The Politics Thread 2019

[Highgate]

17 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I take both yours and @SchtivePesley point but don't take it in isolation.  Parties lie to varying degrees, are racist to varying degrees, cosy up to terrorists or take foreign money to varying degrees, have lurched to the left or right in varying degrees. 

I'm with @G STAR RAM on this one, drain the swamp and get rid of almost all current MPs and find a new method of electing public officials - people that will actually work for their constituents and not worry about their long-term careers and feathering their own nests.

It's true that people's level of trust in politicians is at a depressingly low ebb at the moment,

Any ideas on the new method?   ?

 

[Uptherams]

The Labour Circus just get's worse and worse. 

[Stive Pesley]

15 minutes ago, Highgate said:

It's true that people's level of trust in politicians is at a depressingly low ebb at the moment,

Any ideas on the new method?   ?

 

I'm quite happy to drain a few swamps too - but what comes next could easily be just as bad if we're not careful

When you look at what has happened locally with various independents standing - they turn out to be even worse than what they're replacing because they are just blow-hards who are big on opinions and pointing out where others are going wrong, but actually have no idea what they are doing or how politics should operate

Sadly the type of person who aspires to be a politcian is, more often than not, the last person who should ever become a politician. The humility required is almost entirely absent by definition in anyone who wants to be a politician

[maxjam]

10 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Sadly the type of person who aspires to be a politcian is, more often than not, the last person who should ever become a politician. The humility required is almost entirely absent by definition in anyone who wants to be a politician

I've been using a phrase similar to that for a long time ?

 

31 minutes ago, Highgate said:

It's true that people's level of trust in politicians is at a depressingly low ebb at the moment,

Any ideas on the new method?   ?

Not really, the Brexit Party has some good suggestions but they don't go far enough and neither of the main parties will vote to change the system as it suits them both - they are either in power or waiting to be in power, dilute the system and they will never have absolute control again.

Any replacement system would need careful debate as @SchtivePesley says it could be as bad if not worse.  I'd personally like to see more of a PR system with any government appointing independent task forces to carry out their instructions.  More importance could be given to local elections with representitives that serve their public well put forwards for general elections rather than just parachuted in from Eton College with no real world experience.

[Highgate]

7 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

I'm quite happy to drain a few swamps too - but what comes next could easily be just as bad if we're not careful

When you look at what has happened locally with various independents standing - they turn out to be even worse than what they're replacing because they are just blow-hards who are big on opinions and pointing out where others are going wrong, but actually have no idea what they are doing or how politics should operate

Sadly the type of person who aspires to be a politcian is, more often than not, the last person who should ever become a politician. The humility required is almost entirely absent by definition in anyone who wants to be a politician

'The desire to be a politician should bar you for life from ever becoming one'.

Billy Connolly might have been on to something when he said this many years ago.  

There is no doubt that the sort of person that the political arena attracts are, quite often, far more interested in serving themselves than their constituents or country.  Would we all be that bad, given the opportunity, or is really the case that it's the ruthless self-serving types that succeed in politics ?

[Highgate]

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I've been using a phrase similar to that for a long time ?

Not really, the Brexit Party has some good suggestions but they don't go far enough and neither of the main parties will vote to change the system as it suits them both - they are either in power or waiting to be in power, dilute the system and they will never have absolute control again.

Any replacement system would need careful debate as @SchtivePesley says it could be as bad if not worse.  I'd personally like to see more of a PR system with any government appointing independent task forces to carry out their instructions.  More importance could be given to local elections with representitives that serve their public well put forwards for general elections rather than just parachuted in from Eton College with no real world experience.

That would certainly more democratic and it would give the electorate more of a reason to vote for smaller parties.  Overall majorities would probably be a thing of the past, but personally I don't see that as a negative at all.   You would get more varied voices in your parliament too, more Greens, more real socialists probably and the occasional far-right nutjob, but only because that's what the electorate wanted after all.   A step forward in my opinion.

[maxjam]

9 minutes ago, Highgate said:

There is no doubt that the sort of person that the political arena attracts are, quite often, far more interested in serving themselves than their constituents or country.  Would we all be that bad, given the opportunity, or is really the case that it's the ruthless self-serving types that succeed in politics ?

