Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

Pretty sure you can find more hatred than that in a months daily mail headlines.

 

41 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It’s ironic that Labour and Corbyn worshippers constantly bang on about silencing hate and brush this off as ‘well we need to talk to these people’. If Trump had met KKK associated groups or May met Britain first groups there would be hell to pay and rightly so. Jewdas have some abhorrent views from what I can see and this is all a bit distasteful.

 

I still think that it was a stupid move by Corbyn to spend time with such an alternative group before anything had been done to reassure more mainstream opinion.

But I get the impression that you're both seriously misunderstanding the nature of this Jewdas crew. Try looking at their web site: https://www.jewdas.org/?page_id=2 https://www.jewdas.org/?page_id=3724  http://www.birthwrong.com/ ...

"fully automated luxury communism"? "herrings"? "Dalston kebab shops"? "get pissed in Marseille"? "Who is the sexiest prophet?" ?!?!?

 

Far from promoting hatred, they seem to be a bunch of humorous, anarchic provocateurs on the wind-up. They obviously have serious ideas/activities (from cultural events to anti-racist protests), but are also having a laugh big-time. I mean, come on - piss-ups in Spain, jokes about bagels, mock ceremonies involving beetroots, ridiculing establishment figures, including the Jewish establishment....

 

Here's the response of the Israeli paper Haaretz: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/.premium-no-one-gets-to-say-who-are-good-jews-not-even-jews-1.5976112 

"For want of a better description, Jewdas is a loose-knit group of young Jews in London, based around a website whose mouthpiece is the fictional blogger “Geoffrey Cohen” and a series of often hilarious, usually anarchical and sometimes serious events. It is about glorifying in being the opposite of everything the established community holds dear. The community is prim and proper, so Jewdas is wild and raunchy. British Jews are – or at least aspire to be – comfortable members of the upper middle class, so Jewdas affects an air of working-class radicalism. And of course, because the community is pro-Israel, Jewdas exalts in the riches of the Diaspora and makes a big deal out of being anti-Zionist. For some, the anti-Zionism is a lifelong belief. For others, it’s a passing phase. And for many, it’s just a cool way of poking fun at their elders. More than any real challenge to British Jewry’s very real love and support for Israel, it’s a way of setting themselves apart. Jewdas sets itself apart as an alternative space for Jews who can’t find their place within the community, as well as many people who continue being regular members of their synagogues and other Jewish organizations, going on holiday to Israel and taking part in “Zionist” activities, while still going to Jewdas events to let off steam occasionally. Like so many other British institutions, it can be earnest and humorous at the same time. Just don’t be like the establishment and take yourself too seriously. Anti-Semitism? Anti-Zionism? Anarchism? More like breaking all the taboos simply for the sake of it".

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

And what do we think of trump supporters.....?

Quite, but at the same time Trump does seem to be able to be at least non confrontational and at most nudge-nudge-wink-wink with the furthest right fringe in the US and not face the kind of political consequences one might expect. I mean, he's still nearly even money to win in 2020.

[Guest]

Although I've defended the nhs figures, there are clearly some significant issues across the working world in general looking at this.

 

 

Gender pay gap figures reveal eight in 10 UK firms pay men more

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/apr/04/gender-pay-gap-figures-reveal-eight-in-10-uk-firms-pay-men-more?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

 

[Innovindil]

Not sure these figures come as any surprise at all. The only way you are ever going to balance them out is a massive shift in social norms around children. Let's be honest, if you've got a man and a woman of equal skill applying for the same higher up position, you are more than likely going to invest your money and time into the man, simply because the woman is more likely to have a child and be less committed to the job. 

 

No, it's not right and it's definitely not fair, but until we as a society move closer to a 50/50 share of child rearing it won't change. 

 

I think that thing the government implemented over being able to have shared maternity leave is a good start, but the trouble is if most men make more money than women, it will be hard to get both sets of parents on board with it simply for financial reasons. 

[Guest MattP]

On 03/04/2018 at 21:31, Alf Bentley said:

He could have met with the Board of Deputies, built bridges where possible, politely disagreed where appropriate (e.g. Israeli excesses), taken on board any good ideas for tackling antisemitism, then met Jewdas at a later date, with no media furore.....all the while being in a better position to reunite the party, to be a strong, smart opposition and to be ready to win votes and form a govt, if the opportunity arises. I despair at the irresponsibility! I'm sure some Tory supporters are rubbing their hands with glee, but these are seriously high-risk times. More than ever, we deserve and need a competent govt and a competent opposition, but we seem to have neither.

