Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Tbf that reply closely followed this;

If he can't take it, he shouldn't dish it out.

 

Sorry, you've lost me.

 

Who are you quoting?

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

Sorry, you've lost me.

 

Who are you quoting?

That was Rog, it's on page 381, I tried to multi quote but it wouldn't work. Rog/Frank to be whoever he is is always deliberately offensive, it's no good whining when he gets a bit back.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The unemployment figures don't count 750,000 people on long term benefits. Up to you whether you think that's legit or not. Unless you believe that 25% of Merthyr genuinely all became unfit to work at once this should trouble you. 

 

I've already said I think the idea of testing ability to work is a good thing.

 

I haven't said anything about the system being rigged, that's your paranoia. I've said the system is poor and leading to bad decisions which are affecting people negatively. 

 

The fact that around 2/3 appeals are won, and that number is over 30,000 in a year proves that the system is flawed.

 

Not sure what it is you're defending? 

 

 

In that case, I'm not sure what you're complaining about. The mistakes are rectified. Unless you can invent a perfect system what's the alternative?

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

In that case, I'm not sure what you're complaining about. The mistakes are rectified. Unless you can invent a perfect system what's the alternative?

Appeals take time. I'm the meantime people that are unfit for work are being sanctioned and being left to food banks and destitution. How on earth anybody can be flippant about that I don't know.

 

The system would only need to be tweaked to make it better. But government refuses to do so. Perfect systems are irrelevant, this system is working worse than what was previously in place for those most in need. Making the wrong decisions is the decision makers within the system not making for for purpose decisions. If they did we wouldn't have the problems.

 

Government should have cancelled the private sector contracts when decisions are being overturned in their tens of thousands. Appeals have always existed but when assessments occurred in house nowhere near on this scale and with quicker resolutions to errors. 

 

Re universal credit the benefit was designed to have a 6 week waiting time to save a few quid up front. Ridiculous. It isn't a system redesign that's needed, simply an ounce of caring or compassion needs to be shown by government.

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

That was Rog, it's on page 381, I tried to multi quote but it wouldn't work. Rog/Frank to be whoever he is is always deliberately offensive, it's no good whining when he gets a bit back.

 

I don't think that's relevant.

 

My point is that Kopfkino has a very unpleasant character trait where he has this over-inflated opinion of his own intellect, as Rog/Frank/Moose rightly pointed out. He was similarly offensive to me a while back, and I bit my tongue. Swan Lesta called it right - he behaves like a bellend in this thread.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

I don't think that's relevant.

 

My point is that Kopfkino has a very unpleasant character trait where he has this over-inflated opinion of his own intellect, as Rog/Frank/Moose rightly pointed out. He was similarly offensive to me a while back, and I bit my tongue. Swan Lesta called it right - he behaves like a bellend in this thread.

Whilst you may not be entirely wrong on this, plenty of us are bellends from time to time (not so much you as you wisely don't usually get personal). Leave him alone mate, we can cope. At least he pays a little bit more attention to facts and can back up his own arguments, unlike the rest of the Thatcher lovers on here.

[Guest]

NHS hospitals told to take drastic measures amid winter crisis

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/02/nhs-hospitals-told-to-take-unprecedented-measures-amid-winter-crisis?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

 

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

I don't think that's relevant.

 

My point is that Kopfkino has a very unpleasant character trait where he has this over-inflated opinion of his own intellect, as Rog/Frank/Moose rightly pointed out. He was similarly offensive to me a while back, and I bit my tongue. Swan Lesta called it right - he behaves like a bellend in this thread.

 

It's your perogative to mis-analyse my personality traits, but I wouldn't say that. (Yes nobody would). Rog persistently brings up Corbyn and Scandinavia and its mostly wrong. He's never once shown how Corbyn is just replicating Scandinavia. If he believes it then what my comment would be correct, if it's just a line to trot out then what's the point. I'm a person that believes in things being spot on, I know a fair bit about Scandinavia (maybe he knows more) through my own keen interest in the area and through friends from there, so in my view it's not right so it's repetition irks me. 