Just swap CEO for politician

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/psychopaths-ceos-study-statistics-one-in-five-psychopathic-traits-a7251251.html

[King Kevin]

18 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Now you're on my turf and I need to point out a couple of factual inaccuracies in this.

Labour did set up the Financial Services Authority but did not "slash" banking regulations. Gordon Brown admitted later that the real regulatory failure was not to fully understand the systemic risk building throughout the system.  Neither did any other regulator. 

The genesis of the 2007-2009 financial crash was City deregulation under Margaret Thatcher in 1985. Nigel Lawson analysed3it as an unintended consequence of investment banks merging with retail banks.

Labour was not to blame for the financial crash. The impact on tax receipts was sudden, unprecedented and very material. The deficit which is still with us even after so many years austerity is not fully recovered 

What a load of baalocks Gordon Brown was just about solely responsible for light touch regulation that allowed the financial crash 2008 to damage the banking system .

The first budget he produced also raided pension funds by stopping dividend tax credit which cost pension funds between£ 5-10 billion a year.Just google Gordon Brown light touch regulation and Gordon Brown budget pensions he was a disaster of enormous proportions .

[Stive Pesley]

39 minutes ago, Highgate said:

There is no doubt that the sort of person that the political arena attracts are, quite often, far more interested in serving themselves than their constituents or country.  Would we all be that bad, given the opportunity, or is really the case that it's the ruthless self-serving types that succeed in politics ?

I always kind of liked the way we did it in school - the whole class decided amongst themselves who they thought the best person to represent them on school council would be. Rest assured no one voted for the big-headed, selfish arrogant prat who thought he knew everything.

Not sure how you'd transfer that to the real world, but the principle of no one actually applying to be an MP, but being forced to do it by otheres who think they'd be good at it seems sound ?

[Tamworthram]

6 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

I always kind of liked the way we did it in school - the whole class decided amongst themselves who they thought the best person to represent them on school council would be. Rest assured no one voted for the big-headed, selfish arrogant prat who thought he knew everything.

Not sure how you'd transfer that to the real world, but the principle of no one actually applying to be an MP, but being forced to do it by otheres who think they'd be good at it seems sound ?

It was probably a popularity contest though in most cases I suspect. Vote for your mate or the person you fancied most. 

I don't rate many of the current crop of politicians much but, being popular isn't, and shouldn't be, what politics is about.

[TuffLuff]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I don't understand how removing a restriction (financial) would result in Universities being more strict in who they accept

Essentially you would have a bigger pool of applicants for the same amount of places so it’s in the universities interest to make sure they get the best students they can do.

Again from my experiences 10 years ago a lot of universities were flexible on grades (eg if you needed B-B-B to get to a university, many would accept you on a B-B-C). That’s maybe not the same now but I remember some universities telling large groups this on open days and can remember people who got through to their wanted universities this way.

[Stive Pesley]

6 minutes ago, TuffLuff said:

Essentially you would have a bigger pool of applicants for the same amount of places so it’s in the universities interest to make sure they get the best students they can do.

Again from my experiences 10 years ago a lot of universities were flexible on grades (eg if you needed B-B-B to get to a university, many would accept you on a B-B-C). That’s maybe not the same now but I remember some universities telling large groups this on open days and can remember people who got through to their wanted universities this way.

It's a fair point - some Universities these days are far more relaxed about their entrants. They are cash cows now. Mrs Pesley works at Derby Uni and she says it's hard to believe that some of the students can even spell their own name let alone pass A levels

[jono]

5 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

Well she's standing down as an MP at this election, so that's one less idiot. She claims she is standing down because she gets too much abuse, but good grief - does she not deserve some comeback for that sort of nonsense in the video?

I can't really have a problem with people who don't want to vote Labour because they think the policies are unrealistic or unaffordable, at least that's a proper thought process and a conclusion

But how does anyone vote Tory when they go on TV and blatantly lie, and then when called out on the lies, double down and refuse to correct the lie

Oh come Stiv. Lies are not segregated on party lines. 

[jono]

Give your wallet to a Conservative - it comes back empty but with a business card and letter on lovely stationary saying how the contents have been invested in a bond and that bond will mature in about 100 years. The bond isn’t actually in your name because only “qualified advisors” are allowed to hold these special bonds. There is a promise to return the funds to you but it’s written in invisible ink. If you’re a bit short they can introduce to a friend of theirs who can arrange some finance at good rates. 