It's actually a bit of a dilemma for people like me.

 

As a Tory voting Brexiteer I want him to perform so badly it leaves little chance of him being elected, but also not so badly that it leads to his removal from the leadership, with it starting to look possible he might even enforce a three line whip on voting the Brexit bill through the house I find it so important that him and McDonnell are leading the showdow cabinet to do that while the Conservatives are in charge of the actual negotiations.

 

The last thing I want party wise is for Labour to fall back into the hands of a moderate front bench and leader with an articulate pro European Union leader who could galvanise the youth vote, it could be a game changer for a last ditch attempt to reverse the result, the polls are now showing we've surely reached peak-Corbyn and he isn't going to win a majority, so whilst it's like this I'd actually prefer him to just keep making the odd blunder (a certainly) rather than something so bad that it causes his resignation (not impossible).

[David Guiza]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's actually a bit of a dilemma for people like me.

 

As a Tory voting Brexiteer I want him to perform so badly it leaves little chance of him being elected, but also not so badly that it leads to his removal from the leadership, with it starting to look possible he might even enforce a three line whip on voting the Brexit bill through the house I find it so important that him and McDonnell are leading the showdow cabinet to do that while the Conservatives are in charge of the actual negotiations.

 

The last thing I want party wise is for Labour to fall back into the hands of a moderate front bench and leader with an articulate pro European Union leader who could galvanise the youth vote, it could be a game changer for a last ditch attempt to reverse the result, the polls are now showing we've surely reached peak-Corbyn and he isn't going to win a majority, so whilst it's like this I'd actually prefer him to just keep making the odd blunder (a certainly) rather than something so bad that it causes his resignation (not impossible).

Absolutely, I can't stand this tribalism. The reason that I don't want the Tories in Government is because I disagree with a lot of what they do and what they represent; it is not just because of who they are and the fact that they wear blue (if anything it still haunts me to 'support' anything red). If the Tories make a decision that I agree with then I would be happy to say the same, and if Labour make woeful decisions then I'm always happy to criticise them.  

 

It's the same with Brexit too. Some would rather see the country go to the dogs just to satisfy their egos and so that they can proclaim that they 'told us so'. I didn't vote Leave and I still think it was an awful decision, but as somebody who lives in the country(ies) that has an affect on of course I want it to be a success, though I would rather it be a success within the EU. 

 

I would never want to see either party fall to ruin because it just allows the other to become complacent (or even more complacent than they already are). 

 

 

[Fox Ulike]

10 hours ago, Strokes said:

I never said it was a crime but don’t ever get prissy about Mail hate and make out it’s a right wing only problem again please.

Come on Strokes! Please don’t join the Army of the Disingenuous! Yes the problem exists on both sides. But the argument is about the scale of the problem, and it’s slow and steady infusion into the mainstream.

 

The Daily Mail is a national newspaper read by around 1.3m people every day. Jewdas is a bunch of lefty Jewish people who have a blog.

 

You cannot compare the two as somehow balancing each other out. It’s utterly ridiculous.

[Fox Ulike]

10 hours ago, Strokes said:

It’s ironic that Labour and Corbyn worshippers constantly bang on about silencing hate and brush this off as ‘well we need to talk to these people’. If Trump had met KKK associated groups or May met Britain first groups there would be hell to pay and rightly so. Jewdas have some abhorrent views from what I can see and this is all a bit distasteful.

 

Fair point. However I would ask where exactly these quotes come from. I would also ask why are you not questioning their source and veracity yourself?

 

As I said before, when it comes to that pre-Brexit Treasury report you’re as sharp as a nail in identifying the shortcomings and inconsistencies of a detailed technical document. However, when it comes to some words wot the Daily Mail wrote in big letters, you simply swallow them whole and regurgitate them as fact.

 

[Alf Bentley]

54 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's actually a bit of a dilemma for people like me.

 

As a Tory voting Brexiteer I want him to perform so badly it leaves little chance of him being elected, but also not so badly that it leads to his removal from the leadership, with it starting to look possible he might even enforce a three line whip on voting the Brexit bill through the house I find it so important that him and McDonnell are leading the showdow cabinet to do that while the Conservatives are in charge of the actual negotiations.

 

The last thing I want party wise is for Labour to fall back into the hands of a moderate front bench and leader with an articulate pro European Union leader who could galvanise the youth vote, it could be a game changer for a last ditch attempt to reverse the result, the polls are now showing we've surely reached peak-Corbyn and he isn't going to win a majority, so whilst it's like this I'd actually prefer him to just keep making the odd blunder (a certainly) rather than something so bad that it causes his resignation (not impossible).

