The Politics Thread 2019

[jono]

It is interesting to delve in to history and find all sorts of proof that one party or another did this or that in the past and are therefore, bounders, cads, commies, fascists.

i can’t help chucking one in to the fray, out numbered though anyone slightly to the right of Corbyn seems to be (in this tap room).

What was the note on the treasury door back in 2010 ? something along the lines of “sorry we spent all the money” 

The Tories do seem to be destined to govern after the bank has been emptied by Labour and then get told they are mean bar stewards. 
 

Frankly though I find our current Leading politicians .. Boris and Corbyn particularly unconvincing. Both play to the gallery/social media/tabloid press  in such a cheap and blatant way it makes me sick. Maybe it has always been like this but for me it is the worst in my memory. 
 

 

[Comrade 86]

30 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

One of the major differences is people not working in the same town/city they live in.
Using myself as an example, I live just 7.5 miles away from my place of work. I can travel by car and it'll take 15 minutes, or travel by public transport and it'll take in excess of 1 hour plus 15 minutes of walking with a total travel distance of roughly 15 miles...Your solution?

Not sure Steve, or ayone else for that matter is saying it's one size fits all, nor is he demonising car users. I think the point being made is that while folks with similar circumstances to yours have little option, many of us are able to walk, cycle, car-share or use public transport and and the paradigm shift is that there may come a time where we simply must.

I still have an office space around a 10 minute drive from my home and to assuage my guilt at not using public transport (30 minutes travel time as bus goes around the houses) I alternate between cycling and driving, though in winter the former is dangerous due to the country roads (can't cycle on the A34!) and it being dark on both arriving and leaving. Morally speaking, since I'm an advocate of green credentials, I really need to commit to bike and public transport only as I'm starting to feel a tad hypocritical.

Folk who work hard and then have families and other concerns to come home to I fully appreciate will not necessarily see this as a priority, especially if it adds hours to their working day, but the day may come where we bitterly regret the choices we've made, myself included.

[Wolfie]

52 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Which is where the Labour policy of taxing the roads/cars to allow us to (re)build better public transport links comes in. That has to be the direction of travel (pun intended)

Car usage/ownership is just crazy these days - but it's happened so slowly over such a long period that we barely notice it.

Where my parents live is a 1960s housing estate. Decent sized 3 & 4 bedroomed houses - all with a drive with space for at least one, mostly two cars - yet all the streets are like slaloms with additional cars parked on every verge. 

When I walk the kids to school, if I watch the cars heading into town past me, there is only ever something like 1 in 10 cars that don't just have a single occupant.

It can't carry on - and I know it will be hard to change, but that's why it needs a paradigm shift. We've spent years trying to make cars affordable and desirable - time to put that into reverse (yes, another pun intended)

And for the record, I haven't owned a car since 2012. 

 

 

37 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

One of the major differences is people not working in the same town/city they live in.
Using myself as an example, I live just 7.5 miles away from my place of work. I can travel by car and it'll take 15 minutes, or travel by public transport and it'll take in excess of 1 hour plus 15 minutes of walking with a total travel distance of roughly 15 miles...Your solution?

Yes, and the fact that most households nowadays require two incomes & 2 different work destinations.

[Comrade 86]

43 minutes ago, maxjam said:

You can mock all you want, the fact is it's simply not practical.  Further to my points about 40k direct job losses and tax losses from a £6bn industry, there are all the supporting jobs (and therefore tax) you would lose as well from the unskilled people washing cars by hand to national motorway service industries.  Not to mention society in general accepting a step back in time, for example, for me its 15 minutes to get into Ashby, without a car its 2 hours - a bus into Swadlincote, then another to Ashby.  No wonder Labour want to push the 4 day week, its gonna take you 16 hours a week to get there and back.

All these fanciful Green New Deals are great on paper but utterly impractical in day-to-day life. 

I'm not against trying to save the planet, but the proposals being put forwards are simply anti-capitalist or designed to take society backwards a step.  IMO other than gradual technological advancement at somepoint we're gonna have to accept that if we want to continue living modern lives there are simply to many people on the planet.  One generation is gonna have to suck it up and both accept various methods of population control and carry the older generation.  EIther that or we'll or starve/die in a war over resources.  Probably the latter.

So getting people to stop having sex is easier then persuading them to use their cars less!?!

[Stive Pesley]

30 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Are we further taxing road users? 

Labour aren't (as far as I know)  - but I would if I were in charge. Tax the bejesus out of it. And why not? Car use has to end up taxed like booze and fags - it's a luxury that causes ever increasing downstream costs and  will ultimately destroy the planet

45 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Using myself as an example, I live just 7.5 miles away from my place of work. I can travel by car and it'll take 15 minutes, or travel by public transport and it'll take in excess of 1 hour plus 15 minutes of walking with a total travel distance of roughly 15 miles...Your solution?

