The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[Sampson]

I’ve seen quite a few of the potential leaders from the Tory party in this election talking about fighting the “zero sum game of identity politics and cancel culture” and I have absolutely no clue what this new slogan is supposed to mean.

 

I mean I know what a zero sum  game is and I know what identity politics or cancel culture is supposed to mean, but I have no clue as to how they fit together or why they think identity politics or cancel culture represent a zero sum game. As there seems to be no explanation of it.

 

It’s a bit of a weird slogan too as I imagine the “zero sum game” part is quite a niche reference.

Edited 25 July 2022 by Sampson

[Corky]

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

I’ve seen quite a few of the potential leaders from the Tory party in this election talking about fighting the “zero sum game of identity politics and cancel culture” and I have absolutely no clue what this new slogan is supposed to mean.

 

I mean I know what a zero sum  game is and I know what identity politics or cancel culture is supposed to mean, but I have no clue as to how they fit together or why they think identity politics or cancel culture represent a zero sum game.

 

It’s a bit of a weird slogan too as I imagine the “zero sum game” part is quite a niche reference.

They exist in buzzwords and slogans. No substance whatsoever.

[CosbehFox]

The reality is the nation is ****ing bored of politics being the main topic of British life. All this shit about culture wars is wearing thing. No ****er is bothered about that. Everyone is bothered about the energy change in October and everyone involved with the Tory party is going around with fingers in their ears going la la la. I’d say exactly the same if it was Labour in party. For example, I don’t think I’ve ever seen quite as much public support for striking action as we do now - because average Joe is sympathising that a fellow person can’t make it work from their wage. 
 

In same way, Cummings knew at Brexit and the last election that Labour lives in an Islington bubble. The Tories are firmly in their bubble right now and their strategy appears way, way, way off (although Starmer’s is on the same island). 

Edited 25 July 2022 by Cardiff_Fox

[ian__marshall]

30 minutes ago, FLAN said:

Diane’s sister?

 Shows you how much attention I paid her when I referred to someone else I know of a similar name 😂. On a serious note though, how can you expect people to believe you're a credible candidate when you have no grasp of the numbers or facts?!? You might get away with it in any other walk of life but not when you're campaigning to be the leader of a nation. Completely inexcusable. 

Edited 25 July 2022 by ian__marshall

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

 

[gerblod]

6 minutes ago, PAULCFC said:

Didn't see the political guy on BBC news tonight?

Chris Evans was almost as animated as John Snow used to be on election night about this debate. Yet this contest is an enormous triviality in our lives. Having read a science-based article on climate change and its certain effect on this country, it's going to take more than either of these two nondescripts to change the cataclysmic future in store for the next generations.

While they're arguing the toss over which aspect of capitalism to promote, it's now undeniably apparent that consumption, growth and profit is the key factor which is driving global warming. The Tories are so fixated by capitalist economics that they are redundant - if climate change is to be addressed. Electing Labour will achieve nothing better. This country, Europe, India and China and, especially, North America have to stop pollution generated through the use of fossil fuels. 

Essentially it means a huge change in how we live. I'm not sure people will do that of their own volition and decision. Certainly it requires a reevaluation of what's really important to humanity - a healthy global environment. The scope of that far exceeds just the human environment. 

A global government devoted to implementing these changes is necessary. The Trumps, Bolsonaros, Putins, Modis and Xis are clearly unsuitable to be in charge any longer. They are climate change deniers who took office to preserve the status quo.

If we insist on retaining our vastly damaging lifestyles then we condemn the following generations to the kind of deprivations suffered by those in sub-Saharan Africa at this moment. 

Truss and Sunak aren't looking farther than getting elected to a job which, on a planetary scale, is meaningless. If we voted in the Green Party next time round, it might be a start. From what I've seen over many years from Tories and Labour is governments more worried about staying in power than really making a difference to the way we perceive our individual roles in the turning of the world. 

 

[urban.spaceman]

Self awareness has never been her strong point.

[Jon the Hat]

50 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Self awareness has never been her strong point.

Nor remembering what she said previously.  

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Didn't even think to throw in their contributions to climate change, typical boomer ignorance eh @leicsmac

 

You're forgiven Finn...

 

.....this time.

 

1 hour ago, gerblod said:

Chris Evans was almost as animated as John Snow used to be on election night about this debate. Yet this contest is an enormous triviality in our lives. Having read a science-based article on climate change and its certain effect on this country, it's going to take more than either of these two nondescripts to change the cataclysmic future in store for the next generations.

While they're arguing the toss over which aspect of capitalism to promote, it's now undeniably apparent that consumption, growth and profit is the key factor which is driving global warming. The Tories are so fixated by capitalist economics that they are redundant - if climate change is to be addressed. Electing Labour will achieve nothing better. This country, Europe, India and China and, especially, North America have to stop pollution generated through the use of fossil fuels. 

