Probably the "White people suck" post in the poligaf thread.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
Probably the "White people suck" post in the poligaf thread.
Nicktendo86
Member
Yep, that would probably do it. What a tit.
Nicktendo86
Member
No suprise there I think. Not many safer seats?
fizzelopeguss
Banned
So an independent scotland wouldn't actually be independent at all. They'll just have a perpetual SNP government...you know, i can see why salmonds all over it like shit stuck to a blanket.
Eh?
The other options he mentioned are here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28938669
Nicktendo86
Member
There better be some repercussions from the investigation I Rotherham. Apparently fly the council leader has stepped down (but remains as a councillor) which is not good enough. Who is their MP? Labour?
I doubt the SNP will exist significantly in the event of a Yes vote. The main players will form new allegiances and parties prior to election.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm not sure - the area may have more than one? - but I assume so, since the council is overwhelmingly Labour. That said, this problem goes back to the mid 90's, and goes through all strands, from the councillors, the police, the local authorities and child protection services etc. Heads have to roll, but they need to be more than just the politicians.
Nicktendo86
Member
Of course. God I'm almost shaking in anger reading the reports, police not thinking it was serious etc. Jesus Christ what has happened to this country.
CyclopsRock
Member
The actual individual cases listed in the report - there are about 14 - make for morbid reading; some of them sound like some bizarro directors cut of Taken 3 or something, with a girl being forced into prostitution, their house windows smashed, she was fed drugs, petrol poured over her and her brother's legs both being broken. They family then stopped going to the police because they were punished, and finally the girl's home life broke down entirely leaving her homeless at 18 and all the local council did was offer her advice on what benefits she could get. The final sentence of her section of the report is horribly sad: "This child and her family were completely failed by all services with the exception of Risky Business."
(Risky Business were an entirely voluntarily child protection service that is about the only group that comes out of this report with an ounce of credibility - indeed, somewhat more than that. It seems that it did a lot of good work but was failed by those with the actual power and responsibility to do anything).
I don't know how much this reflects the actual UK citizenship test, and although the i and Independent are sensationalist, the citizenship test needs to be changed if these are the questions that are included.
http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...nship-test-most-young-people-cant--gJ0v-H6BQx
Useless facts. Minor parts of medieval and economics History that isn't known by most of the public. Ridiculous pop culture facts. At least there is a fair share of UK legality and political questions, but they are based too much on pop quiz facts.
EDIT: It should focus on, firstly, your level of fluency of the English language. It should also include up to GCSE level style of Maths, English and perhaps historical political , up to a mid grade level. Interviews about what career you want to pursue and how they will do it. Perhaps questions on their career choice. This should ensure people can communicate, there is a solid quality of immigrants entering who have a purpose to participate within the labour market. Legality and culture should be measured or assessed in a different way.
http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...nship-test-most-young-people-cant--gJ0v-H6BQx
Useless facts. Minor parts of medieval and economics History that isn't known by most of the public. Ridiculous pop culture facts. At least there is a fair share of UK legality and political questions, but they are based too much on pop quiz facts.
EDIT: It should focus on, firstly, your level of fluency of the English language. It should also include up to GCSE level style of Maths, English and perhaps historical political , up to a mid grade level. Interviews about what career you want to pursue and how they will do it. Perhaps questions on their career choice. This should ensure people can communicate, there is a solid quality of immigrants entering who have a purpose to participate within the labour market. Legality and culture should be measured or assessed in a different way.
Nicktendo86
Member
Wow, we have our first ukip mp. Douglas Carswell has defected!
CyclopsRock
Member
This is pretty big, and awful for the Tories. Firstly, it's bad that it's from them that the inevitable defection came. Secondly, whilst "the Tories" have a large majority in Clacton, obviously that's Carswell's majority - if there's a by-election (or otherwise at the GE in 2015) it'll be interesting to see how many voters stick with Carswell - he's been there a while. Finally, it's also pretty bad for the Better Together campaign, given how much of the Scottish Yes argument appears to be "boo conservatives boo right wingers".
Edit: He IS forcing a by-election. Crumbs, who can the Tories put up? If only Boris had waited a week! Carswell's very popular, he'll be tough to beat.
Edit: He IS forcing a by-election. Crumbs, who can the Tories put up? If only Boris had waited a week! Carswell's very popular, he'll be tough to beat.
Nicktendo86
Member
This is terrible for the Tories. Dave has to get his act together.
If Scotland ends up voting for independence because of a shitty debate performance by Alistair Darling and some moronic Tory MP desperate for headlines it will really mark a sad point in time.
