The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[Daggers]

 

 

[Scotch]

8 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I think there’s another subtle factor at play though. One of the “dangers” for me of voting Labour in the past was a Labour/SNP coalition. While I begrudgingly admire Nicola Sturgeon as a politician - she’s an effective communicator and leader for her party/cause - I rarely like their policies, and particularly those that they state as red lines going into a negotiation. I have been of the belief in the past that Labour leaders of the time (Miliband and Corbyn) would have caved to her demands to get a working majority. I’m not sure about Starmer, but I’m hopeful he won’t find himself in that situation.

 

But that, to me, is a less obvious way that the SNP - and specifically the strength of the SNP - can cost Labour votes. Because we know for sure that the Conservatives wouldn’t make a deal with them.

See, that kind of tickles me the wrong way though. Where I do understand where you are coming from, the SNP's demands would almost exclusively effect the people of Scotland. The better part of Scotland vote for the SNP because of the policies they promise to enforce and what you're essentially saying is that you would rather vote Tory than give them that.

 

Surely you can see why such an attitude by people we are supposedly in a union with would help drive Scots to wanting independence?

[Facecloth]

48 minutes ago, Scotch said:

I'm not sure I agree with your bit about the SNP vote costing Labour votes that would have made a difference. Going back to 2010, when the tories came in, even if every constituency in Scotland had been red, it still wouldn't be enough to keep the conservatives out of power. That argument would only helave been valid had Labour presented more of a challenge. 

 

On your second point. I think that is the argument that is being made. Scotland make up a small part of the UK so their votes reflect that but with such a dramatic difference in the way of thinking between scotlands general population and the rest of the UK, the current Union doesn't work for us. We are not saying that we should have more of a voice in picking the leader of the UK, we are saying that we should have more of a voice in picking who rules Scotland and the only fair way to do that is leaving. I don't think it's wild to suggest that whoever rules the country should represent the voice of that countries people and that's clearly not happening as is evident from the Tories repeated victories or even the result of the Brexit ref. 

As I said I don't disagree with the idea that Scotland wants to be ruled by someone Scotland votes for, that's fine, and I totally understand that, it was more the assertion she made that its been 50 years since it influenced who ended up in charge at Westminster. When you make up 10%, you shouldn't expect any influence at all. How far do you drill down? There's places that have voted Labour for 100 years who have had Tory governments for the majority of those years. Brighton has voted Green for a few elections and obviously never gets a representative government.

 

So I get it might want independence and I get it might want to rule itself and elect its own leader, I don't get why she thinks it should have such a large influence over who governs the whole of the UK.

[StanSP]

29 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Paraphrasing S. Lee esq.: "It wasn't just ***** who voted for poverty, thick twats did too."

 

 

Astonishing. 

 

So many people blinded by lies and 'immigration' factors. 

[Dunge]

Just now, Scotch said:

See, that kind of tickles me the wrong way though. Where I do understand where you are coming from, the SNP's demands would almost exclusively effect the people of Scotland. The better part of Scotland vote for the SNP because of the policies they promise to enforce and what you're essentially saying is that you would rather vote Tory than give them that.

 

Surely you can see why such an attitude by people we are supposedly in a union with would help drive Scots to wanting independence?

Depends which side of the line you are. I take the view that it was regrettable but entirely fair to have the indyref vote; I wanted a Stay but if it came back Leave then that’s what democracy says; but then that you can’t just keep having more votes until you get the answer you want, and it has to be a generational thing. I say that Brexit or no Brexit is irrelevant, it’s about respecting what the indyref vote truly represented, which was going forward together regardless, something that the SNP actively work against. I don’t see their claims of demanding a democratic vote as being democratic at all, because they’re willingly ignoring the result of a democratic vote that they already had.

 

I don’t expect you to agree, particularly from your side of the line - ie that you want a vote and would vote to leave. I appreciate that would build on resentment toward Westminster that already exists. But also we both know that’s not the only view within Scotland.

[Scotch]

3 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

As I said I don't disagree with the idea that Scotland wants to be ruled by someone Scotland votes for, that's fine, and I totally understand that, it was more the assertion she made that its been 50 years since it influenced who ended up in charge at Westminster. When you make up 10%, you shouldn't expect any influence at all. How far do you drill down? There's places that have voted Labour for 100 years who have had Tory governments for the majority of those years. Brighton has voted Green for a few elections and obviously never gets a representative government.

 

So I get it might want independence and I get it might want to rule itself and elect its own leader, I don't get why she thinks it should have such a large influence over who governs the whole of the UK.

Again, I don't think her point was "we should have more of a say in the UK GE's" but rather highlighting the fact that we should have a say in who rules us and the only way to do it would be to get independence.

[Daggers]

The government seems paralysed by stupid.