Essentially it means a huge change in how we live. I'm not sure people will do that of their own volition and decision. Certainly it requires a reevaluation of what's really important to humanity - a healthy global environment. The scope of that far exceeds just the human environment. 

A global government devoted to implementing these changes is necessary. The Trumps, Bolsonaros, Putins, Modis and Xis are clearly unsuitable to be in charge any longer. They are climate change deniers who took office to preserve the status quo.

If we insist on retaining our vastly damaging lifestyles then we condemn the following generations to the kind of deprivations suffered by those in sub-Saharan Africa at this moment. 

Truss and Sunak aren't looking farther than getting elected to a job which, on a planetary scale, is meaningless. If we voted in the Green Party next time round, it might be a start. From what I've seen over many years from Tories and Labour is governments more worried about staying in power than really making a difference to the way we perceive our individual roles in the turning of the world. 

 

Nah, that's not it man.

 

Apparently what's happening now is "human nature" and therefore can't be changed, and seeing as the big players like the USA and China "aren't doing anything" then the UK shouldn't either and we should just let the future be what it's going to be.

 

......

 

..........right?

[st albans fox]

The tories continue to spout that the electorate voted for their manifesto in 2019

 

but most of those who in effect gave them their 80 seat majority did so for two reasons 

a) brexit

b) corbyn

 

the rest of their manifesto didn’t even register with these people. 
 

the Tory voter would support their manifesto whatever it said (same with Labour) 

 

the swing voters (and I accept that there were a big number of Labour voters who ticked the blue box) who delivered that whopping victory did so for those two things and they’re both irrelevant now. 

 

 

[Vacamion]

46 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The tories continue to spout that the electorate voted for their manifesto in 2019

 

but most of those who in effect gave them their 80 seat majority did so for two reasons 

a) brexit

b) corbyn

 

the rest of their manifesto didn’t even register with these people. 
 

the Tory voter would support their manifesto whatever it said (same with Labour) 

 

the swing voters (and I accept that there were a big number of Labour voters who ticked the blue box) who delivered that whopping victory did so for those two things and they’re both irrelevant now. 

 

 

 

I agree that the talk of a large voter mandate for the manifesto does not apply to the vast, vast majority of Tory voters, who hadn't thought about Rwanda or Freeports and, as you say, were mostly thinking about stopping Corbyn and Brexit.

 

However, some of the votes about Brexit were not because people liked Brexit or had reflected deeply about sovereignty, trade tariffs or regulatory alignment. 

 

It was because they were utterly sick of our politics being obsessed with Brexit and they just wanted it to end.

 

Therefore the "oven ready deal" and "get Brexit done" stuff really struck a chord, even though it was just as much of a lie as that promise on the side of the bus.

 

 

Edited 26 July 2022 by Vacamion

[Bellend Sebastian]

If you were one of the architects of Brexit, would you have any concern that it's generally perceived now as going quite badly and what that might mean in the future?

 

If my Brexit loving family and the newspapers they read is anything to go by, Brexit stopped being a practical exercise with any actual tangible advantages ages ago. For quite a while now it's been a much looser concept, a set of values, even just a feeling, albeit one that's still held very close to their hearts and the suggestion of it being watered down or taken away from them still profoundly upsetting.

 

I do find it vaguely surprising how little effort the right wing press seems to be putting into talking Brexit up these days.  Is it mission accomplished? A difficult sell? Audience grown weary?

 

If you're Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage or whoever, do you worry how long this will last, or does it not even matter any more? I suppose that depends on what was in it for them, and without knowing that it's harder to answer. Have they got what they wanted, does it even matter to them anymore?

[CosbehFox]

6 hours ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

If you were one of the architects of Brexit, would you have any concern that it's generally perceived now as going quite badly and what that might mean in the future?

 

If my Brexit loving family and the newspapers they read is anything to go by, Brexit stopped being a practical exercise with any actual tangible advantages ages ago. For quite a while now it's been a much looser concept, a set of values, even just a feeling, albeit one that's still held very close to their hearts and the suggestion of it being watered down or taken away from them still profoundly upsetting.

 

I do find it vaguely surprising how little effort the right wing press seems to be putting into talking Brexit up these days.  Is it mission accomplished? A difficult sell? Audience grown weary?

 

If you're Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage or whoever, do you worry how long this will last, or does it not even matter any more? I suppose that depends on what was in it for them, and without knowing that it's harder to answer. Have they got what they wanted, does it even matter to them anymore?

The likes of them pair wanted it for two reasons. They’d gambled a considerable amount of money on the markets. Then to strip away competition law to allow them and their mates businesses a free reign. 
 

