The Politics Thread 2019

[McRainy]

5 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Fair enough. It had never even occurred to me that folk would adopt that stance, but then nothing about the process thus far has made much sense to me so perhaps I should not be surprised.

If expecting us to vote again doesn't demonstrate that our votes count for nothing, then I don't know what does. 

[Comrade 86]

15 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Good luck in trying to follow Igor's logic. I think @ronnieronalde gave up after banging his head on a brick wall. Me, I'm using humour, as Igor suggested himself in one of his post. So every time he posts I visualise him as either trolling, being a WUM or my favourite one, is of him as a russian cyber operative. Which after seeing the way some of his post are grammatically constructed, may not be far from the truth.

 

I just stick to football these days mate. Easy life. The politics thread is exclusively Brexit related these days and whilst there are many issues I'd happily debate, Brexit ain't one of them. 

[ketteringram]

32 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

In what way are Labour going to be the government? ? You do realise that if you remove Scottish and London constituencies, Labour's national share is appalling in regards to latest polling. It's being propped up. 

https://data.london.gov.uk/apps_and_analysis/the-2017-general-election-the-numbers-behind-the-result/

Who forms the next government? 

[Comrade 86]

3 minutes ago, McRainy said:

If expecting us to vote again doesn't demonstrate that our votes count for nothing, then I don't know what does. 

Ok. Not sure what others' expectations have to do with it. Surely it's simply your choice either way? Even the govenment would only instigate a 2nd vote based on whether or not it suited their aganda, certainly not for any reasons relating to democracy.

As I said, I'm surprised by the stance but I fully grasp how fed up people on both sides of the argument are, it just hadn't occurred to me that not voting was how folk would express their disdain. Wouldn't be the first time I've misread public opinion. Doubt it'll be the last either. I don't agree with Brexit but it does sadden me that folk like you have been made to feel this way even if we don't agree on this particular issue.

[Uptherams]

6 minutes ago, ketteringram said:

Who forms the next government? 

Boris or no one in all honesty. He's got to be serious about Brexit though to reclaim lost voters. 

[CWC1983]

Ive tried to keep out of this thread so far but we are screwed if, and more probobly, when Boris becomes PM. 

He doesnt answer questions that are non scripted but comes out with bluster that people want to hear instead. 

What on earth makes him so popular?

[Boycie]

11 minutes ago, CWC1983 said:

Ive tried to keep out of this thread so far but we are screwed if, and more probobly, when Boris becomes PM. 

He doesnt answer questions that are non scripted but comes out with bluster that people want to hear instead. 

What on earth makes him so popular?

The other runner for Tory leader I guess?

[GboroRam]

Stupid question. 

What's fundamentally wrong with an EU army? 

[ariotofmyown]

5 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Stupid question. 

What's fundamentally wrong with an EU army? 

Cos it's got lots of foreigners in it init!

[CWC1983]

12 minutes ago, Boycie said:

The other runner for Tory leader I guess?

I suppose so. Ive no horse in the race, but based on tonight I thought Hunt came out best. The audience did seem a bit pro Boris. Clapping away after every bit of bluster. 

[ariotofmyown]

9 minutes ago, Boycie said:

The other runner for Tory leader I guess?

Hunt came across like a giant of politics next to that moron Johnson.

To be honest, I was relatively impressed with Hunt. At least he seemed to be saying things that could bring the country more together.

I know the stereotype of Tory members is bigoted old rich people, but some of them must realise the Tory party will be doomed once they are dead.

Not sure who I want to win really. Hunt might be better for the country in the short term, whereas Johnson increases the chances of the Tories been out of it for years.

Tories have won 1 majority since 92 and joke characters like Johnson should guarantee some decades in the wilderness.

[1of4]

18 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Stupid question. 

What's fundamentally wrong with an EU army? 

Have you seen how the French and Italian march. Our lot will never keep in step with them. As for the Greeks, they wear shorter skirts than our Highland regiment.

[McRainy]

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

Stupid question. 

What's fundamentally wrong with an EU army? 

Apart from all the questions of who controls it and who pays for it, it would extend the power of the EU to impose its policies by force, and would also be a major military escalation on the world stage. 

And nobody voted for it, of course, but that seems irrelevant these days. 

[McRainy]

2 hours ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Not sure what others' expectations have to do with it. Surely it's simply your choice either way?

Slight misunderstanding, I think.

Expected to vote in the sense that the first vote would have been overruled. 

[HiltonoRama]

20 hours ago, ronnieronalde said:

So we punish the poor who are just trying to scrape a living and we do absolutely jack poo to punish the ones who are taking all of the money?

How about instead of 20% of the UK living below the poverty line with many WORKING families having to rely on handouts and foodbanks, how about we just pay everyone a decent ducking wage and we give those who need it decent benefits? How about that? How about instead of shpunting £1.5 billion of our money to stay in power the governments puts that money into social housing, or into helping the homeless or into better education for poor,fat, smoking, pregnant criminal teenagers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom

Over 14 million people, about one in five of the UK population are in poverty, according to the Joseph Rountree Foundation. Of them 8.2 million are working-age adults, 4.1 million are children and 1.9 million are pensioners. Eight million people live in poverty in families where at least one person is working.