 

I can't imagine there being another leadership contest while Brexit negotiations are ongoing - unless Labour get truly disastrous results in the council elections or something. I doubt that'll happen. They might not do as well as they should, but will probably still make gains.

 

I could imagine large rebellions against the parliamentary whip if Corbyn tried to be too pro-Brexit, but he's unlikely to do that. Unless there's a major, unexpected increase in public opposition to Brexit, I don't see any prospect of the Brexit vote being reversed so a potential Labour split over Brexit is unlikely. More likely there'll be parliamentary confrontations over the Hard/Soft nature of the Brexit, particularly once the final exit deal is negotiated in the autumn and goes before parliament and EU institutions. Whether that's a Hard deal or a Soft deal, the Corbynistas and Labour moderates are likely to be on the same side (Soft). I reckon it'll be more a case of whether the Tory Hard Brexit crew will stomach the big compromises they'll probably have to make to get any sort of Brexit over the line. There's a high chance of Tory Remainers voting down anything implying major damage to UK trade/economy or a hard Irish border, I reckon. 

 

If things aren't going well for Labour under Corbyn, I could imagine a leadership challenge after March 2019. But only once Brexit is (probably) confirmed and we're into the transition period and negotiations over an EU-UK post-Brexit deal (which could last well beyond the transition period, creating a new potential cliff-edge in December 2020).

 

I'm more concerned with the short-term impact. Politicians face the most important political issue for decades. We have a govt whose main priority seems to be maintaining party unity, whatever the cost to the nation. The last thing we need is to also have an opposition causing needless distractions, divisions and alienation so that it's unable to hold the govt to account properly. @Kopfkino hinted at this re. Boris and the Skripal poisoning. This needless distraction over antisemitism/Jewdas means less attention is paid to important issues like relations between the West and Russia, and between allies in the West. As it happens, I doubt that Boris' stupid, dishonest comments had much impact. He largely seems to be viewed as a laughing-stock across Europe. I'd assume that the strong support for the UK over Russia was based more on security briefings and personal experience, not on statements by someone widely known to be a dishonest clown.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

24 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

 

 

As I said before, when it comes to that pre-Brexit Treasury report you’re as sharp as a nail in identifying the shortcomings and inconsistencies of a detailed technical document. However, when it comes to some words wot the Daily Mail wrote in big letters, you simply swallow them whole and regurgitate them as fact.

 

I don't think anyone has EVER done that on here. At what point did anyone quote the Daily Mail and say it was fact? I must have missed that part.

 

The Daily Mail is a pile of shite. 

[Fox Ulike]

18 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Was thinking this earlier. A couple of days of Corbyn bashing over the anti-Semitism issue would have felt reasonable. But the longer it goes on (what it is now, well over a week?), the longer they keep just banging on and on about the same old shit while ignoring the real problems the country faces under this tory government, the easier it becomes for Corbyn to spin it in his favour.

 

His haters are starting to look like a frothy lynch mob, baying for blood. When you consider their relentless aggression in the context of the almost imperceptibly mild event that kicked it all off, it starts to feel disproportionate to the point of evoking suspicion and that's something Corbyn can latch on to.

 

What I also find confusing is why Corby is treated almost as if he’s the the PM, and is held to account for issues that he actually has very little influence over.  JewGate is a typical example. I mean, Corbyn’s ability to tackle anti-semitism is very limited. It’s not a problem only on the far left, and most average people will be going “Hold on, isn’t it the far Right who hate Jews? Why is Corbyn getting the blame when he’s the only one who actually seems to want to sort it out?”

 

It was the same with the whole thing about him saying he would “deal with” the question of student debt as if he’d committed some sort of massive betrayal. When of course, he’s in no position to actually do anything about student debt. Your average Joe is going “Hold on, why don’t the Government actually do something about it if it’s such an issue rather than blaming Corbyn for just wanting to sort it out?”

 

The campaign against Corbyn is now so insane that it seems to be working in his favour. All his mistakes get lost in the fake frothing outrage that continually gets thrown at him.  My worry is that he's being given a free ride, and it's very hard to hold him accountable for anything he now does or says.

[Fox Ulike]

9 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I don't think anyone has EVER done that on here. At what point did anyone quote the Daily Mail and say it was fact? I must have missed that part.

 

The Daily Mail is a pile of shite. 

