard on "x personality is an evil c***" type tirades.

I want a change of government, I feel their ideologically driven agenda over the last 7 years hasn't reaped the reward that they implied it would, and I think people have suffered because of it, but I don't think they're evil - and as with Phi's post about his personal circumstances the other day, I can see why some people appreciate the Conservatives stance on some things, particularly with regards to promoting business. I would counter though, that if people were doing better, people might be spending more in shops such as Phi's. I don't believe the MSM maintained consensus that the Tories are any better with the benjamins. They have borrowed more than every other Labour government combined while simultaneously telling us all this belt tightening and service cutting will reap some future reward. The suppressing force of austerity hasn't worked. I personally just feel that there might be another way, to foster growth in people, and the safeguarding of greater opportunity for more people, that would lift us more evenly, and eventually lift business too. To me, this leaked Labour manifesto isn't as radical as some make out.

I don't want the country to be in a capitalist race to be the most ruthless and the best in the world, I don't need our military spending to be through the stratosphere and for us to be 'projecting' power in far flung places. There are other countries better placed to do that, who are doing that, and they're engaged in proxy war with one another that we really needn't be any part of. There are countries who aren't top of the world, but have higher rates of job satisfaction, higher rates of social mobility, their children are happier, their lives are relatively safe and carefree. I want a country that's healthier, happier and less divided, with services they can rely on. People who feel they can lean on each other instead of looking at everyone else inside and out of this country with contempt.

The comments by John McDonnell regarding Deutsche Bahn this morning, strike me as something that might chime well with the Brexit folk. Forget the fact that Virgin, Arriva, SouthWestern and other companies are ripping us off for the most mediocre and congested rail service in all of Europe - we've got companies that are running our freight infrastructure and siphoning profits out to other countries? I'd have thought this is one area the Daily Heil might actually be on board with him.

All this talk of the 70s is ridiculous, we're in a different age now. A much more efficient age. Privatisation wouldn't even take the same form. Privatising the supply side of energy and allowing private companies to be the interface with the consumer? Why not! Breaking up the regional monopolies of rail carriers might not be a bad idea either. We're investing so much in the idea of HS2 and 3, but who is going to profit, and will any of that profit or benefit actually leave the vacuum cleaner like gravity of London? Let's revolutionise it, make it work for all of Britain.

Regarding the polarised climate we have - where we have people screeching at each other that the other side is evil or mad or what have you, I personally think this is systematic, it comes from on high, the politics that we have today feeds it. Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dem followers alike are only repeating the attack lines of their leaders. A lot of them are so desperate to win they're blinded from what is actually good for the country, or in the case of Labour, what's good for their own party.

Have any of you read Dark Money by Jane Mayer? It's about oil money, the Koch brothers, anti-climate-science groups and others' influence in Republican politics. It essentially follows their end-of-the-world hysteria following Obama's election, and the funding and messaging they embarked on thereafter, from the Tea Party right through to today. Given the current state of play over there you can read and readily believe there has been a straight line from their investment and rhetoric to the "win at any cost" mindset of modern Republicanism over there. The issues are not so much background noise as they are something to exploit. Blame is the name of the game, with complex social problems and economic fallout being laid at the feet of opponents with the simplest of reasoning. I think the same thing has happened here. It's rural fox-murdering, 1% propping, status-quo preserving, poor-hating, disabled-killing toffs versus free-movement supporting, terrorist-sympathising, cloud cuckoo land, spend-happy liberals.

Having moved around the country for work reasons, I've seen inequality and injustice with my own eyes. I feel like social cohesion is crumbling. I feel like the NHS is being allowed to as well. Possibly with intent. So I do want policies that will help people. It might be all about Brexit for some people, but it's not all about Brexit for me. I'm hopeful that the conversation is broadening a bit from that now in the last few weeks.

I know that some people are of a different ideological persuasion, and don't believe in or trust government interventionism, they more readily believe in bootstraps, they feel more grounded in wanting a particular style of focus on the economy and the areas where we are strong. I like reading these threads, so yeah, we might all disagree but we can be civil.

 

[Wrestlemania]

I think this is a rather blunt argument, though it tends to wind people up a bit. All governments cause harm in one way or another. It isn't like the Tories are unique in this or that all would be sweetness and light everywhere under Labour.

The difference being that the Tories are fully aware of the harm their policies will and have caused. They just don't give a shit.

 

[Meadows]

Don't feel pushed away. I've read and disagreed with you on a couple of things, but I welcome challenges to my own views such as your own.

I am pretty left wing, and I have some pretty militant left wing friends on Facebook, I must admit I cringe a bit when some of them go hard on "x personality is an evil c***" type tirades.