(4.1m children and 1.9m pensioners, in other words 6 million people who can't do anything about their own position, other than pray)

No, lets create a myth that it's migrants forcing down the wages and ruining society. Good solid logic.

We're "going after" the wrong set of people. It's not the poor stealing our money, it's not the poor who have the tax breaks or the offshore bank accounts.

We don't need to change the rules to make it even worse for the poor, we need to change the rules so the rich stop taking the absolute piss (and I mean the rich, not the "comfotable")

Then the bolded bit, how much per year were we paying to stay in it?

How much is that multiplied by 5?

How much have we spent so far trying to work out how to leave?

How much is our settlement bill (unless we renege on it, which I'd actually be ok with)

If it's going to die in 5 years then why the heck have we put out entire country through the turmoil we've put it through since 2016?

 

No idea tbh, just that if we have control over our own laws and the people that make them then we can elect ones that do what we want.. The sad thing is that there is a large proportion of apathetic people who just want to keep the status quo and don't give a fig for all of the injustices you mention above. The EU though is doomed to failure as it's entire raison d'etre is anathema to any form of social justice. 

[GboroRam]

17 minutes ago, McRainy said:

Apart from all the questions of who controls it and who pays for it, it would extend the power of the EU to impose its policies by force, and would also be a major military escalation on the world stage. 

And nobody voted for it, of course, but that seems irrelevant these days. 

I don't control any army, and never voted for one. 

Who is the EU army to be deployed against? 

[McRainy]

2 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Who is the EU army to be deployed against?

I suppose they'd start with the gilets jaunes, work up to Catalonia, and then flatten Greece. 

Good question though; what purpose do you think it serves, apart from lining the pockets of Juncker's mates?

[McRainy]

7 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I don't control any army, and never voted for one

You vote for or against a government that has a defense policy. 

[ronnieronalde]

10 minutes ago, HiltonoRama said:

No idea tbh, just that if we have control over our own laws and the people that make them then we can elect ones that do what we want.. The sad thing is that there is a large proportion of apathetic people who just want to keep the status quo and don't give a fig for all of the injustices you mention above. The EU though is doomed to failure as it's entire raison d'etre is anathema to any form of social justice. 

However my views have come across over these last couple of weeks, (since the debate got a bit weird and certainly less reasonable) I fully agree that the EU isn't the type of "club" I'd like to be part of going forward IF we can get similar or better conditions on our own.

I see them as incompetent and I see them as corrupt. Without even trying I bet I could find 50 billion quids worth of projects they've funded then abandoned. Without even trying.

I would probably like us to be out eventually but the fact we tied ourselves to them and the fact trying to untie that isn't as easy as we were told it would be, means I'd prefer to stay until we sort out how to leave without setting us backwards, the ones who will go backwards quicker won't be he rich and they'll make damn sure of that.

For me neither our government nor any EU collective has got the set of balls needed to sort out the mess at the lower level and my own view - which may come from the land of the fairies and may be idealistic is this. 

The EU are NOT the cause of our own social issues though, they are just being used as a convenient scapegoat.

We COULD get our own house in order easily enough wihout leaving.

If we lift the bottom few, then everyone will benefit and I don't buy for one second that the money isn't there to make it happen within an instant.

I'll be back on with another of my garbage "imagine all the people" views in about half an hour. This one for me is even more of a no brainer than the one I posted on the PROFIT made by defence manufacturers. It is really pissing me off that there is such a divide when there doesn't need to be and I'm not on about "ending child poverty" I'm only talking about reducing the gap. I've got some interesting stats but need 20 minutes to pick myself up after falling off my chair.

To quote Arnie Shwarzenegger chatting to Sly Stallone before deciding what to wear for a fancy dress party where the them is  "famous composers"

Sly, you be Mozart and I'll be Bach.

 

[Igorlegend11]

3 hours ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Haven't refuted anything bud before you go into full 'launch mode' again I simply asked you a question. I sense it's best left there really!

Another poster 1in 4 asked me a simple question which I answered simply on the UK ambassador issue.     He totally then falsely claimed I wanted the Ambassador sacked.   That false allegation was dismissed. Not answered. That poster was obviously trying to pick an issue with me over my democratic beliefs on brexit. I never even voted to leave. But I am a democrat.

I wrongly thought you were going to be an exact image of 1in4 and the ronnie.

For that I apologise.

I'm genuinely glad you were happy to learn another perspective in that not all the electorate will bother voting again to a slightly different worded referendum question.  It's simply undemocratic. 

Having studied past political votes over the last 150 years, it's hard to get to reasons why people vote a certain way.  But I confidently predict there would be at least 10% ( that's 3m people  ) less votes cast in any other referendum.