OK ignore that single word and concentrate on everything else that I wrote. Here, edited it for you:

 

Fair point. However I would ask where exactly these quotes come from. I would also ask why are you not questioning their source and veracity yourself?

 

As I said before, when it comes to that pre-Brexit Treasury report you’re as sharp as a nail in identifying the shortcomings and inconsistencies of a detailed technical document. However, when it comes to some words wot the Daily Mail wrote in big letters, you simply swallow them whole and regurgitate them.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

7 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

OK ignore that single word and concentrate on everything else that I wrote. Here, edited it for you:

 

Fair point. However I would ask where exactly these quotes come from. I would also ask why are you not questioning their source and veracity yourself?

 

As I said before, when it comes to that pre-Brexit Treasury report you’re as sharp as a nail in identifying the shortcomings and inconsistencies of a detailed technical document. However, when it comes to some words wot the Daily Mail wrote in big letters, you simply swallow them whole and regurgitate them.

Yes so again I ask the question who has done that and when? Maybe I missed it?! Where did anyone swallow them whole? Why has the fact bit been removed?

 

 

[Fox Ulike]

Just now, Foxin_mad said:

Yes so again I ask the question who has done that

Strokes.

 

Just now, Foxin_mad said:

 

and when?

11 hours ago.

Just now, Foxin_mad said:

 

Maybe I missed it?!

 

Yes you did.

 

Where did anyone swallow them whole?

 

Where?! It's a figure of speech. But people usually use their mouths to swallow things. In this context though, that's irrelevant. Would you like to reframe your question as it's fairly pointless to discuss what each and every metaphor means. This isn't a poetry thread.

 

 

Just now, Foxin_mad said:

 

 

Why has the fact bit been removed?

 

 

Just to help you out really. I can put it back if you like? It doesn't really change the point I was making either way.

[Fox Ulike]

16 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

Ah the folk

Who you can't name...

 

16 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

that are busy telling us . 

Which you can't quote...

 

16 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

how arbitrary national median wage figures show how destitute we all are,

... because no-one's said it.

 

16 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

now believe median wage figures aren't useful.

... and no-one is claiming it.

 

16 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

We got there eventually. 

Good point well made.

 

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Not sure these figures come as any surprise at all. The only way you are ever going to balance them out is a massive shift in social norms around children. Let's be honest, if you've got a man and a woman of equal skill applying for the same higher up position, you are more than likely going to invest your money and time into the man, simply because the woman is more likely to have a child and be less committed to the job. 

 

No, it's not right and it's definitely not fair, but until we as a society move closer to a 50/50 share of child rearing it won't change. 

 

I think that thing the government implemented over being able to have shared maternity leave is a good start, but the trouble is if most men make more money than women, it will be hard to get both sets of parents on board with it simply for financial reasons. 

 

And may that day come soon for those who want it to be the case.

[Guest MattP]

4 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I can't imagine there being another leadership contest while Brexit negotiations are ongoing - unless Labour get truly disastrous results in the council elections or something. I doubt that'll happen. They might not do as well as they should, but will probably still make gains.

 

I could imagine large rebellions against the parliamentary whip if Corbyn tried to be too pro-Brexit, but he's unlikely to do that. Unless there's a major, unexpected increase in public opposition to Brexit, I don't see any prospect of the Brexit vote being reversed so a potential Labour split over Brexit is unlikely. More likely there'll be parliamentary confrontations over the Hard/Soft nature of the Brexit, particularly once the final exit deal is negotiated in the autumn and goes before parliament and EU institutions. Whether that's a Hard deal or a Soft deal, the Corbynistas and Labour moderates are likely to be on the same side (Soft). I reckon it'll be more a case of whether the Tory Hard Brexit crew will stomach the big compromises they'll probably have to make to get any sort of Brexit over the line. There's a high chance of Tory Remainers voting down anything implying major damage to UK trade/economy or a hard Irish border, I reckon. 

 

If things aren't going well for Labour under Corbyn, I could imagine a leadership challenge after March 2019. But only once Brexit is (probably) confirmed and we're into the transition period and negotiations over an EU-UK post-Brexit deal (which could last well beyond the transition period, creating a new potential cliff-edge in December 2020).

