UK Politics & Brexit Discussion

[RandoEFC+]

@Fairy In Boots many good points made as usual, it would be better if we had more Conservative/Brexit posters on here as you'd get to see things from both sides a bit more.

It doesn't mean we'll ever agree. I think the solution is that there should be a very strong welfare state. For every scrounger or ever fatty that drains the NHS by not taking responsibility for their own health, I still believe you have more people with genuine issues. A former colleague of mine has had to retire as their partner is unable to work and basically needs them to act as a full-time carer. Both were hard-working and have kids to look after. They claim all the benefits they're entitled to when neither of them can work for health reasons, and they struggle badly. That shouldn't be the case. It goes back to a discussion that's died down in recent years which is better means-testing.

I would also fully support a huge regeneration of schools' outdoor facilities. In every school I've ever been in though the sporting facilities are plentiful. Kids generally go outside and run around at break and lunchtime as well. Less than they used to, because now especially when it gets cold they prefer to sit inside, on their phones bafflingly instead of talking to each other. If it was down to me, phones would be banned altogether in our school but I'm nowhere near important enough to make that decision. We as teachers see the health and social costs of this mobile phone addiction and I've no doubt that many of the kids who prefer to play games on their phone inside nowadays than go and play jumpers for posts football outside will go on to be unhealthy and potentially cost the NHS more money. All of this goes back to the parents though. I'm very conscious of these problems so when I have kids (at least I hope to) they'll be told to go and run around outside instead of ruining their eyes, brains and social skills staring at a screen every free second they have.

I digress anyway. I understand why you have less faith in people acting responsibly and doing the right thing and having the decency to contribute properly to the society around them unless they really, absolutely can't. I still think that with enough positive changes we can turn a lot of them around. Maybe I'm naive, time will tell.

[Stan]

I think there's just a lot of generalisations there to be honest and while I get its based on personal experience, that only counts for so much.

It's not just 'black kids stabbing each other'. 

Just because you get 2 black kids attacking you when you're younger doesn't mean that every black kid (with or without a father/father figure) ends up in jail or in a gang or committing crime.

I agree society and culture has to change - having said that, taking police off the streets does have a huge impact in how society can behave. The correlation is clear from where I've worked for the past 4-5 years. In the start of my job, we had a PCSO or 2 covering various districts and wards of the town. About 4 or 5 covering the town and being visible in the areas. More to the point, they would actually converse with the kids who would cause petty crimes and they would know the families and the history behind the kids being little shits. And when the cuts hit? There's one or two PCSOs covering the whole of the town. How is that even practical to manage? Their time is taken up by crime that happens all over and the impact of their work is lost. Obviously we want to eradicate gang culture (which comprises of white, blacks, Asians, not just one or the other). So I would disagree when you say 'no amount of Police will stop this'. I think more police on the streets, even in a PSCO role, would have a positive effect. Purely because it's worked before until the cuts came in and then when they did, there's less for a Police force to spend on that particular role. Even higher up the chain - there's just simply not enough PCs to manage large towns/cities. So as a result, I think it's quite obvious that crime rates increase and it's not just because of 'society'.

The culture in schools I agree should change and be directed towards making kids more active and promoting good exercise. To be honest, I don't work in a school and I haven't been back in one for years so I couldn't really say what kind of schemes or initiative there are currently in place to promote it but I think it's imperative for any government to influence in future the importance of getting kids active. Pushing the idea of physical activity and allowing a certain time in the school day for it is just important as being academically sound, too.

Mental illness is a sensitive subject - it's too easy to say 'physical activity makes you feel better' and clears your mind. Especially when you look at the amount of athletes/sportsmen/sportswomen that are literally physical every single day of their career and still suffer depression/anxiety etc. Of course there's different pressures in various walks of life but mental illness can't be treated so easily as just being a physically active person.  There definitely must be more investment in support services for mental illness. I'm not talking about those who feel a bit shit one day. I'm talking severe cases where there's mental breakdowns and genuine mental concern. I have one friend who suffered a breakdown and had to wait 99 days to be seen for her first appointment. That's not on. 

[The Artful Dodger]

People still don't understand the total revolution that has happened in this country since the 1980s, community means absolutely nothing to anyone anymore. When Thatcher said there is 'so such thing as society' she was wrong, but now she would be right. They have achieved their aim.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

@Fairy In Boots - I'm not don't really want to touch the socialism shite, I don't think we'll ever really agree - especially as you want to be rid of the NHS in favour of a system more aligned to what they've got in the US, which is an absolute disaster if you're a perfectly healthy person (and allows for US drug prices to be absolutely ridiculous, compared to countries where the state's healthcare system negotiates with drug manufacturers for prices that aren't fucking unreasonable). I think there needs to be a healthy mix of social programs that actually benefit ordinary people, while still promoting capitalism. I think where we might both agree regarding social safety-nets (although maybe not, given you want us to follow in America's footsteps for healthcare) is the government shouldn't be giving handouts to industries & let the market decide if unhealthy businesses live or die.