There are many solutions. Move closer to your work, get a different (nearer) job, work from home, car share, cycle etc some or all of which may not be practical for various reasons for you personally, but if we get car use down to even a fraction of those who have no choice then  it's a step in the right direction. People like to pretend these policies are draconian mandatory edicts - when in reality it's about taking small steps to change things. For all the people who will say "there is 100% no way I could not have a car" there will be just as many who would love to not have to sit in rush hour traffic on their own every day wasting precious hours of their life. I cycle to work and it's about 5 miles each way. And quicker than the drive ever was

51 minutes ago, maxjam said:

there are simply to many people on the planet.  One generation is gonna have to suck it up and both accept various methods of population control and carry the older generation.  EIther that or we'll or starve/die in a war over resources.  Probably the latter.

Weren't you accusing me of being a cheery soul the other day!

[Stive Pesley]

8 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

So getting people to stop having sex is easier then persuading them to use their cars less!?!

Wait till he works out that he can still have sex if he bumps off a pensioner every time! 

Green policies are "taking society backwards" but the alternative is a Mad Max wasteland where we fight to the death over rats and drinking water

We're not here for very long, so I'd rather spend my time dreaming of a better world than grinching over how it's simply not possible to change things because of reasons

[Comrade 86]

3 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Wait till he works out that he can still have sex if he bumps off a pensioner every time! 

Green policies are "taking society backwards" but the alternative is a Mad Max wasteland where we fight to the death over rats and drinking water

We're not here for very long, so I'd rather spend my time dreaming of a better world than grinching over how it's simply not possible to change things because of reasons

Yes indeedy. Quite a lot of stuff seems hard until you try it and either confirm your first impressions or realise what seemed difficult is in fact piss easy, but without trying how does one know?

Seems to me to be a fundamental difference between the mindsets of the left and right. The former would rather experiment and fail than simply suffer the status quo and a perilous future, whereas the latter are resistant to anything foreign to them, pun only partially intentional. 

Better the Devil you know it seems, but I've more than enough demons of my own even if some of them are close mates of mine ?

[Stive Pesley]

7 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Seems to me to be a fundamental difference between the mindsets of the left and right. The former would rather experiment and fail than simply suffer the status quo and a perilous future, whereas the latter are resistant to anything foreign to them, pun only partially intentional. 

Actually - it's probably more apt to say the most resistant to change are the centrists. I mean - for all I dislike the right wing - they are all pretty keen on taking a leap into the Brexit unknown, with only their faith in a few flags and a bulldog tattoo to keep them safe. 

The centrists are the types to have a week-long conference and come out the other end deciding to keep everything just as it is, because changing stuff might not work out... That and a big list of why everyone else is wrong

[Norman]

6 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I think this comment is quite generous.

Edit: I realise that the tone of the post was deliberately facetious.

Yeah, it was facetious. 

And the reply was expected. He actually thinks that I think like that. 

He's too busy being passive aggressive to notice. 

Maybe he will private message to apologise again. 

Did you know he's this aggressive in person? He told me so. Fortunately, I'm a motha duckin tank. 

[maxjam]

36 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

So getting people to stop having sex is easier then persuading them to use their cars less!?!

China managed it until they realised the strain it would have on the younger generation.

IMO if we want to live in a modern world with all the comforts we have grown accustomed to then we have to acknowledge that its only possible with a smaller population.  Alternatively we can all it bugs instead of meat, spend 16 hrs/week getting to work and back all whilst never enjoying a foreign holiday again.

 

21 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Wait till he works out that he can still have sex if he bumps off a pensioner every time! 

Contraception means you can have sex as often as you want. 

I'm for either reducing population naturally over a few generations (which tbh minus recent mass immigration is occuring now in western civilizations) or by employing a nationwide method of population control similar to that used by China - both will negatively effect the younger generation to differing degrees but at least they will still be able to enjoy the luxuries of modern living. 

[Sith Happens]

56 minutes ago, jono said:

It is interesting to delve in to history and find all sorts of proof that one party or another did this or that in the past and are therefore, bounders, cads, commies, fascists.

i can’t help chucking one in to the fray, out numbered though anyone slightly to the right of Corbyn seems to be (in this tap room).

What was the note on the treasury door back in 2010 ? something along the lines of “sorry we spent all the money” 

The Tories do seem to be destined to govern after the bank has been emptied by Labour and then get told they are mean bar stewards. 
 

Frankly though I find our current Leading politicians .. Boris and Corbyn particularly unconvincing. Both play to the gallery/social media/tabloid press  in such a cheap and blatant way it makes me sick. Maybe it has always been like this but for me it is the worst in my memory. 
 

 

But Labour were in no way responsible, not even 1%. In fact it seems it was all Thatchers fault.

