Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[David Guiza]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I wonder if it will attract the same protests as Donald Trump?

I hope so, but very much doubt it. Both are awful people but the Saudi Prince makes Trump look like a pantomime villain in comparison. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

14 hours ago, ealingfox said:

 

What about it do you think isn't true?

 

Again, you sound very bitter. You've made grand sweeping statements that are massively unfair to the thousands of people working in, for or with trade unions up and down the country. What evidence do you have for this 'attitude' you're attributing to people you've never met and have no experience of? You can't just give vague and unverifiable anecdotal evidence and expect people to give it any credence. Equally I've worked in the public sector for most of my professional career, I've never joined a union and I've not experienced any of the stuff you've described. There's absolutely no reason to believe it goes on either. That's not going to have any impact on your views though is it? What experience of the internal culture of trade unions do you have?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the government in waiting remark as its nonsense, but the fact remains that describing Labour as a privileged elite making decisions for the masses is incorrect.

 

The leadership thing - interesting enough consideration. Toddy's point is fair that its not really a pattern to draw any conclusions from as there have only been 2 female Tory leaders, it's not a strong point. However, Labour MPs are and have always been more representative and diverse than the Tories. Do you think it's more a game for privileged white middle class people than the Tory party is?

 

To say that the Tories are honest about only serving the rich and elite is a frankly ridiculous statement, you're not right about that at all. The people of this country are thick but they're not that thick - the Tories would not be in government if that was the case. Have a look at the last few Tory manifestos.

 

What are you basing these statements about the Labour party on? Why are they 'pretending to care' about the poor? Can you provide some examples of Labour being contemptuous towards the north of England?

 

I'm afraid you can't make statements like that without quantifying them, add that its 'your view' or 'your opinion' and expect people to take them as valid points, particularly when they aren't. I'm really struggling to get my head around these criticisms of Labour if you are equally holding up the Tories as virtuous in those regards. Maybe you aren't, I would hope not anyway. But the extent to which you've burrowed into these hateful viewpoints of people and groups of people on very little real evidence is weird.

I fundamentally disagree with the statement 'Corbyn has the biggest democratic mandate of any politician in Britain and members sign up to trade unions knowing the leadership structure in place which is also democratically elected'. Again I do not believe in the so called transparency of the union system at all, and the so called democratic vote allowed new members to sign up from far left parties to elect Corbyn.

 

What is unfair about those statements and why? I have seen the attitudes of some top union representatives from UNISON, GMB, TUC and NASUWT, the internal culture is concerning in my opinion, the very hard left members are often quite intimidating in their attitudes towards others. That said I do not doubt that there are many day to day staff in the Unions who do a very good job and are members for all the right reasons. My views are impacted by my experience, maybe working largely in the North of England the unions have more of a tribal feel, I don't know but my experience of the internal cultures is not good.

 

Labour (Corbyn) have described themselves as a government in waiting, not me. The privileged elite making decisions to affect the masses is when a Union leadership has strike action based on an inconclusive vote, they can have a 51% turn out and only 41% of those eligible backing a strike but they can still force strike action. The Union barons hold the cards here and their leadership structures will make the decisions for the masses, these leadership teams are often privileged not your average working man.

 

I think now an increasing number of Labour voters are from middle class backgrounds, Tories increased their working class vote, this is backed up by statistics.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/ng-interactive/2017/jun/20/young-voters-class-and-turnout-how-britain-voted-in-2017

 

The comment about the Tories being honest about their choices (looking after the rich) was more facetious than anything. Of course in my eyes have gone to more of a middle ground party now, of course many in the left wont accept that. We keep getting told every day the Tories only care and look after the rich yet their vote share amongst the working class is increasing so which one is it?

 

Labours contempt for the North is shown in many ways:

- The refusal to tackle the freedom of movement issues and control immigration.

- In Stoke they put a Pro-Euro MP in place Snell in an area that voted 70% to leave, they got away with it due to the incompetence of UKIP and Nutall.

-The Rochdale scandal

-The lack of improvement in many northern/midlands cities even during 13 years of Labour government.

 

The working class voters in northern/midlands cities are now choosing to vote UKIP or Tory, something I never imagined would happen, the statistics back this up.

 

Again I have said I don't like Corbyn and I don't like union barons, and the union management structure, yet for some reason you seem to have taken it out of context and decided I hate everyone. Which I don't and I have never said that.

 

I disagree that Corbyn is a good leader and that Labour need this lurch to the left, and I disagree that the management structure is good in trade unions based on my experience of them.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

5 hours ago, toddybad said:

Just on momentum, I'm finding their portrayal rather frustrating. 

 

Momentum has over 37,000 members and is growing at over 1,500 members a month. It is larger than UKIP and almost as big as the Green Party. If it continues at the current rate it's membership will reach Conservative Party levels in 2 years (there is some guess work here as the Tories last official members count in 2013 was 148,000 but some tory estimates are now as low as 70,000).

 

Labour as a whole has over 550,000 members. It is the largest party in Europe. The membership vote on the make up of the NEC etc and it is the membership that are voting for left wing candidates. 

