General Politics Thread
- Thread starter Watanabe Ken
- Start date
thedoctor2016
Mushi-shi
Well its not 4 months we have that two year transition when technically are still kinda in the EU bar elections etc.
But this deal won't get through parliament no way.
But this deal won't get through parliament no way.
Badej
Student Council President
Ah yes the transition, forgot about that. As nothing got officially released about the current deal I can't really say anything about it, but if the UK politicians want a deal at all they have to make compromises. They really don't have any bargaining chips to demand anything imo, so it's either a deal with compromises or no-deal.
ayase
State Alchemist
It's quite entertaining all around. Entertainment is all politics is good for in the US and UK right now - Issues? Policies? A vision for the long term future of the country? Who needs those when you have the world's greatest reality show unfolding in the full glare of the cameras.
This morning in the
Badej
Student Council President
To be fair I have yet to see/meet a politician with a vision that doesn't consist of filling his/her own pockets
ayase
State Alchemist
That's what's led to this low point, really. The political/business/media complex wonders why nobody trusts them or believes a word they say any more and why people are increasingly turning to extremes - It's bloody obvious to most people there has been very little long-termism in transatlantic politics since Thatcher and Reagan came to power, every government since then on both sides of the pond has been filled with short-term thinkers happy to sell out the people they're supposed to be representing for their own personal profit.
I think people finally got wise to the fact that putting on a smile and making people feel at ease with platitudes happens to also be something serial killers tend to be quite good at, and so maybe politicians who behave that way are not necessarily good people with your interests at heart. Except recently deceased
Indecently, I'm taking bookings for eulogies if anyone's interested.
Last edited:
ayase
State Alchemist
Very pleased to hear about the tentative steps in a potential transatlantic alliance between Corbyn and the Labour left and AOC and the left of the Democratic Party. That strikes me as the kind of force that would stand against a reanimated Thatcher and Reagan at the apocalypse. Hopefully he's been able to give some advice on how not to be dragged into the swamp, the leading cause of integrity death among new politicians. Shame she can't run for President, I don't see any of the old guard of moderate centrist Dems garnering the kind of enthusiasm (or having the balls) needed to mount a serious threat to Trump - Especially now my man Ojeda is out of the running, that's a terrible shame. Takes a wildcard to beat a wildcard, I think.
The American left does seem more energised now probably in no small part because they have a decent fight on their hands, which is one of the reasons I'm still glad Trump won. If he hadn't, the Dems would still be the same dull corporate pandering centre-right force they'd been since Clinton I, and hopefully AOC and allies can shift the Dems away from the concerns of corporate lobbyists to actual people's concerns in the same way Corbyn and Co. are doing for Labour.
It's kind of amazing how similar the trajectories politics in the US and UK follow. Sometimes we'll be first, sometimes they will, but we tend to end up in the same place. Thatcher and Reagan, Clinton and Blair, Brexit and Trump... If the future really is Corbyn and Ocasio-Cortez, I for one will not be complaining.
The American left does seem more energised now probably in no small part because they have a decent fight on their hands, which is one of the reasons I'm still glad Trump won. If he hadn't, the Dems would still be the same dull corporate pandering centre-right force they'd been since Clinton I, and hopefully AOC and allies can shift the Dems away from the concerns of corporate lobbyists to actual people's concerns in the same way Corbyn and Co. are doing for Labour.
It's kind of amazing how similar the trajectories politics in the US and UK follow. Sometimes we'll be first, sometimes they will, but we tend to end up in the same place. Thatcher and Reagan, Clinton and Blair, Brexit and Trump... If the future really is Corbyn and Ocasio-Cortez, I for one will not be complaining.
Anime1977
Thousand Master
Yay the government are thinking of forceing social media sites to remove illegal content when they do this already by law and this is to do with a who girl killed herself two years ago and the government are comparing self harm images to grooming and wanting to make the net save for children and young adults and vulnerable people sorry but no people need to police themselves not the government and internationally seeking out disturbing content and get upset about it than its that persons problem.
ayase
State Alchemist
I've been noticing an icreased incidence recently of the argument that "If some of the people who support [thing] are [x], ergo [thing] is [x]" which is probably one of those many logical fallacies which I don't concern myself with too much (since if resorting to fallacies works in persuasion, which in a democracy is what politics boils down to, there's no practical reason not to resort to them. Ethical reasons sure, but not practical ones). Key examples in recent days inculde: "If anti-Semites support people who criticise the government of Israel, then people who criticise the government of Israel must be anti-Semites", or "If racists support secure national borders, then secure national borders must be racist".
I have a hard time reconciling myself to the fact the people saying this stuff genuinely believe it (and indeed I don't think the people propagating these views in politics and the media do believe them, as mentioned above it just suits their agendas if they can convince the majority of people they're right). I mean, what kind of doublethink do people's minds have to be going through in order to believe this crap? "Stop criticising people who have literally written into law that the right of self-determination in their country is restricted to people of one ethnicity, you racist" "Why do you want all foreign people who enter a country to enjoy the same legal status that gives them protection of the law, workers' rights and the minimum wage as citizens, you xenophobe?" So believing Africans, South Americans and Arabs deserve to be treated equally to other citizens in countries where they aren't the majority is racist, gotcha.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" seems like an appropriate quote here - The man who said it, him off the five-pound note, is another controversial topic right now (personal opinion: He was by most accounts a b*stard, but as far as the war is concerned he was the right b*stard at the right time). I notice people in politics and journalism are doing a lot of soul-searching about populism, but I don't recall seeing anyone really acknowledging the reason it's proving so successful - Because the vast majority of people are relatively easily manipulated into believing just about anything. Perhaps the response to that should not be to rely on people making rational, informed judgements and actually, just to do a better job of manipulating them so they make the decisions you want them to make. I wonder if the failure of the establishment to do this (and their subsequent huffing denial this is what they were doing all along) isn't what's really created the current political climate - They weren't good enough manipulators and other people, a lot of them not traditional politicians, filled the vacuum. And I won't deny it's quite amusing seeing them so salty and indignant that someone beat them at their own game.