Edit- in response to your point about Dave getting his act together - sorry but I don't think there's anything he can really do. For the pas 20 years the Tory party has had this slightly lunatic fringe who are happy to bring down the party and government if they can't get their own way. Major was bedevilled by them for years. It's a same reflection of what happens over in the states (only much, much smaller) - an obsession with purity and ideology over actual governance. The left used to have the same, but they seem to have mostly died off after the Thatcher period. For some reason part of the Tory party doubled down on crazy after labours 13 years.
Dave has already fucked up our relationship with Europe, pissed off allies, purged his cabinet of any 'wets' and committed to a referendum unless we get our own way in Europe. I think some of these rebels would only be content with him dressing up as Nelson and firing HMS Belfast at Strasbourg.
Edit- in response to your point about Dave getting his act together - sorry but I don't think there's anything he can really do. For the pas 20 years the Tory party has had this slightly lunatic fringe who are happy to bring down the party and government if they can't get their own way. Major was bedevilled by them for years. It's a same reflection of what happens over in the states (only much, much smaller) - an obsession with purity and ideology over actual governance. The left used to have the same, but they seem to have mostly died off after the Thatcher period. For some reason part of the Tory party doubled down on crazy after labours 13 years.
Dave has already fucked up our relationship with Europe, pissed off allies, purged his cabinet of any 'wets' and committed to a referendum unless we get our own way in Europe. I think some of these rebels would only be content with him dressing up as Nelson and firing HMS Belfast at Strasbourg.
This image is brilliant. How many voters will actually vote for their MP's name, or just vote blindly for a party. Not to treat the voting public as blind animals, but this is what happens in quite a few constituencies due to an allegiance people feel the need to stay with.
I'm not sure, but I don't see the problem if they do.
I'm not sure, but I don't see the problem if they do.
Of course it's not a problem, I mean freedom of choice and all that.
What I'm on about is... why?
Nicktendo86
Member
Had enough of the status quo Tory/labour governments I suppose. I've never voted for them but I can see why people do.
The reason given for this defection is Cameron's lack of desire to change things and the way Goldsmith's recall bill was treated. I can 100% get behind this.
Their main concerns are probably leaving the EU, moving towards a government with less interference for a more free market UK and immigration. They are more of the 'libertarian' party, which is something I flirt with economically, a bygone era of the Conservatives.
Most voters though, are voting on their promise of immigration practices and the leaving the EU i.e. pull in some of the lost , disenfranchised BNP voters and Con/mainstream voters.
dapperbandit
Banned
I have little doubt.
But I haven't seen any posters openly support UKIP for some time. All the bad press and allegations of racism and xenophobia... I think supporters know better than to make themselves targets by openly supporting a party like that on a left leaning forum.
This is what I don't understand. This would be such a mistake. I don't understand the hatred towards the EU that southerners have. People up here in the north are nowhere nearly as hostile.
And all the hate on "immigrants" from the EU... just shameful really
I can't comment on if leaving the EU or not would be economically viable (the only concern in my opinion) because I haven't done enough research on the topic. But yes, but UKIP focusing on the immigration aspect first means racial discrimination and xenophobia will always be associated with this, and its voters.
I think its more of a problem outside Central London because London really is a brimming pot of nationalities, and causes friction between the surburban communities. Honestly, I'm surprised you said it wasn't a Northern problem, I've always perceived the North as a more traditional English society and values. Add to the other cities as well that have 'closed off ' communities i.e. East London, Alums Rock (Brum), Polish communitis, etc., and you have a problem.
Hey are about as libertarian as the Republican Party - I.e. No government interference, unless it's about social policy we feel uncomfortable with in which case hurray for government and let's get back to the 50s.
Sorry, but you cannot hand wave away the fact that UKIP has an extremely unpleasant and bigoted aspect in it, particularly around homosexuality. Pretending otherwise, or suggesting it's just a few loose cannons is just blinkering yourself from the truth.
R. Voting for an MP because of their name, a political operative I socialise with once told me that approximately 15% of an MPS vote comes from people voting for that person, the rest comes from the party line. Some MPs obviously are outliers to that (Kate Hoey in Vauxhall was the example I was given, who gets a much higher % vote due to her rather than the Labour Party), and circumstances like this will make people think much more closely about the MP than the party I reckon.
My gut feeling is the Tories will find it very hard to win that seat now without some form of deal with the other parties. He wouldn't have swapped over unless he had the tacit approval of his local party.
Sorry, but you cannot hand wave away the fact that UKIP has an extremely unpleasant and bigoted aspect in it, particularly around homosexuality. Pretending otherwise, or suggesting it's just a few loose cannons is just blinkering yourself from the truth.