 

[Scotch]

6 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Depends which side of the line you are. I take the view that it was regrettable but entirely fair to have the indyref vote; I wanted a Stay but if it came back Leave then that’s what democracy says; but then that you can’t just keep having more votes until you get the answer you want, and it has to be a generational thing. I say that Brexit or no Brexit is irrelevant, it’s about respecting what the indyref vote truly represented, which was going forward together regardless, something that the SNP actively work against. I don’t see their claims of demanding a democratic vote as being democratic at all, because they’re willingly ignoring the result of a democratic vote that they already had.

 

I don’t expect you to agree, particularly from your side of the line - ie that you want a vote and would vote to leave. I appreciate that would build on resentment toward Westminster that already exists. But also we both know that’s not the only view within Scotland.

No, I do agree with your sentiments in that democracy SHOULD be respected however, where the SNP get a mandate for another is that it was always said in the lead up to the referendum that unless the political landscape changed significantly then the results would be respected. Brexit represents a massive change in the political landscape and when you factor in that one of the major selling points pushed to remain in the UK, was our EU place, it becomes quite relevant. 

 

I personally, although believe in independence don't think the time is right. We should wait another decade as I don't believe the result will go our way. I don't think there has been a big enough swing in public perception of it. If anything I believe appetites have soured even more for independence due to the cluster fvck of Brexit, with people fearing a repeat and how the SNP have handled some major issues recently. Personally if I were the Tories, I would allow another ref because I don't believe we will win it and it would effectively end the matter and kill off the SNP. 

[Dahnsouff]

17 minutes ago, Scotch said:

No, I do agree with your sentiments in that democracy SHOULD be respected however, where the SNP get a mandate for another is that it was always said in the lead up to the referendum that unless the political landscape changed significantly then the results would be respected. Brexit represents a massive change in the political landscape and when you factor in that one of the major selling points pushed to remain in the UK, was our EU place, it becomes quite relevant. 

 

I personally, although believe in independence don't think the time is right. We should wait another decade as I don't believe the result will go our way. I don't think there has been a big enough swing in public perception of it. If anything I believe appetites have soured even more for independence due to the cluster fvck of Brexit, with people fearing a repeat and how the SNP have handled some major issues recently. Personally if I were the Tories, I would allow another ref because I don't believe we will win it and it would effectively end the matter and kill off the SNP. 

…said David Cameron (the spineless self serving @&#%) 

[ozleicester]

20 hours ago, Daggers said:

 

You're either a pragmatist about how best to win the next election or you aren't, I guess.

sadly pragmatism is what the Labor party in Australia used and now find themselves in power but about to approve tax cuts for the rich because they pragmatically said they wouldn't change the conservatives plans.

Effectively....  #ToryLite

Gotta have some ethics and stand for something!

[Fazzer 7]

A labour SNP coalition. The stuff of nightmares for any right leaning person. Labour think they have all the answers, they haven’t. We along with everyone else are suffering because of major global events causing unprecedented global debt. Let’s just hope the Chinese don’t wade into Taiwan otherwise things will get a whole lot worse. 

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

sadly pragmatism is what the Labor party in Australia used and now find themselves in power but about to approve tax cuts for the rich because they pragmatically said they wouldn't change the conservatives plans.

Effectively....  #ToryLite

Gotta have some ethics and stand for something!

Enable individuals to own and take part in the challenges facing the society in which they live, said in another thread, offer free school meals for all, offer energy subsidies, but allow people to opt out.

 

We should not need to be told that this is an ethical position that may benefit others 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

A labour SNP coalition. The stuff of nightmares for any right leaning person. Labour think they have all the answers, they haven’t. We along with everyone else are suffering because of major global events causing unprecedented global debt. Let’s just hope the Chinese don’t wade into Taiwan otherwise things will get a whole lot worse. 

.... or maybe we can and should expect more from the UK and global governments in terms of decent governance and hold them accountable for it rather than letting them off the hook, because when it comes to potential major global events frankly we haven't seen anything yet and perhaps a better standard of leadership could well be required. 

[Voll Blau]

23 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

A labour SNP coalition. The stuff of nightmares for any right leaning person. Labour think they have all the answers, they haven’t. We along with everyone else are suffering because of major global events causing unprecedented global debt. Let’s just hope the Chinese don’t wade into Taiwan otherwise things will get a whole lot worse. 

Already been ruled out and would be electoral suicide for Labour even if they did consider it. Have another go.

Edited 12 October 2022 by Voll Blau

[LVFox]

So no public spending cuts according to Liz, which leaves a u-turn on tax cuts or sending the country into oblivion.

 

Lord help us 

[Dahnsouff]

23 minutes ago, LVocey said:

So no public spending cuts according to Liz, which leaves a u-turn on tax cuts or sending the country into oblivion.

 

Lord help us 

Not sure, the Government has been given carte blanche to tax the excess profits of the oil/gas sector, so would not be surprised to see that, which is what? £170bn or some obscene amount, apologies to @ozleicester if you were referring to excess profits during recent ‘exchanges’. 