I want a change of government, I feel their ideologically driven agenda over the last 7 years hasn't reaped the reward that they implied it would, and I think people have suffered because of it, but I don't think they're evil - and as with Phi's post about his personal circumstances the other day, I can see why some people appreciate the Conservatives stance on some things, particularly with regards to promoting business. I would counter though, that if people were doing better, people might be spending more in shops such as Phi's. I don't believe the MSM maintained consensus that the Tories are any better with the benjamins. They have borrowed more than every other Labour government combined while simultaneously telling us all this belt tightening and service cutting will reap some future reward. The suppressing force of austerity hasn't worked. I personally just feel that there might be another way, to foster growth in people, and the safeguarding of greater opportunity for more people, that would lift us more evenly, and eventually lift business too. To me, this leaked Labour manifesto isn't as radical as some make out.

I don't want the country to be in a capitalist race to be the most ruthless and the best in the world, I don't need our military spending to be through the stratosphere and for us to be 'projecting' power in far flung places. There are other countries better placed to do that, who are doing that, and they're engaged in proxy war with one another that we really needn't be any part of. There are countries who aren't top of the world, but have higher rates of job satisfaction, higher rates of social mobility, their children are happier, their lives are relatively safe and carefree. I want a country that's healthier, happier and less divided, with services they can rely on. People who feel they can lean on each other instead of looking at everyone else inside and out of this country with contempt.

The comments by John McDonnell regarding Deutsche Bahn this morning, strike me as something that might chime well with the Brexit folk. Forget the fact that Virgin, Arriva, SouthWestern and other companies are ripping us off for the most mediocre and congested rail service in all of Europe - we've got companies that are running our freight infrastructure and siphoning profits out to other countries? I'd have thought this is one area the Daily Heil might actually be on board with him.

All this talk of the 70s is ridiculous, we're in a different age now. A much more efficient age. Privatisation wouldn't even take the same form. Privatising the supply side of energy and allowing private companies to be the interface with the consumer? Why not! Breaking up the regional monopolies of rail carriers might not be a bad idea either. We're investing so much in the idea of HS2 and 3, but who is going to profit, and will any of that profit or benefit actually leave the vacuum cleaner like gravity of London? Let's revolutionise it, make it work for all of Britain.

Regarding the polarised climate we have - where we have people screeching at each other that the other side is evil or mad or what have you, I personally think this is systematic, it comes from on high, the politics that we have today feeds it. Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dem followers alike are only repeating the attack lines of their leaders. A lot of them are so desperate to win they're blinded from what is actually good for the country, or in the case of Labour, what's good for their own party.

Have any of you read Dark Money by Jane Mayer? It's about oil money, the Koch brothers, anti-climate-science groups and others' influence in Republican politics. It essentially follows their end-of-the-world hysteria following Obama's election, and the funding and messaging they embarked on thereafter, from the Tea Party right through to today. Given the current state of play over there you can read and readily believe there has been a straight line from their investment and rhetoric to the "win at any cost" mindset of modern Republicanism over there. The issues are not so much background noise as they are something to exploit. Blame is the name of the game, with complex social problems and economic fallout being laid at the feet of opponents with the simplest of reasoning. I think the same thing has happened here. It's rural fox-murdering, 1% propping, status-quo preserving, poor-hating, disabled-killing toffs versus free-movement supporting, terrorist-sympathising, cloud cuckoo land, spend-happy liberals.

Having moved around the country for work reasons, I've seen inequality and injustice with my own eyes. I feel like social cohesion is crumbling. I feel like the NHS is being allowed to as well. Possibly with intent. So I do want policies that will help people. It might be all about Brexit for some people, but it's not all about Brexit for me. I'm hopeful that the conversation is broadening a bit from that now in the last few weeks.

I know that some people are of a different ideological persuasion, and don't believe in or trust government interventionism, they more readily believe in bootstraps, they feel more grounded in wanting a particular style of focus on the economy and the areas where we are strong. I like reading these threads, so yeah, we might all disagree but we can be civil.

First of all, thanks for the opening, it's very nice to see you got something positive from my posts.

Second off, I disagree with some of what you have said here specifically regarding the government's record on spending, but I agree with you on nationalisation of some services. I have seen this work very well in Germany and Taiwan, neither of which are overly socialist countries. I don't think this is a bad idea, but I wouldn't want a badly run government to run it, which, in my very subjective opinion, is what any regime led by Corbyn would be.

I don't have the time to go bit by bit on the post and critique or comment, but it's very well written and I thank you for putting it together.

 

[WriterGK]

I was wondering how can the UK Independency Party have 1 seat but with 12.7% of Voters Share?

 

[JonathanEx]

I was wondering how can the UK Independency Party have 1 seat but with 12.7% of Voters Share?

Seats are allocated on a First Past The Post system based on individual representatives. So across the country, 12.7% of people voted for them, but in an individual area, only in one did they have a majority to get that seat.

And for that UKIP one, their one seat was only because of someone who defected from the Conservatives.