 

I'm pretty sure I appreciated after the event when I had a go at you that it was unfair. Maybe I didn't make the post to apologise in the end. But, again, Alf called us out amongst all the other drivel that is posted on here, which felt similarly unfair. I know his point was that Matt and I were able to do better, but when I feel I actually make an effort to discuss a point properly, when often it results in a slanging match, it again irked me. Fair enough you bite your tongue, I don't. 

 

As for today, it wasn't a dig at Swan Lesta (I didn't even look who posted it) or even particularly related to the topic. But time and again, there is a Guardian bias in here. See it normally goes:

'The Guardian says x'

'Wait til the usual suspects somehow try to defend this'

''usual suspect' treats it with a touch of scepticism or makes a counter point'

Ends with effectively a 'no you're wrong' or something about scummy views, not caring about whatever etc etc. And that was the point earlier, was nothing personal but it often times is well look here's what The Guardian says. 

 

I mean quite often I see links to things not in The Guardian which are far more frequently ignored and then boom a guardian link presents itself and the cycle repeats.

 

Then there's the complete dismissal of anything that doesn't fit a viewpoint such as Morgan Stanley's view on Corbyn because it must just be because of special interests (Yes it happens for Brexit but not from I). Guardian article on the NHS, one Dr saying something, or interview with someone on benefits and it must be entirely right. 

 

 

Still, being a bellend with an over-inflated ego, suits me fine. If you can't do it here, where can you?

 

 

[Rogstanley]

https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/jonas-fossli-gjers/jeremy-corbyn-mainstream-scandinavian-social-democrat

 

“Another moniker Mr Corbyn’s detractors often apply to his policies are that they derive from some so-called extreme of the political spectrum, that they are ‘hard left’ and ergo hopelessly idealistic and unworkable. To a Norwegian observer such as myself I find this characterisation puzzling. Mr Corbyn’s policy-platform, particularly in regard to his domestic policies are largely identical with the Norwegian Labour Party manifesto. Railway nationalisation, partial or full state ownership of key companies or sectors, universal healthcare provisions, state-funded house-building, no tuition fee education, education grants and loans to name but a few, enjoy near universal support among the Norwegian electorate, in fact, they are so mainstream that not even the most right-wing of Norwegian political parties would challenge them.”

 

It’s not just me who holds this opinion, kopfy.

Edited 2 January 2018 by Rogstanley

[Nick]

Y'know this thread has just become poison.

 

 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said:

Y'know this thread has just become poison.

 

 

Yeah, for once we agree in this thread, I’m giving it a wide birth for the time being 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Y'know this thread has just become poison.

 

 

I actually agree. Perhaps we should just shut it down?

[Carl the Llama]

It's better than having a slew of threads about political topics with the same old bickering in them.  Closing the thread's not going to stop the petty behaviour appearing elsewhere, keep it isolated and contained imo.

[leicsmac]

57 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

It's better than having a slew of threads about political topics with the same old bickering in them.  Closing the thread's not going to stop the petty behaviour appearing elsewhere, keep it isolated and contained imo.

This.

 

And also I like having a place where I can discuss science matters in a political context, all the bickering aside.

[Nick]

I would propose that there needs to be a little more respect from all people and sides - a leaf out of the depression thread could be taken perhaps...

 

Maybe a good start would be to people to discuss politics rather than target their responses at the person or just Rep anything that fits their agenda. This thread is no longer about politics and is not a safe space - it's just left and right bashing. 

[Realist Guy In The Room]

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

I would propose that there needs to be a little more respect from all people and sides - a leaf out of the depression thread could be taken perhaps...

 

Maybe a good start would be to people to discuss politics rather than target their responses at the person or just Rep anything that fits their agenda. This thread is no longer about politics and is not a safe space - it's just left and right bashing. 

Objectivity left this place long ago.

[Nick]

10 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Objectivity left this place long ago.

Absolutely, however historical precedents have never been a sound enough reason alone not to consider change.

[Finnegan]

52 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Objectivity left the Internet long ago.

