General News/Current Affairs Thread
- Thread starter theirsbailiff
- Start date
-Danielle-
Death Scythe
This years election is going to be really tough. I don't know who to pick.
Last time I knew who I was going for as soon as I watched the live debate. Sadly Clegg never ended up doing anything he said he was going to but tbh as deputy Prime Minister you never have final say so it was always a sole Conservative government anywho.
Last time I knew who I was going for as soon as I watched the live debate. Sadly Clegg never ended up doing anything he said he was going to but tbh as deputy Prime Minister you never have final say so it was always a sole Conservative government anywho.
Lutga
Mad Scientist
-Danielle- said:
Interesting to hear you let the live debates sway you last time - it's hard for me to imagine, as I've always stuck very passionately to one party, so always know who I'm going to vote for - but interesting to know that for some people it's harder to decide.
ayase
State Alchemist
Is that what the discussion was about? Was there a discussion? Moving on anyway...
Will be voting Labour this time. The Lib Dems are dead to me - I agreed with their policies but it's now obvious they're interested in power for power's sake just like everyone else. A vote for anyone else in my constituency would be a waste, democracy is about the least worst option anyway.
Not sure why the Tories are trying to scare people with the prospect of a Labour-SNP coalition, personally as a pro-European, anti-war, left leaning northerner it's my preferred outcome.
I'm another person who just votes for whatever the least bad option seems to be at the time rather than sticking to a party. I can't relate to any of the parties at all since for all the stick the Tories get for being a bunch of wealthy old timers, it's not as though the others project a very different image when compared with say, the rest of human society. I don't want to be represented by anyone in the race at the moment.
To be honest since I don't watch television this conversation is as likely to sway my vote as any major media campaigns being run right now. Regardless of my lack of enthusiasm for the contenders I'll definitely be voting, though; if nothing else I want to be counted as someone who voted against the more xenophobic parties, whichever box I eventually pick.
R
To be honest since I don't watch television this conversation is as likely to sway my vote as any major media campaigns being run right now. Regardless of my lack of enthusiasm for the contenders I'll definitely be voting, though; if nothing else I want to be counted as someone who voted against the more xenophobic parties, whichever box I eventually pick.
R
ayase
State Alchemist
I just keep thinking if only the SNP weren't Scottish nationalists, and were instead just a UK-wide social democratic party. They'd have my vote in an instant - Nationalism just seems so damn reactionary and is holding humanity back by seeking to divide people rather than bringing them together.
Presuming we aren't going to be starting a nuclear war any time soon (although you never know, we didn't really expect Tony to be the crazed warmonger he turned out to be) it would bring me no comfort to think "Well at least thanks to Trident, even more people will die" as the three minute warning sounded. Most of Europe does just fine without nuclear weapons, so the idea of it as a "deterrent" is laughable. A self defence force is all we really need.
As for the Tories, their public asset stripping for the benefit of themselves and their mates (at the expense of the ordinary people of the country who paid for those things for the benefit of all with their taxes) will never get my vote. They may have softened their image but in practice they're little different than they were in the 80's. Not that New Labour was any less guilty of keeping the nepotistic gravy train rolling along, as well as presiding over the erosion of personal liberty in the name of security. This article sums up mine and, I think, a not inconsiderable number of voters in the North's awkward position quite well - What people really want is Old Labour back, but they couldn't win then and they can't win now. "Middle Labour" or whatever they are under Miliband seems to be the only workable compromise and their polling figures don't exactly inspire confidence. I guess only how they perform on the night can determine which course they take after this.
Presuming we aren't going to be starting a nuclear war any time soon (although you never know, we didn't really expect Tony to be the crazed warmonger he turned out to be) it would bring me no comfort to think "Well at least thanks to Trident, even more people will die" as the three minute warning sounded. Most of Europe does just fine without nuclear weapons, so the idea of it as a "deterrent" is laughable. A self defence force is all we really need.
As for the Tories, their public asset stripping for the benefit of themselves and their mates (at the expense of the ordinary people of the country who paid for those things for the benefit of all with their taxes) will never get my vote. They may have softened their image but in practice they're little different than they were in the 80's. Not that New Labour was any less guilty of keeping the nepotistic gravy train rolling along, as well as presiding over the erosion of personal liberty in the name of security. This article sums up mine and, I think, a not inconsiderable number of voters in the North's awkward position quite well - What people really want is Old Labour back, but they couldn't win then and they can't win now. "Middle Labour" or whatever they are under Miliband seems to be the only workable compromise and their polling figures don't exactly inspire confidence. I guess only how they perform on the night can determine which course they take after this.
neptune2venus
Hunter
I'm still deciding between SNP and Green. I usually vote for socialist parties if there are any available and value the importance of helping out those who need it the most. However, SNP have been cutting education budget which nearly merged my Uni at the time (Abertay) with Dundee back in 2012. Local MP, Fitzpatrick, who holds a seat in Dundee and also graduated from Abertay years ago did nothing about it... so I'm not sure for voting SNP. Regardless, I hope the Tories get kicked out office. They keep harping on about austerity and deficit measures which target the poor, while they start the process of privatising the NHS.