But let's put that aside for a second and talk about that internet plan.

But regarding the internet... I'm not so sure Iran's example is the best example of the dangers of a nationalised broadband structure. Primarily because Iranian internet... isn't nationalised. People have had their internet shut off despite the fact they pay a monthly fee (granted, much lower than what we pay) to their ISP. That's more a danger of living under authoritarian rule. And if we want to talk about which party is more authoritarian regarding the internet... I do believe it was the Tories that wanted to ban porn? If we want to avoid a slide into authoritarian rule... we've got to make sure that our politicians can be held properly accountable when they do bad things. Right now, I'm not really convinced that's the case tbh.

Broadband's only really viable as a private industry thanks to government subsidies. And all the providers are selling is access to Openreach - which, yeah, it's owned by BT... but the framework for Openreach was paid for by the taxpayer & continues to be paid for by the taxpayer in the form of government subsidies. And I'm pretty sure Openreach started out of a settlement because BT was throttling other providers access and giving them a shit connection so customers would feel compelled to switch to BT.

So in my eyes, that's the best argument for government provided broadband. But I can think of many reasons to be wary of the internet being provided by the government: 1.) shitloads of people would likely lose jobs, 2.) chances are government tech support would be absolutely dogshit and private entities are better positioned to provide technical support to people who'll need it - which happens hundreds (if not thousands) of times per day across the country, 3.) given recent government positions on the internet... I'm not sure I trust them with internet regulation.

Personally, I think the cons outweigh the pros here - especially with the Brexit uncertainty, this is no time to be floating policy ideas that might lead to massive layoffs in a particular sector in the UK. But I would not mind if the fact it's being floated as a political idea would put some pressure on ISPs to drop prices- because broadband providers really aren't doing much in the way of innovation or providing great services & need government assistance to be profitable.

[God is Haaland]

2 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said:

People still don't understand the total revolution that has happened in this country since the 1980s, community means absolutely nothing to anyone anymore. When Thatcher said there is 'so such thing as society' she was wrong, but now she would be right. They have achieved their aim.

 

That's deep, bruv. Unironically.

[LFCMike]

[Dr. Gonzo]

49 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

If that doesn't explicitly break any election laws... it fucking should.

A new low for Tories, astounding how far they'll go to prove they're the most morally reprehensible party around.

[RandoEFC+]

Watched the debate, didn't learn much. My takes:

- The Conservative election campaign ir at least Johnson's execution of it is very, very primitive, Get Brexit Done, Get Brexit Done, Get Brexit Done. It's not a bad catch phrase but if you use it too much it begins to sound disingenuous and as if that's all you've got in your locker.

- Corbyn looked weak on Brexit. I get his position but he makes it an easy one to attack. He really should just say it doesn't matter what I'll campaign for because it's up to the public to decide, or even say that he would campaign for neither and therefore be able to present the benefits and costs of his deal and the benefits and costs of remaining in the EU. I think that would speak to more people who still don't really know what Brexit means or which way they'd vote now.

- Johnson kept it tight on the Brexit section but in the second half it got very jarring when he kept turning every question back to Brexit again and again. This led to him being the weaker of the two on non-Brexit issues.

- The woman doing the interview was really good in trying to keep them to time and on topic. The only thing I was disappointed in is that she didn't push harder on the personal integrity part. There's no reason why either of them shouldn't be expected to answer for anti-semitism accusations, Acuri, Russia etc in more detail. The lack of rigour here made it a very safe and gentle debate. Only so much you can get into an hour. It also felt like the climate question got little more than lip service.

- Also credit to ITV for calling out the toxicity of political debate in recent times. Johnson had a little win when he was clearly more keen to shake hands with Corbyn on trying to be better going forwards.

- Overall I'm not going to get into who 'won' the debate because it's a stupid argument. I think both men said what the people who already support them want to hear, but didn't say much that will swing those voters who are up for grabs either for or against them. With the Tories leading in the polls I think Corbyn has to take more risks in the coming weeks.

[Michael]

Lets be honest here lads, now that Labour have announced their latest plans, anyone who strongly wants to remain in the EU, will vote for Labour. As they are offering a second referendum if they get elected, then all those who strongly want to remain are very likely going to vote for them.

Oh Jeremy Corbyn!

[Stan]

10 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

- Johnson kept it tight on the Brexit section but in the second half it got very jarring when he kept turning every question back to Brexit again and again. This led to him being the weaker of the two on non-Brexit issues.