 

 

[Guest]

Tory MP admits what the Tory cucks cannot:

 

And this morning Sarah Wollaston, the former GP and Conservative MP who chairs the Commons health committee, has said May and her cabinet colleagues need to “get a better grip” on the problem. She told the Today programme:

The point is, if you have a very major increase in people who are living longer with complex conditions, that produces particular demands on the health system that I think they need to get a better grip on, to understand the sheer scale of the increase in demand across health and social care. And that’s what they need to do better planning for.

Wollaston said the NHS was underfunded.

Certainly what we have is a system that is running at absolutely full stretch across both health and social care. And, despite all the planning that we’ve heard about, I’m afraid there are serious issues with capacity, far too many bed closures that have happened, and probably not enough money that has gone in over a number of years now to keep up with the sheer scale of the increase in demand and complexity.

And when it was put to her that people who have had operations cancelled would describe what is happening as a crisis, she replied: “Of course you would.”

Also:

• A former Treasury minister in David Cameron’s government has described Theresa May’s Brexit ministers as being “clueless” about the economy. Lord O’Neill, the former Goldman Sachs chief economist who was commercial secretary to the Treasury from May 2015 to September 2016, made the comments in an interview with the German news organisation Die Welt. A China specialist, O’Neill said that the way Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, and other ministers were focusing on developing trade with small Commonwealth countries like New Zealand instead of China was “mad”. The idea that trade links with these countries would compensate for leaving the EU was “a fantasy”, he said. And he criticised Brexiters like Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, and Michael Gove, the environment secretary.

[They are] very intellectual, smart people. But they have no clue about the world of economy. They are clueless, sadly. Clueless.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Absolutely, however historical precedents have never been a sound enough reason alone not to consider change.

Particularly when the historical precedents are nothing of the sort.

[Guest MattP]

22 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Tory MP admits what the Tory cucks cannot:

Even when people from all sides start calling for more respect you still come out with this shit. It's bad enough reading the absolute garbage and inaccuracies you post about economics (QE is government borrowing waa a classic over Xmas btw) without then insulting people along with it.

 

This thread has been totally ruined and I'm out as well for the foreseeable future.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Even when people from all sides start calling for more respect you still come out with this shit. It's bad enough reading the absolute garbage and inaccuracies you post about economics (QE is government borrowing waa a classic over Xmas btw) without then insulting people along with it.

 

This thread has been totally ruined and I'm out as well for the foreseeable future.

[Guest]

Edit. Can't be bothered. Just close the thread.

Edited 3 January 2018 by Guest

[Nick]

I think we are all guilty in what this thread has become. We are all frustrated with fundamental political concepts on both sides. I was just trying to start a conversation about how to make it better and people from all sides posting critical reflection about issues and not attempting to undermine, humiliate and offend might be a good place to begin.

 

There’s many jokes in there about “A Kinder More Gentle Politics Thread” I’m sure, but maybe starting from scratch might be a start. We are no longer learning anything, just sniping. Maybe there’s some value in a new approach where we post (non-satirical) things we think have mileage or are working which are not from our respective sides or viewpoints? I’m not trying to make politics threads happy - clappy but perhaps just find some common ground as a starter for ten.

 

The cold hard truth of this is that we’d probably all roll along nicely in a pub.

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

I think we are all guilty in what this thread has become. We are all frustrated with fundamental political concepts on both sides. I was just trying to start a conversation about how to make it better and people from all sides posting critical reflection about issues and not attempting to undermine, humiliate and offend might be a good place to begin.

 

There’s many jokes in there about “A Kinder More Gentle Politics Thread” I’m sure, but maybe starting from scratch might be a start. We are no longer learning anything, just sniping. Maybe there’s some value in a new approach where we post (non-satirical) things we think have mileage or are working which are not from our respective sides or viewpoints? I’m not trying to make politics threads happy - clappy but perhaps just find some common ground as a starter for ten.

 

The cold hard truth of this is that we’d probably all roll along nicely in a pub.

 

Oh, sure.

 

Politics and alcohol - what could possibly go wrong?