R. Voting for an MP because of their name, a political operative I socialise with once told me that approximately 15% of an MPS vote comes from people voting for that person, the rest comes from the party line. Some MPs obviously are outliers to that (Kate Hoey in Vauxhall was the example I was given, who gets a much higher % vote due to her rather than the Labour Party), and circumstances like this will make people think much more closely about the MP than the party I reckon.
My gut feeling is the Tories will find it very hard to win that seat now without some form of deal with the other parties. He wouldn't have swapped over unless he had the tacit approval of his local party.
CyclopsRock
Member
I think it's because for those that deeply care about the EU and its encroachment on the UK's sovereignty (and it has undeniably been doing that; even those who welcome it and understand that it has done so due to the will [or at least allowance] of subsequent democratically elected governments in the UK must recognise that part of being in a union involves some surrendering of sovereignty) the issue has been getting progressively worse and worse - higher EU budgets (as a trend), more powers to Brussels, more directives, more rulings going against the will of the UK government etc etc.
I also don't think it's "doubled down" at all - there's strong evidence that the public want a referendum (I know I do, even though I'd personally vote to stay in). And Cam's success at limiting the EU's budget to not rise was seen as a coup and was very popular. Generally speaking, I think Cam's done a very good job of keeping the dog's at bay, especially given UKIP's rise in prominence.
I just read an interesting suggestion by Hugo Rifkind da Twitterz:
"In their secret hearts, many centre-ish Tories will be quietly delighted by awkward right-wingers defecting to Ukip. And frankly, if I were a Tory, I'd offer to lay on coaches."
There's virtue to this idea - of a voluntary cull of the more outspoken, naughty and further right MPs - but only in the mid to long term. In the short term this is a real problem for Dave and co.
Some of these mistakes in your post are making it difficult for me to understand if you are talking to certain posters or general voters.
CyclopsRock
Member
The Tories (presumably his local branch but I'm not sure) sent out this mailer this morning to supporters:
Who knows, maybe that was sent out by the marketing intern who didn't know what was going on, though.
General voters, and apologies - I still struggle with my iPads keyboard and spellchecker.
My point was that it's fine to agree with UKIP on a whole variety of issues, but do not try and pretend that they don't have a large, homophobic element who would be more than happy to put people like me back in the closet. After all, we cause floods! ;-)
My point was that it's fine to agree with UKIP on a whole variety of issues, but do not try and pretend that they don't have a large, homophobic element who would be more than happy to put people like me back in the closet. After all, we cause floods! ;-)
Having studied International Business, Finance and Economics at uni (i know it doesn't make me an expert but it does give me some insight), the debate whether the UK will be better off economically outside the EU is very.... foggy.
On one hand you could say that it's going to be better, as you don't have to listen to EU regulations, laws, reforms and whatnot. On the other hand the City might lose its most precious aspect (and some people might say the only thing that's keeping the UK out of recession), the Londont Stock Exchange. It is the largest and most important stock exchange in the world for a couple of reasons:
1. It's right between New York and Tokyo, so people from New York can trade with people in Tokyo through London (can't be done otherwise, time zone differences)
2. (Here's the catch) The EU is the largest market in the world, and all international companies that want to enter this market will first set foot in London. Why? Because there are little to no financial transaction costs in London compared to say Frankfurt, and you also have the benefit of having access to the Single Market.
Now if UK leaves the EU, London will simply become and intermediary for large corporations to Europe. And we know how businesses like to cut out the middle man, so they might just move their HQ from London to Frankfurt.
Oh I'm sure of the overall arching economic arguments (I study economics at university), I just want to go academically a bit deeper. It's just reading these articles and published papers takes a bit of time.
Nicktendo86
Member
Spot on with this, and as a voter I want to make an informed decision but no one really has the cold hard data. I want to know how much we put into the EU vs how much we get out, but no one can come up with an answer as there are so many variables and complications.
I have a general dislike for the EU due to it's bloated nature, waste and interference on matters which should be decided here. It's not all bad, consumer stuff such as free mobile roaming is great, but does that outweigh the negative side of the EU? Do we even need the EU for these sorts of things?
In a perfect world we wouldn't need the EU for things like this. However in a world where money matters most, the best chance to actually get stuff done is with power. The EU being a conglomerate of some of the most important countries in the world (Germany, UK, France, Italy all in G7) has the perks of having raw influence power.
This is practically the only place on earth where there are laws being pumped out to protect the consumer. The free roaming that's supposed to come in 2015, had it been Europe without a Union, who would have the power to force large multinational operators like Orange, Vodafone, T-mobile etc to drop their roaming charges in 28 COUNTRIES?