Irrespective of what happened, and I think Gordon Brown did a good fire fighting job, the coffers were dry and something had to happen. Labour themselves had promised a decade of austerity but we are led to believe had labour been in charge it would be a land of milk and honey.

Without a doubt had the tories been in charge labour supporters would be pointing the finger at them, i havent even seen any of them deny they would. They would be then blaming the tories for austerity.

I have even seen someone suggest Major was an horrific PM but his part in the peace process in NI cannot be underestimated. People claim the NHS would not exist without Labour, they may be right, but peace in NI in the timescales it happened would not have happened without John Majors government, but you can bet that some labour supporters will just point to blair delivering it in 1998.

To be fair most people of a political persuasion are blinkered, i just tend to think died in the wool labour supporters are more than any other.

 

[jono]

57 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

So getting people to stop having sex is easier then persuading them to use their cars less!?!

Obviously not but if we are talking about responsibility to the planet, managing scarce resources, over population, too much Co2 then surely the issue of benefit payments for irresponsibly large families when birth control is readily available and cheap is it not unreasonable to persuade people via the tax system to breed less ? 
 

consider this .. if we all cut our CO2 emissions by say 60 odd  % per head - epic -  I think we would all agree .. then we will be back to the total of, wait a minute .. what it was when I was born 60 years ago. CO2 isn’t going up just because we are all so terrible going to Majorca on holiday but because there are 3 times as many of us doing it. 

[maxjam]

1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said:

There are many solutions. Move closer to your work, get a different (nearer) job, work from home, car share, cycle etc some or all of which may not be practical for various reasons for you personally, but if we get car use down to even a fraction of those who have no choice then  it's a step in the right direction. People like to pretend these policies are draconian mandatory edicts - when in reality it's about taking small steps to change things. For all the people who will say "there is 100% no way I could not have a car" there will be just as many who would love to not have to sit in rush hour traffic on their own every day wasting precious hours of their life. I cycle to work and it's about 5 miles each way. And quicker than the drive ever was

Move closer to work or move closer to that nice school I want my kids to go to?  What if I have to get back to pick them up from school, but the bus takes 90 mins longer than the same car journey?  What if my job is miles away from my extended family?  What if I lose my job for some reason, do I need to move again? 

What about my local football team, do I need to change that now?  What if my job's in Nottingham and I moved there... (I feel a bit sick now ?)

What if I want to take the kids to Tywcross Zoo at the weekend, thats in the middle of nowhere!  I'd spend most of the day getting there and back and barely have anytime to look around.  What if I want to walk my dog over Cannock Chase or around Rosliston Forestry Centre?

There are hundreds of 'what ifs' that most ordinary people won't be happy to give up.  It is really difficult to take something away from people when they have gotten used to it, especially when the alternatives will inconvenience us so much.

Furthermore other Green New Deals (AOCs for example in the US) include stopping air travel and eating meat etc - but we are only delaying the inevitable.  The world population is predicted to continue to steadily rise and sooner or later these new proposed measures won't be enough. 

Rather than move backwards as a society and limit ourselves to our immediate areas the most obvious solution to all of our problems is imo to seriously consider population control.  If there are less humans on the planet we consume fewer resources, take up less space (increased flora and fauna) and produce less waste, which is a far better way of tackling both climate change and poverty.

[Stive Pesley]

31 minutes ago, maxjam said:

IMO if we want to live in a modern world with all the comforts we have grown accustomed to then we have to acknowledge that its only possible with a smaller population. 

The problem here is that reproduction is an inbuilt survival mechanism for all species. You can't stop people's natural urges to reproduce. China managed it? Well sort of - via a totalitarian government. I guess there is no other way, not enough people will stop of their own accord*. But I wouldn't have thought you'd be advocating state-control of population? You know what that entails I'm sure.

 

 

*interestingly during the China single child era there was a massive boom in black market fertility drugs as you were allowed to keep twins/triplets. The number of people having twins doubled.

[Comrade 86]

31 minutes ago, Norman said:

Yeah, it was facetious. 

And the reply was expected. He actually thinks that I think like that. 

He's too busy being passive aggressive to notice. 

Maybe he will private message to apologise again. 

Did you know he's this aggressive in person? He told me so. Fortunately, I'm a motha duckin tank. 

Err I actually noted your facetiousness in the response, mainly because it's the only real defence you ever put up. I see you've still yet to address any of the points put to you but let's just say your 'reply was expected' eh!

It's also quite funny listening to your passive aggressive comments BS when you then go on to brag about what a specimen you are. Yet again. Yaaawwn. And yes, I apologised to you once because in that instance I was in the wrong, but listening to you prattling on about being 'a motha duckin tank'for a further 18 months or so I kind of regret it now. 