On another note, I also voted for Scottish Independence and still don't understand why the the majority of Scotland (who don't vote Tory) voted for the status quo of No vote. Oh well!
On another note, I also voted for Scottish Independence and still don't understand why the the majority of Scotland (who don't vote Tory) voted for the status quo of No vote. Oh well!
ayase
State Alchemist
Thing is Lawrence, I'm not entirely sure I want a parliament that's representative of the English people's views. It would be dominated by the Tories and the South - The left in England needs the help of Scotland and Wales otherwise we'd probaby pull out of the EU and try to be like Switzerland with predictably disastrous results. I couldn't help but imagine during the debate if Miliband, Sturgeon and Wood had all been on he same team (probably wih Sturgeon as leader, she's by far the most articulate and charismatic) how much more support a coalition of the left would have nation wide. I couldn't really care less if politics wasn't representative of the people as most people are ill-informed idiots, I'm interested in the government doing a better job and being fair. Benevolent dictatorship ftw, which I suppose is how I see the EU - As a generally progressive force that will drag the UK forward whether they like it or not.
Interesting you don't like Charlie - The institution of the monarchy aside, he seems like the most left leaning and politically inclined member of the royal family to me. I'd probably be generally supportive of the idea of a coup to have him replace the government.
Interesting you don't like Charlie - The institution of the monarchy aside, he seems like the most left leaning and politically inclined member of the royal family to me. I'd probably be generally supportive of the idea of a coup to have him replace the government.
ayase
State Alchemist
I'd agree with republicanism if I thought it would fundamentally change anything politically, which I don't think it would. So I have no real opinion besides believing that if we get rid of the monarchy, they should be replaced by nothing. Ceremonial presidents are just as big a waste of money, just make whoever is PM head of state.
I think the main thing I find weird about nationalism is that it's based on mediaeval ceasefire lines. Surely modern borders would be based on who wants what government? If we drew a line between the Humber and the Severn and had "North Britain" and "South Britain" that would probably be more representative.
I think the main thing I find weird about nationalism is that it's based on mediaeval ceasefire lines. Surely modern borders would be based on who wants what government? If we drew a line between the Humber and the Severn and had "North Britain" and "South Britain" that would probably be more representative.
ayase
State Alchemist
Debate was fairly entertaining. Miliband's presentation skills are improving, he must be at least at trainee sales rep level now.
And it's one thing to have contempt for the electorate Nigel, that's completely understandable. But you don't ever tell them that. Having a massive go at the audience for clapping more for the other leaders was just embarrassing and feeds into the suspicion that UKIP are happy to criticise others but take criticism of themselves far too seriously and humourlessly - Now to the point of thinking people who agree with views other than theirs are part of a conspiracy. Protip: When you're polling 13-14%, it's not unrealistic to expect the other 86-87% of people not to agree with or clap for you.
It's now readily apparent Sturgeon is the promised Anti-Thatcher, may her reign on Earth be long and prosperous.
And it's one thing to have contempt for the electorate Nigel, that's completely understandable. But you don't ever tell them that. Having a massive go at the audience for clapping more for the other leaders was just embarrassing and feeds into the suspicion that UKIP are happy to criticise others but take criticism of themselves far too seriously and humourlessly - Now to the point of thinking people who agree with views other than theirs are part of a conspiracy. Protip: When you're polling 13-14%, it's not unrealistic to expect the other 86-87% of people not to agree with or clap for you.
It's now readily apparent Sturgeon is the promised Anti-Thatcher, may her reign on Earth be long and prosperous.
theirsbailiff
School Idol
ayase said:
Shame she's with the SNP; having her as our rightful ruler would be glorious. Would be amazing to see her having a go at Hilary* whenever they meet.
* = Assuming the US doesn't vote for Older Bush, Ron Paul Jr, Canadian Idiot or whoever the hell Rubio is supposed to be and/or the Democrats have a better candidate in the hands (No, not Warren. She said no)
ayase
State Alchemist
I'm fairly sure Katie Hopkins is building a career around the fact we don't have an Ann Coulter in Britain and has decided to fill the vacancy for "Empty-headed fake blonde reactionary conservative woman with a propensity for spewing incredibly controversial, borderline hateful politically (and factually) incorrect statements and refusing to ever admit being wrong". The best tactic by far is probably to ignore her and starve her of the newspaper, book and TV deals she obviously craves but people just can't stop themselves, especially in the Facebook and YouTube comments age.
Speaking of comment sections, the BBC ones alone are enough to make me vote for a party (any party) which would have "no more elections" as a manifesto pledge. When you read what people who vote actually believe, universal suffrage doesn't seem like such a good idea at all.