 

This talk of a momentum coup is nonsense.

I don't know obviously its matter of differing views on direction. Seamus Milne is by all accounts very powerful within the top levels of the party.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/30e48096-b9ec-11e5-b151-8e15c9a029fb

 

Then this is going on at the moment. There are certainly influences beyond membership.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/02/labour-power-struggle-momentum-unite-general-secretary

 

https://www.ft.com/content/00ca6474-1d64-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6

 

Men of the people.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3367482/Are-Corbyn-s-rich-kid-revolutionaries-REAL-posh-boys-politics-Labour-moderate-SIMON-DANCZUK-savages-party-s-new-hard-left-elite.html

 

I really would find voting for a more centre left leader a lot more appealing, as discussed a lot of the policies are sound, I think the biggest issue is funding them and that is obviously where the economic differences come into play. Evidence globally tends to suggest hard left economics never work.

Edited 7 March 2018 by Foxin_mad

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21292:The-Brexit-Dilemma

 

This article makes a nice brief summary of the current situation.  Really looks like May is stuck between a rock and a hard place and politics is consequently pretty easy for Corbyn at the moment

 

Wonder what people think about what this article suggests about the positives of labour's nationalisation and business appeal and also the suggestion tha Brexit supporting folk wont get what they want out of it

Edited 7 March 2018 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I don't know obviously its matter of differing views on direction. Seamus Milne is by all accounts very powerful within the top levels of the party.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/30e48096-b9ec-11e5-b151-8e15c9a029fb

 

Then this is going on at the moment. There are certainly influences beyond membership.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/02/labour-power-struggle-momentum-unite-general-secretary

 

https://www.ft.com/content/00ca6474-1d64-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6

 

Men of the people.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3367482/Are-Corbyn-s-rich-kid-revolutionaries-REAL-posh-boys-politics-Labour-moderate-SIMON-DANCZUK-savages-party-s-new-hard-left-elite.html

 

I really would find voting for a more centre left leader a lot more appealing, as discussed a lot of the policies are sound, I think the biggest issue is funding them and that is obviously where the economic differences come into play. Evidence globally tends to suggest hard left economics never work.

I don't have an argument with your preference for centre left over left, that's your opinion, but the trade union vs momentum for the chair is democracy in action. The reason the momentum head has support is that he wants to end the unions strangle hold on power and give it back to the 550,000 members. The members will choose the chair.

[Buce]

34 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

Labour (Corbyn) have described themselves as a government in waiting, not me. The privileged elite making decisions to affect the masses is when a Union leadership has strike action based on an inconclusive vote, they can have a 51% turn out and only 41% of those eligible backing a strike but they can still force strike action. The Union barons hold the cards here and their leadership structures will make the decisions for the masses, these leadership

1

 

The Tories have a mandate from around 23% of the electorate (turnout divided by vote share) yet you call that democracy and have no problem them being in government.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

The Tories have a mandate from around 23% of the electorate (turnout divided by vote share) yet you call that democracy and have no problem them being in government.

51% forcing the other 49% to choose a destructive path they don't want.

 

I can't imagine that there's any other electoral parallels.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

The Tories have a mandate from around 23% of the electorate (turnout divided by vote share) yet you call that democracy and have no problem them being in government.

Could you explain your vote share figures a little more? I maybe completely missing the point but I thought the vote share in the last election was roughly as follows:

 

Tories 42%

Labour 40%

Lib Dems 7%

SNP 3%

UKIP 2%

 

https://ig.ft.com/election-results-2017/

 

For the record I am not saying that either method is correct and have never said I have no problems with the system, but it is what we have and is unlikely to change anytime soon.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

I don't have an argument with your preference for centre left over left, that's your opinion, but the trade union vs momentum for the chair is democracy in action. The reason the momentum head has support is that he wants to end the unions strangle hold on power and give it back to the 550,000 members. The members will choose the chair.

I am not entirely sure that is the entire reason and it is part of Labours lurch to the far left, which is fine if that is the way that the party, its members and voters wish to see it heading. Good luck to them.  I would be interested to see how well the thoughts of the 550,000 members come into play particularly regarding Brexit which Corbyn and McDonnell are fully committed to seeing through.

[Buce]

11 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Could you explain your vote share figures a little more? I maybe completely missing the point but I thought the vote share in the last election was roughly as follows:

 

Tories 42%

Labour 40%

Lib Dems 7%

SNP 3%

UKIP 2%

 

https://ig.ft.com/election-results-2017/

 

For the record I am not saying that either method is correct and have never said I have no problems with the system, but it is what we have and is unlikely to change anytime soon.

 

I don't have time to Google the exact figures, but the turnout wasn't 100% of the electorate so the figure of 42% was 42% of those that voted, which equates to less than 40% of the electorate. Tbf, I may be thinking of the 2015 election when I quote 23% (so it may be a little higher) but the principle is the same even if the figures aren't.

 

It would be the same whichever party won the election and is a major argument against the fptp system.

Edited 7 March 2018 by Buce

[Wymsey]

Why should Leicester taxpayers be held to repay for another council's failings?