Pal.

[Stive Pesley]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

There are hundreds of 'what ifs' that most ordinary people won't be happy to give up.  It is really difficult to take something away from people when they have gotten used to it, especially when the alternatives will inconvenience us so much.

Yes I know - that's what I said. I just pointed out there are also hundreds of other what-ifs where people would gladly make the little changes. 

 

2 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Rather than move backwards as a society and limit ourselves to our immediate areas the most obvious solution to all of our problems imo is to seriously consider population control.

I'm a dreamer for wanting a better set of integrated public transport systems -  but you seem to be hinting at involuntary sterilization and contraception - or worse?! I know I said dream big but wow!

[Comrade 86]

39 minutes ago, maxjam said:

China managed it until they realised the strain it would have on the younger generation.

Seriously. Forced abortions and sterilisations, that's what you're now suggesting.

As it clearly needs pointing out, my post was tongue in cheek in any case! Clearly we can't go on procreating at the current rate and I don't think anyone will argue the toss on that score.

[Norman]

1 minute ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Err I actually noted your facetiousness in the response, mainly because it's the only real defence you ever put up. I see you've still yet to address any of the points put to you but let's just say your 'reply was expected' eh!

It's also quite funny listening to your passive aggressive comments BS when you then go on to brag about what a specimen you are. Yet again. Yaaawwn. And yes, I apologised to you once because in that instance I was in the wrong, but listening to you prattling on about being 'a motha duckin tank'for a further 18 months or so I kind of regret it now. 

Pal.

It was more the sinister,'I'm no better in person' when I asked if you wanted a pint at the next game that caught my eye. 

Then I notice how aggressive you are in messages, and thought, hmmm, this guy isn't very nice. 

Just thought I would let a few people know. Pal. 

I will address your points when I have time. There's a lot of poo to disect. 

My main point about the Beveridge report, the general manifestos and the fact the Liberal Party had a,imo, more solid healthcare manifesto means that it isn't possible to know that without Labour we wouldn't have the NHS. 

Just adding some balance. But fighting over 1945 manifestos is like fighting over who won us the war. But posters from one side would rather get their history books and Google it all without realising the simple point I was making. 

Offer still stands. I will buy you a pint at a game.

[Comrade 86]

16 minutes ago, jono said:

Obviously not but if we are talking about responsibility to the planet, managing scarce resources, over population, too much Co2 then surely the issue of benefit payments for irresponsibly large families when birth control is readily available and cheap is it not unreasonable to persuade people via the tax system to breed less ? 
 

consider this .. if we all cut our CO2 emissions by say 60 odd  % per head - epic -  I think we would all agree .. then we will be back to the total of, wait a minute .. what it was when I was born 60 years ago. CO2 isn’t going up just because we are all so terrible going to Majorca on holiday but because there are 3 times as many of us doing it. 

Buddy, it was a joke! Do you seriously think I don't understand that headcount is relevant to CO2 levels. I've worked in the renewable energy space for over a decade now so trust me, it's a subject I'm au fait with. 

Besides, despite our political differences, I actually like you so even if I didn't agree I'd probably not say as much! ?

[Comrade 86]

2 minutes ago, Norman said:

It was more the sinister,'I'm no better in person' when I asked if you wanted a pint at the next game that caught my eye. 

Then I notice how aggressive you are in messages, and thought, hmmm, this guy isn't very nice. 

Just thought I would let a few people know. Pal. 

I will address your points when I have time. There's a lot of poo to disect. 

My main point about the Beveridge report, the general manifestos and the fact the Liberal Party had a,imo, more solid healthcare manifesto means that it isn't possible to know that without Labour we wouldn't have the NHS. 

Just adding some balance. But fighting over 1945 manifestos is like fighting over who won us the war. But posters from one side would rather get their history books and Google it all without realising the simple point I was making. 

Offer still stands. I will buy you a pint at a game.

Mate, the chances of us having a pint together are non-existent, mainly because I'm absolutely terrified of the 12 pint smashing, motha ducking, totally non-passively aggressive unit that is Norman. Who in their right minds would pick a fight with someone who benches 600KG with their helmet? Well, that and the fact that we have literally nothing in common.

And there was nothing sinister about my comment given in the PM I sent. I accepted your offer at the time, but then you know this already and are just up to your stupid games again. I've apologised to a few folk on here tbh. I've also had a 48 hour slanging match with Angry which got us nowhere but then nobody else was cheap enough to tell tales, especially inaccurate ones, just you pal.

As for the point you were making, I don't even think you really know what it was and now you're just chatting poo to deflect from that fact. If you use a 1945 manifesto to make your argument, other folk are entitled to use it to respond. Hard to understand what part of that causes your brain to overheat but since you can't actually address the points made as yet, perhaps it's best for all if you don't bother.