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm beginning to think that the Tories should instruct Uxbridge to delay their selection decision and let Boris run in Clacton. He's one of the few Tories with the political firepower (not to mention fundraising ability) to actually win the seat from a popular local MP, and it's practically for "free" since he wasn't intending to fight for a seat til 2015, which he can still do if he loses.
The question then, though, would be whether Boris wants to risk the embarrassment of losing - especially if his goal is to become leader after Cam, in which case the less he is seen to be helping the current government out, the better. His price might be an immediate position in the cabinet after the 2015 GE should the Tories win after his ~year on the backbenchers between now and then.
The question then, though, would be whether Boris wants to risk the embarrassment of losing - especially if his goal is to become leader after Cam, in which case the less he is seen to be helping the current government out, the better. His price might be an immediate position in the cabinet after the 2015 GE should the Tories win after his ~year on the backbenchers between now and then.
dapperbandit
Banned
Not sure what to make of the Carswell defection. Clearly he's lost confidence in Cameron and thinks he hasn't done enough to enact changes. And the EU referendum is obviously important to him. But doesn't his decision weaken the Conservatives and thus make a Labour government more likely?
It seems contradictory to me.
It seems contradictory to me.
Well partly yes, but not if there is a UKIP/Con coalition in the case of a close election (if UKIP gain enough seats in this voting system).
It could be a good strategy, but I think a risk of a loss will hurt Boris's political ambitions. I don't think it's worth it.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Bombshell!
Boris won't run in Clacton, he would lose.
As for the decision itself its been coming for a while I think. Carswell is a good person and I think he will walk the by-election.
Daps, as for the long term the Tories need to decide whether they are for or against the EU. If they are against it then they need to withdraw the whip from the pro section and bring UKIP voters into their tent. Of they are pro then they need to declare it outright. The current position is not sustainable. Even now business attitudes are starting to change wrt to the EU, a decade ago Brexit would have been unthinkable, but now there are businesses and banks starting to wonder if it is worth it. The Tories need to make their minds up sooner rather than later.
Boris won't run in Clacton, he would lose.
As for the decision itself its been coming for a while I think. Carswell is a good person and I think he will walk the by-election.
Daps, as for the long term the Tories need to decide whether they are for or against the EU. If they are against it then they need to withdraw the whip from the pro section and bring UKIP voters into their tent. Of they are pro then they need to declare it outright. The current position is not sustainable. Even now business attitudes are starting to change wrt to the EU, a decade ago Brexit would have been unthinkable, but now there are businesses and banks starting to wonder if it is worth it. The Tories need to make their minds up sooner rather than later.
Meant to ask you, the ft was reporting a couple of weeks ago of some American banks making plans to look into switching to Dublin/Frankfurt should the UK leave the EU. Is there anything in it or is it just speculation
Exactly what I was saying before. This is a very viable option for them, an option that would immensly hurt The City and the UK's economy.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Wouldn't trust the FT on these matters their pro-EU agenda clouds everything. Just remember that the FT were railing at Brown and Hague for effectively blocking Britain joining the Eurozone.
The issue is massively overblown and affects only one aspect of a bank's operations. It is highly unlikely that any bank would spend a shit load of cash moving to a new jurisdiction to possibly ensure continued business for EUR clearing.
Overall exiting the EU may result in some loss of business but being separate also has its advantages, we wouldn't have to deal with the destructive anti-wealth agenda at the European Parliament any more and Westminster had proved to be better at cultivating a sound regulatory environment than Brussels and Frankfurt.
Anyway, if it were even close to true American banks wouldn't have invested record figures in the City last year and the year before on property and people. Citi is recruiting heavily in London right now and anecdotally I know that some senior level guys would prefer to exit the EU and just be done with it, lance the boil and then deal with any consequences.
You have to remember that what attracts banks to London is the low rate of tax, the solid regulations, prestige, a highly educated and motivated workforce and access to the single market. Removing one of those aspects wouldn't change the overall picture enough for movement of investment and jobs overseas, and that is on an assumption that the EU would play hardball and not immediately negotiate a free trade deal which is the most likely arrangement.
Personally I'm not convinced by either argument, there are advantages to staying just as there are advantages to leaving. For the sector I would say its a neutral move, some will complain and others will prosper.