Depends also if you believe in Banks relations with Russians. Putin’s quiet war at the moment is destabilising European democracies into popular movements to create chaos. The eye goes off on the Russians to domestic problems. 
 

In the context of politics, Vac is right. It was a popularity movement rather than an outright campaign targeting the woes of the EU. Didn’t take long into the negotiation process for that to appear. The right wing press pre set position is anger rather than celebration. So don’t expect them to talk it up. 

 

I happen to think the UK is weary of chat now. Weary that another headline is that of another story fcuk up. Not quite sure how that translates into elections and votes cos Labour and Starmer are hardly ahead of the game. Always find politics and elections are not defined by what affects the average Joe but the comfortable, well paid middle class and I get the impression they are going to feel the pinch over the coming months.

 

Anyway I’ve gone into a tangible waffle. So there. 

Edited 26 July 2022 by Cardiff_Fox

[gerblod]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Apparently what's happening now is "human nature" and therefore can't be changed, and seeing as the big players like the USA and China "aren't doing anything" then the UK shouldn't either and we should just let the future be what it's going to be.

 

......

 

..........right?

But "human nature" is as variable (within certain parameters) as the gap between psychopath and saint. Or the difference in psychologies of women and men. 

So human nature isn't fixed and can act in a considered manner - if it's given the freedom to do so and, importantly, is given the information to allow an informed choice. We're at a point where responsible political systems have yet to hold sway over the autocratic model. Putin has shaken us out of our comfort zone by reminding us there are still a number of medievalists at large. People are turned off politics because of the nature of politicians - had they the feeling that their vote did have an effect then there might be the beginnings of change.

[fox_up_north]

I see MPs have made a recommendation to try and sort energy costs before October. This is why I'd prefer Rishi in power because at least I'd have some vague belief he'd do something about it. 

 

What can genuinely be done by then, though? 

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, gerblod said:

But "human nature" is as variable (within certain parameters) as the gap between psychopath and saint. Or the difference in psychologies of women and men. 

So human nature isn't fixed and can act in a considered manner - if it's given the freedom to do so and, importantly, is given the information to allow an informed choice. We're at a point where responsible political systems have yet to hold sway over the autocratic model. Putin has shaken us out of our comfort zone by reminding us there are still a number of medievalists at large. People are turned off politics because of the nature of politicians - had they the feeling that their vote did have an effect then there might be the beginnings of change.

.... evidently my sarcasm went below the radar  on this one. Apologies for that.

[BenTheFox]

18 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Liz will be apoplectic that JRM isnt using british champagne .......

that tweet makes no sense - 'nadine dorries THINKS' ...........

I don't know if this the joke that you were making, but I'm going to be 'that guy'. English Champagne doesn't exist. In order for it to be called Champagne, it must come from the champagne region. Otherwise it's just sparkling wine. 

[StanSP]

 

[The Horse's Mouth]

[urban.spaceman]

Zero self awareness again

 

 

 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, BenTheFox said:

I don't know if this the joke that you were making, but I'm going to be 'that guy'. English Champagne doesn't exist. In order for it to be called Champagne, it must come from the champagne region. Otherwise it's just sparkling wine. 

It was the joke …..

[urban.spaceman]

7 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

For a group of activists whining for the last few years about Labour sabotaging itself under Corbyn it amazes me that they don't realise that's exactly what they're doing now especially when Starmer has a better lead in the polls than Corbyn ever had. Once again they'd much prefer to be "right" than to be effective.

 

Oh, and also:

 

[Nalis]

16 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Zero self awareness again

 

 

 

Crazy isnt it? I'm interested to know who exactly Owen thinks we should vote for in the next GE to stop the Tories from winning. A left leaning Corbyn got beat twice.

 

Just very confused by what Owen Jones is trying to achieve here.

[taupe]

8 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Just very confused by what Owen Jones is trying to achieve here.

I don't rate Jones as a journalist at all. His brand of socialism seems rooted in the past to me, there's no concession to where we are today. He's full of idealistic vision with zero idea about how to practically get there. He'd sink the boat and only then think about plotting a course.

 

John Harris, on the other hand, is aware of the lay of the land. He's way more in touch with Jones will ever be. 

[Foxdiamond]

8 minutes ago, taupe said:

I don't rate Jones as a journalist at all. His brand of socialism seems rooted in the past to me, there's no concession to where we are today. He's full of idealistic vision with zero idea about how to practically get there. He'd sink the boat and only then think about plotting a course.

 

John Harris, on the other hand, is aware of the lay of the land. He's way more in touch with Jones will ever be. 

Agreed. Rather like injuring your main striker in a training session cos he nutmeged you. Really think some people like to be in permanent opposition rather than take power.