Give your Wallet to a labour politician and it comes back empty except for some cheques drawn on a bank that doesn’t exist and anyway they are post dated 100 years hence. There is also a letter explaining how the money was spent on sweets for the moral of the youth. They were very nice but as they are now all overweight and need special medical treatment, they are going to ask you to take a second mortgage on your house to pay for it. They also say that is is your civic duty as a car owner to drive the sickly ones to hospital appointments on your day off. If your a bit short then count yourself lucky. We’re all in this together (cough) . Sorry got to go now I have some of those mars bars you bought me to finish, it’s a matter of national importance. 

Give your Wallet to nationalists and you don’t get it back ever, there is a note to say “we’ve gone to the pub, you’re paying but you aren’t invited”

give your Wallet to the greens. You get fresh air, a compost bin but nothing to eat. And .. regardless of global warming it’s bloody cold without central heating which has been banned along with bacon sandwiches

give your Wallet to religious extremists. It comes back empty but you all get free funny hats and headgear and the chance to pray a lot ...for free, boozers are banned along with pictures of Margot Robbie. Playing or watching Beach Volley ball is declared a capital crime. 

give your wallet to the Lib Dem’s and for sure they still have it but can’t quite remember where it is, but if you fill a form in they will have a serious look in to it one day. 

[TimRam]

1 hour ago, King Kevin said:

What a load of baalocks Gordon Brown was just about solely responsible for light touch regulation that allowed the financial crash 2008 to damage the banking system .

The first budget he produced also raided pension funds by stopping dividend tax credit which cost pension funds between£ 5-10 billion a year.Just google Gordon Brown light touch regulation and Gordon Brown budget pensions he was a disaster of enormous proportions .

Think he sold a lot of UK gold before the price went up. ?

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, TuffLuff said:

Essentially you would have a bigger pool of applicants for the same amount of places so it’s in the universities interest to make sure they get the best students they can do.

Again from my experiences 10 years ago a lot of universities were flexible on grades (eg if you needed B-B-B to get to a university, many would accept you on a B-B-C). That’s maybe not the same now but I remember some universities telling large groups this on open days and can remember people who got through to their wanted universities this way.

As @DarkFruitsRam7 touched on, it’s the living costs which impact the affordability of going to University rather than Tuition Fees. 
An extremely low percentage of people receive enough through maintenance loans to cover rent, bills, food, etc... Mine wasn’t even enough to cover the rent!
Tuition Fees have zero impact until after finishing Uni (start of the next tax year and earning above the current £25725 threshold). Even then, the amount repaid is negligible.
I don’t see how removing Tuition fees makes it any more affordable to go to University, due to it not being a financial burden whilst studying. Even if you are correct, I’d argue that increasing the pool of applicants would simply increase the number of places on courses or even increase the number of courses available. 

[Sith Happens]

2 hours ago, King Kevin said:

What a load of baalocks Gordon Brown was just about solely responsible for light touch regulation that allowed the financial crash 2008 to damage the banking system .

The first budget he produced also raided pension funds by stopping dividend tax credit which cost pension funds between£ 5-10 billion a year.Just google Gordon Brown light touch regulation and Gordon Brown budget pensions he was a disaster of enormous proportions .

Yes but don't you know that its ok because the Blair/Brown government comprised people who don't form part of today's Labour party and it was a long time ago, this from those that consistently bang on about past Conservative governments of Thatcher etc. But if we can blame someone else we will, but if we can't we just dismiss it as a different labour party.

 

[King Kevin]

17 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Yes but don't you know that its ok because the Blair/Brown government comprised people who don't form part of today's Labour party and it was a long time ago, this from those that consistently bang on about past Conservative governments of Thatcher etc. But if we can blame someone else we will, but if we can't we just dismiss it as a different labour party.

 

I was replying to a post relating to that time pointing out the errors of his history lesson.

[Sith Happens]

13 minutes ago, King Kevin said:

I was replying to a post relating to that time pointing out the errors of his history lesson.

Yes I know

[Uptherams]

Corbyn being torn to shreds by Andrew Neil. 

Absolute fantasy economics.