[fox_up_north]

59 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

A labour SNP coalition. The stuff of nightmares for any right leaning person. Labour think they have all the answers, they haven’t. We along with everyone else are suffering because of major global events causing unprecedented global debt. Let’s just hope the Chinese don’t wade into Taiwan otherwise things will get a whole lot worse. 

Well, as I am very right wing, I fully agree with you. I think that a Labour government, with policies like a British-run green energy company and nationalising parts of the railways, would be much worse than the current lot, who are really good at adapting to the public mood and changing their policies in response to how their initial policies and actions are perceived. I really like it when they do this and am pleased it happens regularly. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Well, as I am very right wing, I fully agree with you. I think that a Labour government, with policies like a British-run green energy company and nationalising parts of the railways, would be much worse than the current lot, who are really good at adapting to the public mood and changing their policies in response to how their initial policies and actions are perceived. I really like it when they do this and am pleased it happens regularly. 

Market forces haven't exactly been doing a great job of stabilising the global average temperature increase, have they?

 

Government intervention here might not be the worst idea.

[Dahnsouff]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Market forces haven't exactly been doing a great job of stabilising the global average temperature increase, have they?

 

Government intervention here might not be the worst idea.

Will it steam roller all the green startups in this sector or incorporate them in their planning, but I fear the former…genuinely have no idea

[st albans fox]

10 minutes ago, LVocey said:

So no public spending cuts according to Liz, which leaves a u-turn on tax cuts or sending the country into oblivion.

 

Lord help us 

She probably didnt understand the question

 

i'm totally confused.  she keeps saying that their energy plan was effectively the mini budget. claiming that the other parties had no plan. and yet she isn't being corrected.

a) other parties all mooted their plans long before and if truss/sunak announced that something would be done during the leadership hustings then we may have avoided  negative growth in august with the public reassured to some extent.

b) the cost of the energy subsidy is eye watering but not the reason for the markets going nuts. investors can understand the reasoning for having to borrow to fund this

its not ideal for them as they would prefer a small part of the cost being taken by windfall taxes but they understand. the energy subsidy was announced pre the queens passing. the markets didn't have a panic. it was all the other unfunded measures they announced with no OBR report. 

 

there is so much to beat them with and yet starmer and blackford are leaving the door open for her to repeat her stock answer every time they ask a question.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Will it steam roller all the green startups in this sector or incorporate them in their planning, but I fear the former…genuinely have no idea

I'm not sure either. You would think and hope, however, that the solutions those start-ups come up with would be applied by government too.

 

In any case, the point is that relying on a motivation that is entirely short-term self-interested (with the occasional bit of mutual self-interest mixed in) to solve a long-term problem that will involve everyone is a pretty obvious mistake. Unless it becomes such a big issue that everyone has to act in their self-interest pretty much immediately to stop it, by which point it would be almost certainly a lost cause anyway.

[leicsmac]

On the above:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63209451

 

"To meet climate goals, a third of cuts to UK emissions by 2035 must come from people changing their behaviour, it says.

It calls the government's current approach "seriously inadequate"."

 

"The committee was told the public are eager for action and that 85% of people are very concerned by climate change.

Public messaging campaigns have huge power to change behaviour, the report says, highlighting the huge uptake of recycling nationwide.

But it insists that fairness must be at the heart of change. The wealthiest 10% in Britain have a carbon footprint nearly double the national average, and greater responsibility to reduce their emissions, the committee was told.

It also warned that corporate interest may try to prevent behaviour change - pointing to tobacco companies that undermined anti-smoking campaigns - and the government must guard against this."

[Dahnsouff]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm not sure either. You would think and hope, however, that the solutions those start-ups come up with would be applied by government too.

 

In any case, the point is that relying on a motivation that is entirely short-term self-interested (with the occasional bit of mutual self-interest mixed in) to solve a long-term problem that will involve everyone is a pretty obvious mistake. Unless it becomes such a big issue that everyone has to act in their self-interest pretty much immediately to stop it, by which point it would be almost certainly a lost cause anyway.

Oh no doubt, the climate crisis is one that cannot be deferred. It does need government intervention, but let’s no pretend that self interest does not exist their too (Especially with the current lot)

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Oh no doubt, the climate crisis is one that cannot be deferred. It does need government intervention, but let’s no pretend that self interest does not exist their too (Especially with the current lot)

...and most of the time are only looking as far away as the next election, yeah.

 

What it needs is government, around the world, to have both the power and motive to lean on businesses where necessary (using either carrot or stick) to innovate the solutions that are required, and implement them in a timely fashion. Laissez-faire isn't going to cut it.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, leicsmac said:

...and most of the time are only looking as far away as the next election, yeah.

 

What it needs is government, around the world, to have both the power and motive to lean on businesses where necessary (using either carrot or stick) to innovate the solutions that are required, and implement them in a timely fashion. Laissez-faire isn't going to cut it.

A Director of Humanity if you will, who’s task it is to align the global population via localised pressure

 

Someone fetch me the  @Benguin as they might have an idea….