Not The Politics Thread.

[Carl the Llama]

13 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I was more using your comment as a reference than replying directly. It’s really more of a pommel horse.

Which is why you felt obliged to claim it's other people's negative observations of Tory behaviour that's causing you to vote Tory.  Fickle and somewhat illogical...

[Strokes]

I can’t believe your biting @Dunge, even my Wumming is less blatant.

[Dunge]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Which is why you felt obliged to claim it's other people's negative observations of Tory behaviour that's causing you to vote Tory.  Fickle and somewhat illogical...

Again, not specifically your comment I had in mind when I wrote that part. But since you mention it, it’s not “negative” observations per se, but when I see observations that I deem incorrect, unfair or plain rude. When that happens, it’s not a case of pulling me back toward blue but instead pushing me away from red, feeling that such things aren’t attractive traits of the change being advocated or demanded. It’s precisely why Geoff’s taking the p out of the infamous “kinder, gentler politics” lie. You may call it fickle, but to me it’s important.

 

Boris’s lies can push me away from blue just the same.

[Dunge]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I can’t believe your biting @Dunge, even my Wumming is less blatant.

I thought I was having a nice chat with someone who wants to destroy me. 

[Claridge]

11 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Voting tory implies you're pro a lot of rather unsavoury things:  Starving school kids, NI tax hikes in lieu of increasing the tax rates for our highest earners, deregulation, letting the bodies pile high, and so on... 

yawn

[What the Fuchs?]

On 26/09/2021 at 12:26, Strokes said:

Rhetoric or not, I’m not going to vote for something that implies I’m pro something that I’m fundamentally against. 

 

13 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Voting tory implies you're pro a lot of rather unsavoury things:  Starving school kids, NI tax hikes in lieu of increasing the tax rates for our highest earners, deregulation, letting the bodies pile high, and so on... 

What Carl is pointing out in a tongue in cheek way (which people have read too much into), is  the irony that Strokes is claiming not to want to vote for a party because it implies he is “pro something that I’m fundamentally against”, when by this logic voting Tory makes him implicitly pro some things I would like to think he is fundamentally against.

Like the government’s sketchy climate record; tolerance of bigots and climate change deniers such as Christopher Chope on parliamentary committees; less than impressive commitment to animal welfare and hunting laws, with supposedly illegal fox hunts tacitly and practically supported by that man of the people Jacob Rees-Mogg; rampant corruption and backroom deals with Tory donors, and the normalisation of it through the likes of one of the worst offenders Robert Jenrick; similar lowering of public standards with lying and abuse of public money openly tolerated by the government because the prime minister is one of the worst culprits; anti democratic measures pushed by the government such as a bill to make UK soldiers exempt from human rights abuses prosecutions, erosion of the Freedom of Information Act, the ability of the public to challenge the government in court, the dystopian new police bill and the removal of proportional voting systems in favour of the undemocratic FPTP among many other bills; and finally the sheer incompetence and desire to avoid scrutiny we have seen from the government over the past 2 years.

 

I could write a lot more and probably will at some point, but I’m just trying to make clear what Carl was getting at - maybe some on here are fine with corruption, incompetence and a government on a mission to erode the ability of the public to hold them to account in the media, by protesting, or in the polls, and maybe some on here would defend the government’s desire to put Michael Gove in charge of the independent electoral commission, so the government is fully in charge of the process it uses to seek re-election. I’m sure that’s totally normal and they wouldn’t see any problem with it if a Labour government had done such a thing.

So while Strokes is perfectly correct to have the principle that he would not vote for a party which stands for something he fundamentally disagrees with, I hope he and others on here would think it fair to apply that when they consider voting for the Tories as well. Some may agree with everything they do, some - I would guess most - either are not aware of the full scope of the questionable actions they support or have stood for historically, or maybe do not care - but ask yourself if your principles chime with a Tory party that not long ago voted against a bill to ensure that all rented accommodation in this country is ‘fit for human habitation’. The fact that this party contains more millionaires and landlords than any other epitomises that in many respects, their target market of those the party is intended to benefit mostly do not reside on football forums.

Edited 27 September 2021 by What the Fuchs?

[Dunge]

17 minutes ago, What the Fuchs? said:

 

What Carl is pointing out in a tongue in cheek way (which people have read too much into), is  the irony that Strokes is claiming not to want to vote for a party because it implies he is “pro something that I’m fundamentally against”, when by this logic voting Tory makes him implicitly pro some things I would like to think he is fundamentally against.

