The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[nirvana]

Portillo was fantastic on This Week

Utterly scathing of Theresa May and her performance in the last month.

But the look on his face as he contemplated a Corbyn government even gave me a pause for thought. I have supported and longed for the policies in the Labour manifesto to be enacted for as long as I've been politically aware.

It will definitely be a leap into the unknown, and it might very well go tits up. But life has been too shit for too long for too many people. Time to give it a shot.

I watched this and it was interesting - I like Portillo and also felt his irritation/pity for Kendall/disdain when talking about the current Labour left seemed authentic.

Was happy voting Corbyn and seeing Labour move leftwards. I'm glad they didn't win though. Too many things I don't agree with, universality of benefits and universality of many other pointless giveaways in particular. Like their traditional left wing stance on wanting to end free movement of Labour as it isn't hard to see who benefits the most from this.

Would like to see a slightly more pragmatic left wing, determined to end austerity without some of the nonsense, emerge

[nirvana]

...

It will definitely be a leap into the unknown, and it might very well go tits up. But life has been too shit for too long for too many people. Time to give it a shot.

How many is too many?
How long is too long?
and for that matter, how shit is too shit?

What kind of metrics are using to come to that conclusion?

Because from what I can tell you can take any (roughly) 50 year gap at any time in history and people will be richer, healthier and less in danger of being a victim of crime. Given this has all been delivered by roughly the same version of what we have now - is it really time to give it a shot?

1.2 million people feeding themselves and their families from foodbanks.

Record numbers of people sleeping rough.

No pay rises in the public sector for 7 years.

Cuts in police and fire services.

I think that qualifies as shit.

As far as I can tell they only started keeping records for rough sleepers in 2010 - so it's not a very impressive record; but it's really hard to find even estimates from other eras.

"1.2 million people feeding themselves and their families from foodbanks."

1.2 million handouts in a year doesn't mean 1.2 million families - unless each family only had one person get a handout, on only one occasion.

But even if that was the case - what is your basis for comparison?

I know that in the 1990's, for example, you could get handouts from the EU food surplus mountains. But they were much harder to qualify for, and it was much harder for any organisation to qualify to hand them out.

There may have been over a million actually getting those handouts and there may have been hardly any, figures don't seem to have been accurately kept - but it's definitely the case that if they had the current regulations on foodbanks available then there would have been a lot higher figure than there was.

Plucking a figure like a million is too high for foodbanks is just as meaningless as saying the rich should be taxed more - without any context it means nothing. I'm personally a lot happier that we have the ability now to help the people who need it rather than there being no figure to look at like there was previously because the problem wasn't adequately being addressed.

In the fifth richest country in the world no one should have to use a foodbank.

Obvious thing to say, but it's like saying 'in the fifth richest country in the world there should be no charities'.

[titaniumbean]

probably a stupid/simple question but i'll ask anyway



why does politics have to be split so simplistically when it's unbelievably complex and there are so many issues/factors.  tribalistic rubbish isn't going to get us towards a better outcome

right/left
rich/poor
leave us alone with WMDs/i'll sue if you don't tie my shoes for me and I fall over


where are the political parties based in science/logic and a decent intention?


how are people not capable of seeing every issue is a spectrum and in general there are likely very few issues that can be solved by any solution all the way to one side?

[StuartHopkin]

How much faster would the fire engine have arrived if Boris had not okayed the cuts?

hard to answer as there could always just be one driving past + it doesn't seem like they could do much beyond helping a small portion of people. i'd imagine you're trying to imply that the cuts didn't necessarily affect the on the night response.


other questions could be, how many more inspections could be done on tower blocks with less staff? or how many more counselors will these men and women who risked their lives have access to after stepping over numerous dead bodies? or how soon will those men and women who spent all night struggling to save lives have to go back to do another shift and go to other fires? or how many of these man and women will get double redundancy pay like Tory MPs?

Not sure what I am implying. Just feels like people are jumping on everything and everyone.

I agree cutting the emergency services isn't great, I agree that it is disgusting that they are allowed to expense booze whilst making any cuts, but just don't see that the Boris clip is relevant.

firstly, sorry if it seemed dickish these are emotive issues and some of the basic tenets (as you then say) seem so blatantly obvious to me.

secondly, the clip seems to actually say quite alot about where we are at and why


he is explaining that by cutting he improves service.  in some extreme circumstances through waste, negligence etc this could potentially be true, plus anyone who is in the service affected will likely argue that it's bad, however when you have the police/fire explaining that no you haven't actually done anything to improve you are just cost cutting for the sake of saying you've saved money whilst not acknowledging  the negative effect this will have we should listen.Therefore the guy says you are lying (which we really have to believe the people working on the front line who are affected not the guy pushing for election/power/fame/respect for his party etc) is speaking with the most ethical position.

the response from the Mayor of London was "Get stuffed" in his usual arrogant tone. Why doesn't he have the ability to actually explain why his decision is a good one, why doesn't he have the strength of character to not be rude as someone who should be a bastion of society and someone to look up to? should teachers or medical staff have to be told by children/patients etc get stuffed this is the example I was set. He clearly cant defend his position properly (much like the whole of the conservative manifesto at the election which is why all they did was smear and be negative about the opposition essentially arguing they were just the least shit of a bunch of bad options) and so he just says that. that literally highlights the mentality of we need to cut something and my 905 quid bottle of wine for lunch is not an option so here let's go against this industry of life savers and our last line of defense because fk you we're well off enough to have much less of a requirement for these things.


it's literally why the banks can screw us and face minimal retribution and then have little change, it's why the police work extra long shifts so the PM can claim 'more are on the streets' whilst omitting it's the same ones from yesterdays long shift, it's why the intelligence community have to cherry pick so carefully what they expend time on because they cant conceivably do it all.  all along were told this is good for you by people having back door meetings with the press and banker billionaires who all surprisingly benefit from all their decisions then give them huge paying jobs when they are out of office. it stinks.