 

This became very frustrating. Especially when he diverted the NHS question to Brexit. Just became tiresome if the whole thing wasn't already.

[Inverted]

1 hour ago, Michael said:

Lets be honest here lads, now that Labour have announced their latest plans, anyone who strongly wants to remain in the EU, will vote for Labour. As they are offering a second referendum if they get elected, then all those who strongly want to remain are very likely going to vote for them.

Oh Jeremy Corbyn!

This seems like it should obviously be the case, but don't underestimate how strongly pro-EU centrists hate the left-wing.

Much of the Lib-Dems for example would strongly prefer a No Deal Brexit and the continued implementation of austerity, to staying in the EU and pursuing a left-wing economic policy under Labour. Economically, the Lib Dem leadership is practically to the right of the Tories these days.

When pushed, the well-off will always defer to their class interest. Everything else is window-dressing. 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Inverted

[The Artful Dodger]

I was on a speed awareness course last night, so missed the debate. My evening sounded more interesting.

Edited November 20, 2019 by The Artful Dodger

[SirBalon]

8 hours ago, Inverted said:

This seems like it should obviously be the case, but don't underestimate how strongly pro-EU centrists hate the left-wing.

Much of the Lib-Dems for example would strongly prefer a No Deal Brexit and the continued implementation of austerity, to staying in the EU and pursuing a left-wing economic policy under Labour. Economically, the Lib Dem leadership is practically to the right of the Tories these days.

When pushed, the well-off will always defer to their class interest. Everything else is window-dressing. 

That's absolutely not true. Most people I know are centrists and they are DEFINITELY not to the right on anything while also not being to the left Corbyn pretends to take the country. That also doesn't mean that centrists aren't in agreement with various policies Corbyn would like to implement and therre is the conundrum that more free thinking people have a hard time deciphering in the politics we currently have which is that it's all a very mixed bag with Brexit being fundamental to the whole picture.

Labelling never helps, and even less right now.

[Stan]

James Cleverley, chairman of Tories, refusing to take responsibility of the whole Twitter FactCheck name-change thing. Passing the buck on to the 'Digital Media Team' but is not willing to say who made the call. 

He's slimy as fuck. 

[SirBalon]

2 hours ago, Stan said:

James Cleverley, chairman of Tories, refusing to take responsibility of the whole Twitter FactCheck name-change thing. Passing the buck on to the 'Digital Media Team' but is not willing to say who made the call. 

He's slimy as fuck. 

Cleverley also made a hash of the editing of Keir Starmer's Good Morning Britain interview which the Tories edited to try and make Starmer look clueless under scrutiny on a certain question. James Cleverley in two seperate interviews the following day contradicted himself in a matter of hours where the first excuse was that editing is a part of video publishing and then in the following interview where the scrutiny was more intense he said it was done as satire.

All of these things of which there are dozens coupled with all the untoward lying, deception and breaking of the law makes me wonder at how those that continue to support these wankers can still justify doing so.

[Stan]

5 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Cleverley also made a hash of the editing of Keir Starmer's Good Morning Britain interview which the Tories edited to try and make Starmer look clueless under scrutiny on a certain question. James Cleverley in two seperate interviews the following day contradicted himself in a matter of hours where the first excuse was that editing is a part of video publishing and then in the following interview where the scrutiny was more intense he said it was done as satire.

All of these things of which there are dozens coupled with all the untoward lying, deception and breaking of the law makes me wonder at how those that continue to support these wankers can still justify doing so.

Also ended up not going on Sky with Kay Burley, presumably out of fear of embarrassment. 

[RandoEFC+]

There's been a lot of change at the top of the Conservative party in a short space of time. A lot of experience has left the party or at least the public face of it in May, Rudd, Stewart, Grieve, Gauke etc. It's natural they have a few less than impressive specimens at the top. A cynical man might suggest that that Cleverley fella is there more to make them look as if there's some diversity in the senior echelons of the party than to actually be competent.

[Kowabunga]

Alan Moore is voting for the first time in 40 years. He is voting Labour.

[Stan]

Cor Priti Patel is a slimy bitch as well isn't she? 

One of the worst of the 'elite'. They just really do not get it do they? 

[LFCMike]

 

[LFCMike]

Rachel Riley is a vile cunt

[Stan]

Haha

 

[Stan]

36 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

Rachel Riley is a vile cunt

Yeah she taken it too far with that. Utterly embarrassing that. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 hours ago, LFCMike said:

Rachel Riley is a vile cunt

Don't understand how she's taking a picture of him protesting against Apartheid and then using it to say that Corbyn's a racist. Apartheid was racist as fuck, protesting against it is... protesting against racism.

[SirBalon]