Like the government’s sketchy climate record; tolerance of bigots and climate change deniers such as Christopher Chope on parliamentary committees; less than impressive commitment to animal welfare and hunting laws, with supposedly illegal fox hunts tacitly and practically supported by that man of the people Jacob Rees-Mogg; rampant corruption and backroom deals with Tory donors, and the normalisation of it through the likes of one of the worst offenders Robert Jenrick; similar lowering of public standards with lying and abuse of public money openly tolerated by the government because the prime minister is one of the worst culprits; anti democratic measures pushed by the government such as a bill to make UK soldiers exempt from human rights abuses prosecutions, erosion of the Freedom of Information Act, the ability of the public to challenge the government in court, the dystopian new police bill and the removal of proportional voting systems in favour of the undemocratic FPTP among many other bills; and finally the sheer incompetence and desire to avoid scrutiny we have seen from the government over the past 2 years.

 

I could write a lot more and probably will at some point, but I’m just trying to make clear what Carl was getting at - maybe some on here are fine with corruption, incompetence and a government on a mission to erode the ability of the public to hold them to account in the media, by protesting, or in the polls, and maybe some on here would defend the government’s desire to put Michael Gove in charge of the independent electoral commission, so the government is fully in charge of the process it uses to seek re-election. I’m sure that’s totally normal and they wouldn’t see any problem with it if a Labour government had done such a thing.

So while Strokes is perfectly correct to have the principle that he would not vote for a party which stands for something he fundamentally disagrees with, I hope he and others on here would think it fair to apply that when they consider voting for the Tories as well. Some may agree with everything they do, some - I would guess most - either are not aware of the full scope of the questionable actions they support or have stood for historically, or maybe do not care - but ask yourself if your principles chime with a Tory party that not long ago voted against a bill to ensure that all rented accommodation in this country is ‘fit for human habitation’. The fact that this party contains more millionaires and landlords than any other epitomises that in many respects, their target market of those the party is intended to benefit mostly do not reside on football forums.

Principles can be an interesting thing. For instance, I’m not sure of their current policy on the matter, but say the Lib Dems had a policy of rejoining the EU - that would mean on principle that I couldn’t vote for them. But then say their only opposition was Tommy Robinson; then you could be sure as hell that I would go out and vote for them.

 

A spurious example maybe, but an attempt to illustrate the point that it’s all relative. It’s not a dichotomy between “love it” and “hate it”. I don’t want to go into every point you make above because we’d probably end up here all day , but your key question in the last paragraph of whether, as a Tory-vote-considerer, I’d either agree with everything, not know or not care, I’d like to try to qualify that: There are undoubtedly things I don’t know, that goes for all of us. There are things on which I’d agree, although I’ve never entirely agreed with any political party in my life, it’s a balance and a judgement call between that and the issues on which you don’t agree. I’d also have a different interpretation of some points as compared to others. Do I not care about certain issues? I think it would be more accurate to say that I don’t care enough, at least compared to other issues - which goes back to my first point that it’s all relative.

 

I think Carl has a point when he says “you say you wouldn’t vote for that party in principle, we’ll what about this other party and these things?” (although don’t tell him that ). But as I say, principles come in a scale, and while there are things in every party that I don’t like, I don’t see anything relatively absolute (new phrase) in either Labour or Conservative right now that turns me off them completely.

[RoboFox]

Even whilst the country eats itself, and Brexit was, is, and always be a failure of the most mind-boggling magnitude, I find it really hard to understand the lengths to which Brexit folk will try to cling to the hill on which they will die. 

 

You see very few relenting. It's still so fvcking depressingly tribal. 

[Carl the Llama]

3 hours ago, Dunge said:

I thought I was having a nice chat with someone who wants to destroy me. 

I don't want to destroy you, just bring you to the light side of the force.

[BlueSi13]

I see Brexit Chaos has hit the USA.  WHEN WILL WE STOP THIS MADNESS!!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!:

 

States, cities grapple with critical school bus driver shortage

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/573288-states-cities-grapple-with-critical-school-bus-driver-shortage

[Dunge]

4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I don't want to destroy you, just bring you to the light side of the force.

I’m too far gone, my son. I’ve voted for the empire too many times.

[bovril]

24 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

I see Brexit Chaos has hit the USA.  WHEN WILL WE STOP THIS MADNESS!!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!:

 

States, cities grapple with critical school bus driver shortage

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/573288-states-cities-grapple-with-critical-school-bus-driver-shortage

If our shortages have nothing to do with Brexit how come the government want to relax visa rules?

[BlueSi13]

42 minutes ago, bovril said:

If our shortages have nothing to do with Brexit how come the government want to relax visa rules?

Because now we can decide, based on what skills we need, who we allow in to this country and why.  The benefits of Brexit 

 

On the flip-side, if the shortages are due to Brexit, why on earth does mainland Europe also have a shortage of approximately 400,000 drivers?

 

Look I'm sure there is churn in the national labour market (despite 6 MILLION EU nationals applying for settled status in the UK ) , but for some to blame Brexit whilst the global supply chain is approaching meltdown is rather lazy IMO.