 

[Meadows]

I was wondering how can the UK Independency Party have 1 seat but with 12.7% of Voters Share?

Our electoral system works on FPTP.

Essentially, the UK is split up into 600+ seats, each of them its own mini election. To win each seat you have to come first, but there isn't a high enough concentration of people supporting their (far to mid right) views in any one place (other than Thanet) to get them over the line.

It's the same with the Greens and to a lesser extent the Lib Dems.

More info: http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/voting-systems/

 

[Halph n Halph]

I was wondering how can the UK Independency Party have 1 seat but with 12.7% of Voters Share?

Not enough votes in each constituency to elect an MP.
Nvm

 

[phisheep]

I was wondering how can the UK Independency Party have 1 seat but with 12.7% of Voters Share?

It's because their votes are very thinly spread geographically. They've got roughly 12.7% of the vote everywhere and 12.7% isn't anywhere near enough to win you a seat. The one seat they had was because a Conservative MP defected to UKIP and took his personal supporters with him.

 

[Jezbollah]

It's because their votes are very thinly spread geographically. They've got roughly 12.7% of the vote everywhere and 12.7% isn't anywhere near enough to win you a seat. The one seat they had was because a Conservative MP defected to UKIP and took his personal supporters with him.

Yep, and in addition to this, adding a ton of UKIP vote share to the Conservatives (which is a key theme of the election polling so far) means that the Conservatives will win key marginals in many constituencies..

 

[ReplacementPelican]

I was wondering how can the UK Independency Party have 1 seat but with 12.7% of Voters Share?

There's not enough support in a specific seat. Their only seat was because a respected (Tory) politician defected.

Assuming you're not British, by and large people would never admit but understand that governing is a not an easy role and UKIP's candidates tend to be people who are largely, well, incompetent and the general belief is that they couldn't lead a group of children with a magical flute. Whilst people agreed with leaving the EU it was pretty considered that UKIP's candidates are unfit to govern and the party is largely unfit to rule. I realise 12.7% of people didn't think this but oh well, can't win them all. With a respected party offering UKIP's only main policy it was a no-brainer for most people on the right.

 

[Meadows]

In England, despite only getting 72% of the vote in 2015, the Tories and Labour won 98.5% of all seats.

This means the views of 28% of the people are represented by 1.5% of parliament.

The loss of the AV referendum is possibly one of the quietest failures in UK history. It has fundamentally denigrated our democracy.

One of the only reasons this doesn't get much coverage is that the views of those 28% are partly really racist (Britain First, BNP etc) even if there is some moderation in there.

 

[WriterGK]

Seats are allocated on a First Past The Post system based on individual representatives. So across the country, 12.7% of people voted for them, but in an individual area, only in one did they have a majority to get that seat.

And for that UKIP one, their one seat was only because of someone who defected from the Conservatives.

Thnx. And how much percentage of the new votes does he need to get a second seat or more?

 

[WriterGK]

There's not enough support in a specific seat. Their only seat was because a respected (Tory) politician defected.

Assuming you're not British, by and large people would never admit but understand that governing is a not an easy role and UKIP's candidates tend to be people who are largely, well, incompetent and the general belief is that they couldn't lead a group of children with a magical flute. Whilst people agreed with leaving the EU it was pretty considered that UKIP's candidates are unfit to govern and the party is largely unfit to rule. I realise 12.7% of people didn't think this but oh well, can't win them all. With a respected party offering UKIP's [strikethrough]only[/strikethrough] policy it was a no-brainer for most people on the right.

Thnx mate, cheers. Now I get it. I am indeed not British, I am dutch. We also have defecters here from parties sometimes.;

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Thnx. And how much percentage of the new votes does he need to get a second seat or more?

They're actually on 0 seats now - their sole MP resigned from the party. It is very unlikely they will win a seat at all, as their vote is spread out very evenly and not concentrated in any one seat, meaning even though they'll probably get a higher share of the vote than the SNP, the Greens, or any of the NI parties, they won't be rewarded for it.

 

[Jezbollah]

Thnx. And how much percentage of the new votes does he need to get a second seat or more?

That depends what seat you are talking about (there are 650, each with their own polling weighting).

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That depends what seat you are talking about (there are 650, each with their own polling weighting).

If Nuttall stands in Boston & Skegness, he'd need a 5% swing from the Conservatives to UKIP.


a.k.a. he's not winning a seat.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Thnx. And how much percentage of the new votes does he need to get a second seat or more?

The country is broken down into constituencies (i.e. areas of approximately equal population size) in which one representative stands, so national vote doesn't strictly count for anything. If you have the largest share of the vote in a constituency, you get the seat. Repeat that ~650 times and you have all the (~650) seats in the House of Commons.

Theoretically, you could have 49.9% of the national vote and not a single Parliamentary seat.

I hope that makes sense.