Not arguing with any of that, and you know you don't need to apologise to me Titbeans 

[The Camel]

probably a stupid/simple question but i'll ask anyway



why does politics have to be split so simplistically when it's unbelievably complex and there are so many issues/factors.  tribalistic rubbish isn't going to get us towards a better outcome

right/left
rich/poor
leave us alone with WMDs/i'll sue if you don't tie my shoes for me and I fall over


where are the political parties based in science/logic and a decent intention?


how are people not capable of seeing every issue is a spectrum and in general there are likely very few issues that can be solved by any solution all the way to one side?

I think if we had PR we would have much more intelligent politics.

[titaniumbean]

I read your post about 3 times and part of me was like well this is a simple question and part of me was like omg the underlying possibilities  and then I thougt BOPKIIIIIIN 

[PokerBroker]

probably a stupid/simple question but i'll ask anyway



why does politics have to be split so simplistically when it's unbelievably complex and there are so many issues/factors.  tribalistic rubbish isn't going to get us towards a better outcome

right/left
rich/poor
leave us alone with WMDs/i'll sue if you don't tie my shoes for me and I fall over


where are the political parties based in science/logic and a decent intention?


how are people not capable of seeing every issue is a spectrum and in general there are likely very few issues that can be solved by any solution all the way to one side?

I think if we had PR we would have much more intelligent politics.

I agree and I find it incomprehensible that in 2017 when we know how unfair FTP is for democracy that he still use it. 

That said, the vast majority of the public don't seem to understand alternative voting systems. 

[The Camel]

probably a stupid/simple question but i'll ask anyway



why does politics have to be split so simplistically when it's unbelievably complex and there are so many issues/factors.  tribalistic rubbish isn't going to get us towards a better outcome

right/left
rich/poor
leave us alone with WMDs/i'll sue if you don't tie my shoes for me and I fall over


where are the political parties based in science/logic and a decent intention?


how are people not capable of seeing every issue is a spectrum and in general there are likely very few issues that can be solved by any solution all the way to one side?

I think if we had PR we would have much more intelligent politics.

I agree and I find it incomprehensible that in 2017 when we know how unfair FTP is for democracy that he still use it. 

That said, the vast majority of the public don't seem to understand alternative voting systems. 

If 75 people in key constituencies had voted Tory instead of Labour we'd have a Tory majority government.

Scary.

[kukushkin88]

probably a stupid/simple question but i'll ask anyway



why does politics have to be split so simplistically when it's unbelievably complex and there are so many issues/factors.  tribalistic rubbish isn't going to get us towards a better outcome

right/left
rich/poor
leave us alone with WMDs/i'll sue if you don't tie my shoes for me and I fall over


where are the political parties based in science/logic and a decent intention?


how are people not capable of seeing every issue is a spectrum and in general there are likely very few issues that can be solved by any solution all the way to one side?

I think if we had PR we would have much more intelligent politics.

I agree and I find it incomprehensible that in 2017 when we know how unfair FTP is for democracy that he still use it. 

That said, the vast majority of the public don't seem to understand alternative voting systems. 

Definitely this, broad coalition of the best people available. That Caroline Lucas ( amongst others) will never be a government minister is unsatisfactory.

[neeko]

Given the current protest inside and outside C&K offices - what's the betting that evidence of wrongdoing is damaged/ lost?

[kukushkin88]

Given the current protest inside and outside C&K offices - what's the betting that evidence of wrongdoing is damaged/ lost?

Every chance it'll all be inadmissible. I actually think and this thread has reinforced the idea, that people don't understand how bad it is. We don't have proper security in the public sector anymore, they'll literally run amok until police show up, oh wait, might be a problem there too.

[buffyslayer1]

Just watched c4 news with TM leaving Kensington amid protests and public shouting at her murderer. Not sure we have had a PM so hated before? Maybe Maggie? I am too young to remember her really

The Tories should cut their losses and get someone new in asap. Even if it's politically embarrassing bad for the parry. They need to do what's right for the country.

[The Camel]

Just watched c4 news with TM leaving Kensington amid protests and public shouting at her murderer. Not sure we have had a PM so hated before? Maybe Maggie? I am too young to remember her really

The Tories should cut their losses and get someone new in asap. Even if it's politically embarrassing bad for the parry. They need to do what's right for the country.

I hated Maggie more, but Theresa May is fast becoming a national embarrassment.

[Jon MW]

Just watched c4 news with TM leaving Kensington amid protests and public shouting at her murderer. Not sure we have had a PM so hated before? Maybe Maggie? I am too young to remember her really

The Tories should cut their losses and get someone new in asap. Even if it's politically embarrassing bad for the parry. They need to do what's right for the country.

She's about the same level of unpopularity as Corbyn was before the election was called - but not quite so low. So I wouldn't get too carried away by how 'hated' she is. She's certainly lost a lot of respect but London and/or facebook/twitter don't represent the whole country.

[buffyslayer1]

Just watched c4 news with TM leaving Kensington amid protests and public shouting at her murderer. Not sure we have had a PM so hated before? Maybe Maggie? I am too young to remember her really

The Tories should cut their losses and get someone new in asap. Even if it's politically embarrassing bad for the parry. They need to do what's right for the country.

She's about the same level of unpopularity as Corbyn was before the election was called - but not quite so low. So I wouldn't get too carried away by how 'hated' she is. She's certainly lost a lot of respect but London and/or facebook/twitter don't represent the whole country.

True they don't but they do represent a significant chunk and it's likely growing.
I can see her polls going even further down in the coming weeks/days.