Also, moving to Dublin would be the definition of insanity for banks. Britain is a relative safe haven because the government has enough scale to rescue failed banks and there is a willingness to do so. One only needs to look at how the collapse of the Irish banking sector destroyed their economy and how the failure of two banks here didn't. As for Frankfurt, if it was viable now then they would already have moved. Germany is not a good place to do business. Frankfurt is a second rate financial district, part of the hostility towards the City from the continent comes from basic jealousy.
The issue is massively overblown and affects only one aspect of a bank's operations. It is highly unlikely that any bank would spend a shit load of cash moving to a new jurisdiction to possibly ensure continued business for EUR clearing.
Overall exiting the EU may result in some loss of business but being separate also has its advantages, we wouldn't have to deal with the destructive anti-wealth agenda at the European Parliament any more and Westminster had proved to be better at cultivating a sound regulatory environment than Brussels and Frankfurt.
Anyway, if it were even close to true American banks wouldn't have invested record figures in the City last year and the year before on property and people. Citi is recruiting heavily in London right now and anecdotally I know that some senior level guys would prefer to exit the EU and just be done with it, lance the boil and then deal with any consequences.
You have to remember that what attracts banks to London is the low rate of tax, the solid regulations, prestige, a highly educated and motivated workforce and access to the single market. Removing one of those aspects wouldn't change the overall picture enough for movement of investment and jobs overseas, and that is on an assumption that the EU would play hardball and not immediately negotiate a free trade deal which is the most likely arrangement.
Personally I'm not convinced by either argument, there are advantages to staying just as there are advantages to leaving. For the sector I would say its a neutral move, some will complain and others will prosper.
Also, moving to Dublin would be the definition of insanity for banks. Britain is a relative safe haven because the government has enough scale to rescue failed banks and there is a willingness to do so. One only needs to look at how the collapse of the Irish banking sector destroyed their economy and how the failure of two banks here didn't. As for Frankfurt, if it was viable now then they would already have moved. Germany is not a good place to do business. Frankfurt is a second rate financial district, part of the hostility towards the City from the continent comes from basic jealousy.
Which is one of the most important aspects of the stock exchange.
Nicktendo86
Member
Seems a bit of a clusterfuck in Clacton, the bloke they are shoving out for the Tory defector isn't happy. Trust ukip to cause a circus.
CyclopsRock
Member
Everyone seemed very impressed that UKIP had kept Carswell a secret but I guess this is how - by just not telling anyone. The Spectator seems to think that it was literally just Douglas and Nigel that knew, even the press officer didn't.
QuicheFontaine
Member
The thing is, in our system they probably should stick with person rather than the party. In a GE you're supposed to be voting for a representative, and unless you're in David Cameron's constituency you aren't voting for him. Of course, it doesn't seem to work out like that in practice, with the question more framed as "Who do you want as PM?".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28986271
The UK threat level is not based on actual intelligence, it is based on the current political and power situation in the world, and the number of UK residents involved in Islamist activities abroad. It is scare mongering and threats to potential activists. Moreover it is justification for potential new laws about to be passed that strip civil liberties.
Cameron holding a conference
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28987175
The UK threat level is not based on actual intelligence, it is based on the current political and power situation in the world, and the number of UK residents involved in Islamist activities abroad. It is scare mongering and threats to potential activists. Moreover it is justification for potential new laws about to be passed that strip civil liberties.
Cameron holding a conference
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28987175
Yep, this shouldn't need a conference or be headline news. Absolutely ridiculous. But fine political capital for potential new laws to be passed, to gain support against Islamists from the public , scare monger and deter activists.
EDIT: Estimated 500 people have travelled fro UK to Middle Eastern countries to join Islamists.
QuicheFontaine
Member
This was doubly scary for me, since I didn't even realise that we at a 'substantial' risk before. Now it's even worse!
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Is it not related to the increased risk drawn by the NATO summit?
Otherwise it is complete crap to scare people without any specific intelligence. Once again the SIS and GCHQ are concentrating too much firepower or infringing on the lives of ordinary people while doing nothing about the likes of the two that killed Lee Rigby whom they had under surveillance.
The Home Office is rotten to the core and is full of people who desire a police state. The department is not fit for purpose and the government have failed to protect our freedom in the face of these autocratic cunts. Theresa May has gone native and Cameron is too weak to tell the cunts to do one.
Otherwise it is complete crap to scare people without any specific intelligence. Once again the SIS and GCHQ are concentrating too much firepower or infringing on the lives of ordinary people while doing nothing about the likes of the two that killed Lee Rigby whom they had under surveillance.
The Home Office is rotten to the core and is full of people who desire a police state. The department is not fit for purpose and the government have failed to protect our freedom in the face of these autocratic cunts. Theresa May has gone native and Cameron is too weak to tell the cunts to do one.