 

This very issue has brewing for at least a decade, my father was a HGV driver for most of his life and constantly warned about the lack of youngsters entering the profession.  It's all coming home to roost now on a global scale.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

I don't want to destroy you, just bring you to the light side of the force.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

2 hours ago, RoboFox said:

Even whilst the country eats itself, and Brexit was, is, and always be a failure of the most mind-boggling magnitude, I find it really hard to understand the lengths to which Brexit folk will try to cling to the hill on which they will die. 

You see very few relenting. It's still so fvcking depressingly tribal. 

Not sure Brexit is always going to be a "mind boggling failure" - I say that as someone who voted remain - and tbh you're proving your own point about people being tribal by, errrr, being tribal yourself here.

The remoaning, FBPE, democracy-deniers etc (not saying you are any of these) blame everything on Brexit because it suits their narrative.

The loons on both sides are as bad as each other.

[David Guiza]

33 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Because now we can decide, based on what skills we need, who we allow in to this country and why.  The benefits of Brexit 

 

On the flip-side, if the shortages are due to Brexit, why on earth does mainland Europe also have a shortage of approximately 400,000 drivers?

 

Look I'm sure there is churn in the national labour market (despite 6 MILLION EU nationals applying for settled status in the UK ) , but for some to blame Brexit whilst the global supply chain is approaching meltdown is rather lazy IMO.

 

This very issue has brewing for at least a decade, my father was a HGV driver for most of his life and constantly warned about the lack of youngsters entering the profession.  It's all coming home to roost now on a global scale.

If only we'd had the same political party in charge for that period, surely they've had been made of such an issue and rectified it long before it got to this. 

 

 

[LVFox]

6 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

If only we'd had the same political party in charge for that period, surely they've had been made of such an issue and rectified it long before it got to this. 

 

 

This.

Blaming Brexit on this is like noticing you have a leaky tap in your house and then blaming the house when you come home to find it flooded.

It's an issue that's been likely to hit us for years, and Brexit may have not helped, but a competent government notices this and puts steps in place to ensure it doesn't reach crisis point.

 

This one offers shoddy 3 months visa's for people to fix the mess....as long as they promise to piss off by the time Santa has arrived.

[BlueSi13]

5 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

If only we'd had the same political party in charge for that period, surely they've had been made of such an issue and rectified it long before it got to this. 

 

 

100% actions should have been taken a long time ago to resolve this ticking time-bomb.

 

But I recommend reading reports from Germany, the US, Scandinavia, France, Italy etc who are suffering similar shortages as to why this is happening.  It's a very similar story wherever you look.  An ageing workforce with low pay and poor working conditions putting off youngsters entering the trade.  Mix with that with chaos in the global supply chain and it's a bit of a nightmare.

 

However looking at what haulage companies are beginning to offer applicants now that might be changing at a rate of knots which is a positive development 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

 

And we thought replacing Keir Vaz in Leicester East would improve things...

[bovril]

31 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Not sure Brexit is always going to be a "mind boggling failure" - I say that as someone who voted remain - and tbh you're proving your own point about people being tribal by, errrr, being tribal yourself here.

The remoaning, FBPE, democracy-deniers etc (not saying you are any of these) blame everything on Brexit because it suits their narrative.

The loons on both sides are as bad as each other.

This post is a rollercoaster

[urban.spaceman]

15 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

 

And we thought replacing Keir Vaz in Leicester East would improve things...

If she's convicted she might be sent to Beroos

[Bellend Sebastian]

26 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

 

And we thought replacing Keir Vaz in Leicester East would improve things...

It's quite impressive that they've managed to bring someone in that's brought all THAT into the mix. 

 

File under 'exactly what they didn't want to happen'.

 

Sounds like poor old Claudia's lost it, doesn't it?

[UpTheLeagueFox]

4 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

It's quite impressive that they've managed to bring someone in that's brought all THAT into the mix. 

File under 'exactly what they didn't want to happen'.

Sounds like poor old Claudia's lost it, doesn't it?

Innocent until proven guilty of course. She denies the charges.

[LVFox]

Starting to be convinced they picked someone so bad that people wouldn’t mind when Vaz worms his way back in

[Charl91]

1 hour ago, BlueSi13 said:

 

 

On the flip-side, if the shortages are due to Brexit, why on earth does mainland Europe also have a shortage of approximately 400,000 drivers?

 

Yet we're estimated to have a shortage of 100,000 drivers. As a percentage, that's much bigger than the shortage in Europe. Which is weird, because we're also theoretically able to offer better wages than a good amount of europe too (though less so since we successfully devalued our own currency.

 

I wonder what event could possibly have occurred to make us have proportionally the highest shortage of drivers? Hmmm...