Speaking of comment sections, the BBC ones alone are enough to make me vote for a party (any party) which would have "no more elections" as a manifesto pledge. When you read what people who vote actually believe, universal suffrage doesn't seem like such a good idea at all.
theirsbailiff
School Idol
ayase said:
While I agree with making sure she doesn't have a large enough platform to spew such disgusting garbage, I don't think ignoring her would work considering that's a bad idea to begin with and even if it wasn't, she still has a large enough platform to be able to do this crap.
ayase
State Alchemist
Well, it's a bad idea if you agree with that article. I happen not to - Once you've determined there is zero chance of someone changing their opinions (or indeed, even attempting to rationally justify them in the face of conflicting evidence) I see zero point in arguing with them. All that's going to result is further resentment from either one or both sides. And being familiar with some of the dingier areas of the internet mentioned in that article, I can think of dozens of situations where ignoring people's abuse would have made them get bored and stop, but engaging with them made it ten times worse. It isn't entertaining to argue with someone who doesn't argue back and it is, after all, just words on a screen. Until Katie Hopkins is physically beating the **** out of immigrants on the street, she's no real cause for concern just like all the other keyboard warriors.
From reading the comments the writer also appears to be on a quixotic quest to make trolls "behave better". Yeah, good luck with that. There'll always be idiots and they're unlikely to be reformed by words on a screen either. The way to win is to develop thicker skin and not let things affect you so much, then you're free of the effect of the views anyone else might hold towards you. I have no doubt Katie Hopkins is already in that place, therefore she is untouchable by words. So fighting her with words is pointless.
From reading the comments the writer also appears to be on a quixotic quest to make trolls "behave better". Yeah, good luck with that. There'll always be idiots and they're unlikely to be reformed by words on a screen either. The way to win is to develop thicker skin and not let things affect you so much, then you're free of the effect of the views anyone else might hold towards you. I have no doubt Katie Hopkins is already in that place, therefore she is untouchable by words. So fighting her with words is pointless.
Lutga
Mad Scientist
I'm genuinely a bit apprehensive about May 7th - as these things never play out exactly as they do in the polls. I just... I want to have faith in the British public to make the right decision, but I suppose it's easy to forget that a lot of people out there genuinely don't think the same way about a lot of key issues.
I'll always remember when a friend at the time said he was thinking of voting UKIP (around the time of the last election), and it just struck me how easily people could be wheeled in by cheap, easy promises of 'change'.
I'll always remember when a friend at the time said he was thinking of voting UKIP (around the time of the last election), and it just struck me how easily people could be wheeled in by cheap, easy promises of 'change'.
theirsbailiff
School Idol
ayase said:
And there are people who agree with that statement. Though not in the way you expected.
As the Grauniad has pointed out that there is a petition to have her removed from The Sun, not only because her comments are seen as harmful (Not offensive, because that would imply she wasn't being serious about it, and not problematic because that would imply that she's merely ignorant) but also that it violates both Clauses 1 (Accuracy) and 12 (Discrimination) of the IPSO Editor's code of practice.
In other news, because I'd like to juggle with other topics:
*Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian 'faces Iran spy trial'
*Spain pupil with crossbow kills teacher in Barcelona
*Yemen: Dozens feared dead in air strike on arms depot
*Greek far-right Golden Dawn leaders go on trial
theirsbailiff
School Idol
Turns out Murdoch's trying to, and failing miserably at, going on the offensive towards Milliband. A major sign he's losing his touch here?
ayase
State Alchemist
Would be nice to think so, but I think it's probably a bigger sign that hardly anyone reads newspapers any more. The right haven't been as tech-savvy and quick to move into the realm of social media as the left and when news is available online for free, who's gonna pay for it?
Interesting to note the remark about opinion polls not moving - They really are flat. Seems like there's a lot of undecided voters out there who could end up swinging it on the day.
Interesting to note the remark about opinion polls not moving - They really are flat. Seems like there's a lot of undecided voters out there who could end up swinging it on the day.
Lutga
Mad Scientist
One thing I'd like to know is how much political ambivalence goes hand-in-hand with a general ambivalence with current affairs etc.
I kind of feel like it's an issue people don't like to mention, publicly - but if we're being completely honest, there is likely a vast number of people out there who never really watch the news or read the papers etc. What info they get is perhaps snatches of stuff heard on the radio, from friends or spotted on Twitter/Facebook. They're just going through their daily lives, drinking, partying with mates, finding a new flat, wondering where they can go on their next holiday.
ie. the difference between active and passive consumption of news, and I imagine - by association - an interest in politics. Are the two mutually exclusive/or inclusive?
People say that politics does't resonate with these people because it's out of touch or seen as dry and dusty, but is perhaps more that it's just not an 'interest' for them, in much the same way that vast numbers of people never read a book, or take up painting or play an instrument?
I kind of feel like it's an issue people don't like to mention, publicly - but if we're being completely honest, there is likely a vast number of people out there who never really watch the news or read the papers etc. What info they get is perhaps snatches of stuff heard on the radio, from friends or spotted on Twitter/Facebook. They're just going through their daily lives, drinking, partying with mates, finding a new flat, wondering where they can go on their next holiday.
ie. the difference between active and passive consumption of news, and I imagine - by association - an interest in politics. Are the two mutually exclusive/or inclusive?
People say that politics does't resonate with these people because it's out of touch or seen as dry and dusty, but is perhaps more that it's just not an 'interest' for them, in much the same way that vast numbers of people never read a book, or take up painting or play an instrument?