 

I'm more concerned with the short-term impact. Politicians face the most important political issue for decades. We have a govt whose main priority seems to be maintaining party unity, whatever the cost to the nation. The last thing we need is to also have an opposition causing needless distractions, divisions and alienation so that it's unable to hold the govt to account properly. @Kopfkino hinted at this re. Boris and the Skripal poisoning. This needless distraction over antisemitism/Jewdas means less attention is paid to important issues like relations between the West and Russia, and between allies in the West. As it happens, I doubt that Boris' stupid, dishonest comments had much impact. He largely seems to be viewed as a laughing-stock across Europe. I'd assume that the strong support for the UK over Russia was based more on security briefings and personal experience, not on statements by someone widely known to be a dishonest clown.

Don't disagree with any of that, Labour will clearly do very well in the local elections given the location of them and the performance of the Tories last time out. , 

 

I'm surprised Boris hasn't been given the boot yet, I actually think May is now in a strong enough position to sack him, she's had a very good few weeks and he must be losing the support even of his ardent supporters.

[Rogstanley]

I don’t know if this is ignorant, maybe it is, but for me 50/50 parenting is never going to happen. A man can’t replicate what I’m going to call “a mother’s touch”, and certainly can’t breastfeed, so is never going to be able to properly fulfil the traditional role of a mother, IMO. Of course if a woman doesn’t want to fulfil the traditional role of a mother then that’s fine, there’s nothing wrong with not having kids.

Edited 5 April 2018 by Rogstanley

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

I don’t know if this is ignorant, maybe it is, but for me 50/50 parenting is never going to happen. A man can’t replicate what I’m going to call “a mother’s touch”, and certainly can’t breastfeed, so is never going to be able to properly fulfil the traditional role of a mother, IMO. Of course if a woman doesn’t want to fulfil the traditional role of a mother then that’s fine, there’s nothing wrong with not having kids.

Milk can be expressed.

As a single father(a % of the time following split) I'm telling you this is bollocks. Apart from not havingthe ability to produce my own milk I could very happily have raised my daughter alone were it possible.

Actually surprised that somebody with your normal views has posted that.

[Guest]

A shame that with all the papers coalescing around novichok and antisemiticism important issues within the country go virtually unnoticed. Though I suppose its a sad indictment of our times that half our number will defend what I'm about to post anyway.

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-04-05/sure-start-centres-closed/

 

[Fox Ulike]

15 minutes ago, toddybad said:

A shame that with all the papers coalescing around novichok and antisemiticism important issues within the country go virtually unnoticed. Though I suppose its a sad indictment of our times that half our number will defend what I'm about to post anyway.

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-04-05/sure-start-centres-closed/

 

 

What frustrates me is the lack of joined-up thinking in Government.

 

With one hand, the Govt are saying that they want to close the Gender pay gap, but with the other they’re reducing the childcare services that would help working mothers...

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

What frustrates me is the lack of joined-up thinking in Government.

 

With one hand, the Govt are saying that they want to close the Gender pay gap, but with the other they’re reducing the childcare services that would help working mothers...

This is why its difficult to trust governments with some decisions. 

[Milo]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

What frustrates me is the lack of joined-up thinking in Government.

 

With one hand, the Govt are saying that they want to close the Gender pay gap, but with the other they’re reducing the childcare services that would help working mothers...

I agree completely - I do some work with local councils and the money they that waste by disjointed policy decisions and not talking to each other is incredible. Decisions/policy made in isolation might make sense, but look mad when compared with the decisions the department next door have just made. I assume that this is replicated higher up the chain.

 

I suppose the reason is that all sitting governments need to produce some quick fix results and end up lurching from one half thought-through policy to another. I don't think that it's particularly indicative of just this lot that are in at the moment. 

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

What frustrates me is the lack of joined-up thinking in Government.

 

With one hand, the Govt are saying that they want to close the Gender pay gap, but with the other they’re reducing the childcare services that would help working mothers...

Yep.

Every government of every stripe in my lifetime has done this to some extent but the current mob are just inept. 

How hard can it be to recognise the Inter departmental links such as parental support - educational attainment - reduced welfare - increased skills - high tech economy - growth.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

14 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Yep.

Every government of every stripe in my lifetime has done this to some extent but the current mob are just inept. 

How hard can it be to recognise the Inter departmental links such as parental support - educational attainment - reduced welfare - increased skills - high tech economy - growth.

It hard to disagree with the sentiment here.

 

This lot are inept as are most local authorities administering the funding. There is a whole range of incompetence across the board. For example today I see a local council engaging in what appears to be a mass program of spraying weed killer around the city. Surely there are bigger problems to solve than a few weeds. 

 

The unfortunate thing is that a Labour government at least in its current form is certainly not going to make us a high growth, high employment, high tech economy.