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/northamptonshires-financial-woes-could-leave-1306020

Edited 7 March 2018 by Wymeswold fox

[Innovindil]

24 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Why should Leicester taxpayers be held to repay for another council's failings?

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/northamptonshires-financial-woes-could-leave-1306020

Sounds daft as ****. 

 

And also this:

 

Leicestershire County Council has loaned a further £25 million to other councils - £10 million to Birmingham City Council, £10 million to Thurrock Council in Kent and £10 million to Southwark Council in London.

Various banks have borrowed a further £164 million from the council - deals approved to generate the council interest under it treasury strategy.

 

Why the hell are we lending this sort of money out when we can't even fill a few potholes. 

[Strokes]

58 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I don't have time to Google the exact figures, but the turnout wasn't 100% of the electorate so the figure of 42% was 42% of those that voted, which equates to less than 40% of the electorate. Tbf, I may be thinking of the 2015 election when I quote 23% (so it may be a little higher) but the principle is the same even if the figures aren't.

 

It would be the same whichever party won the election and is a major argument against the fptp system.

I accept there are many valid reasons for voting reform but to consider the thought of the people that don’t turnout I refuse to accept.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

8 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I accept there are many valid reasons for voting reform but to consider the thought of the people that don’t turnout I refuse to accept.

People who don't show up only have themselves to blame. To be honest I have no problem with people moaning who have voted, but people who moan and don't vote I have no sympathy for. Its you ability to have your say whatever that is.

 

I think there is some agreement that we may not have the best system with fptp but I do not see much appetite for change, the only attempt was the referendum which the Lib Dems pushed for.

Edited 7 March 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Strokes]

Just now, Foxin_mad said:

People who don't show up only have themselves to blame. To be honest I have no problem with people moaning who have voted, but people who moan and don't vote I have no sympathy for.

If you don’t vote, it means you will go with the flow. Basically it’s endorsement of the rest of the electorate to vote on your behalf.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

People who don't show up only have themselves to blame. To be honest I have no problem with people moaning who have voted, but people who moan and don't vote I have no sympathy for. Its you ability to have your say whatever that is.

 

I think there is some agreement that we may not have the best system with fptp but I do not see much appetite for change, the only attempt was the referendum which the Lib Dems pushed for.

4

 

I agree with you but you are contradicting yourself when you say this about nationwide elections, but complain when it happens in a strike ballot.

 

You can't have it both ways.

Edited 7 March 2018 by Buce

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

People who don't show up only have themselves to blame. To be honest I have no problem with people moaning who have voted, but people who moan and don't vote I have no sympathy for. Its you ability to have your say whatever that is.

 

I think there is some agreement that we may not have the best system with fptp but I do not see much appetite for change, the only attempt was the referendum which the Lib Dems pushed for.

4

 

Tbf, the Lib-Dems didn't get what they asked for, they got a watered down version of it.

 

A cynic might say their coalition partners deliberately arranged it that way because they prefer the status quo.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

I accept there are many valid reasons for voting reform but to consider the thought of the people that don’t turnout I refuse to accept.

 

I find it hard to disagree with that, tbh, but it angers me - people died for universal suffrage.

 

I will probably make voting compulsory (along with some sort of political awareness education) when I'm in charge.

 

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

If you don’t vote, it means you will go with the flow. Basically it’s endorsement of the rest of the electorate to vote on your behalf.

 

I think you know it's not quite that simple.

[Guest]

So Donald Tusk has kicked May's 'plan' into touch. How soon will the torys dare to put the Brexit bill back into parliament? Surely they're heading for defeat over the customs union which opens the next can of worms?

[Buce]

18 minutes ago, toddybad said:

So Donald Tusk has kicked May's 'plan' into touch. How soon will the torys dare to put the Brexit bill back into parliament? Surely they're heading for defeat over the customs union which opens the next can of worms?

 

Davis was saying something yesterday about ignoring the parliamentary vote on Brexit, saying that Brexit will happen regardless.

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, David Guiza said:

I hope so, but very much doubt it. Both are awful people but the Saudi Prince makes Trump look like a pantomime villain in comparison. 

That's about the size of it. As much as Trump is a *insert expletive here* there are other authoritarians around the world who should be faced down too.

[leicsmac]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-43320121

 

Shocker.

 

Edit: Wonder if Trump will retweet about this?

Edited 7 March 2018 by leicsmac

[Sharpe's Fox]

16 hours ago, Sampson said:

I really really don't want to be one of those "the youth of today who don't remember the Cold War and don't understand why no Western country (bar maybe Italy and Spain who took far longer to get over the Second World War than the rest of the West (even though ironically Spain didn't partake) and last us not forget Franco was still in power well into the 1970s) has had a genuinely Left-wing governments for at least a good 25 years now

What? do you actually think Franco was a communist?

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

What? do you actually think Franco was a communist?

And mentions of Pinochet and the South African apartheid regime were conspicuously absent too. I mean, if we're going to be even-handed about this...

[David Guiza]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-43320121

 

Shocker.

 

Edit: Wonder if Trump will retweet about this?

 

Worst ever Beatles tribute band. Yoko is looking rough.