Firefox's spellchecker seems to have broken with the new update so apologies if this post is riddled with typos.
I have a hard time reconciling myself to the fact the people saying this stuff genuinely believe it (and indeed I don't think the people propagating these views in politics and the media do believe them, as mentioned above it just suits their agendas if they can convince the majority of people they're right). I mean, what kind of doublethink do people's minds have to be going through in order to believe this crap? "Stop criticising people who have literally written into law that the right of self-determination in their country is restricted to people of one ethnicity, you racist" "Why do you want all foreign people who enter a country to enjoy the same legal status that gives them protection of the law, workers' rights and the minimum wage as citizens, you xenophobe?" So believing Africans, South Americans and Arabs deserve to be treated equally to other citizens in countries where they aren't the majority is racist, gotcha.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" seems like an appropriate quote here - The man who said it, him off the five-pound note, is another controversial topic right now (personal opinion: He was by most accounts a b*stard, but as far as the war is concerned he was the right b*stard at the right time). I notice people in politics and journalism are doing a lot of soul-searching about populism, but I don't recall seeing anyone really acknowledging the reason it's proving so successful - Because the vast majority of people are relatively easily manipulated into believing just about anything. Perhaps the response to that should not be to rely on people making rational, informed judgements and actually, just to do a better job of manipulating them so they make the decisions you want them to make. I wonder if the failure of the establishment to do this (and their subsequent huffing denial this is what they were doing all along) isn't what's really created the current political climate - They weren't good enough manipulators and other people, a lot of them not traditional politicians, filled the vacuum. And I won't deny it's quite amusing seeing them so salty and indignant that someone beat them at their own game.
Firefox's spellchecker seems to have broken with the new update so apologies if this post is riddled with typos.
Last edited:
ayase
State Alchemist
Seven MPs leave Labour in Corbyn protest
In a rare moment of disagreement with John McDonnell, I have to say I think this is good news for all concerned. Though I won't deny there's a sense of personal satisfaction at seeing the back of Chuka and Berger especially, this is why political parties exist. Why would anyone belong to a party whose agenda they don't support? Both sides are now free to pursue their own programmes without the constant infighting and undermining. Now, will Rees-Mogg and his Tory minority gang have the balls to do the same?
Edit: And we’re off to a fantastic start. Excuse me while I wipe the tears of schadenfreude from my eyes.
In a rare moment of disagreement with John McDonnell, I have to say I think this is good news for all concerned. Though I won't deny there's a sense of personal satisfaction at seeing the back of Chuka and Berger especially, this is why political parties exist. Why would anyone belong to a party whose agenda they don't support? Both sides are now free to pursue their own programmes without the constant infighting and undermining. Now, will Rees-Mogg and his Tory minority gang have the balls to do the same?
Edit: And we’re off to a fantastic start. Excuse me while I wipe the tears of schadenfreude from my eyes.
Last edited:
ayase
State Alchemist
- MPs who are a constant thorn in your side leave because you won't back a second referendum
- The Independent Group's primary appeal is to those who want a second referendum (and centre-right Jewish people)
- Offer a second referendum
Sometimes I miss Ken, y'know? Not a lot, but at least his trollish ways provoked debate in a way I can't seem to.
ayase
State Alchemist
I feel like recent events are a huge blow to Illuminati/NWO conspiracy theories, because had they been true I think the Brexit vote would have been conclusively rigged in favour of remain and Donald Trump would have long been six feet under. There's no master plan here unless it's a very long game to make the next generation love globalisation by allowing people like Trump and Farage to become the hugely unappealing face of opposition.
If there's anything resembling a master string-puller in the real world it's still Rupert Murdoch, but I'm not sure even he can manage to get Michael Gove elected PM.
ayase
State Alchemist
So as I sat awaiting the results of who’s going to be trounced by Boris, slight pangs of regret setting in over my long-shot bet on Rory Stewart after I learned he was MI6 a few weeks ago, I had a vague recollection I’d seen all of this before.
And not just this, all of it. The vote to leave the EU. The resignation of the Prime Minister. A snap election. The splintering of the Conservative and Labour parties into pro and anti EU parties and the ensuing rise of an unashamedly nationalist party led by a complete B’Stard. And it was then that I realised that this whole scenario had been predicted in its entirety in the final episode of The New Statesman starring Rik Mayall.
You can turn the Matrix off and let us out now guys, I’m sure you’re having fun messing with us but you’ve made it too obvious.
And not just this, all of it. The vote to leave the EU. The resignation of the Prime Minister. A snap election. The splintering of the Conservative and Labour parties into pro and anti EU parties and the ensuing rise of an unashamedly nationalist party led by a complete B’Stard. And it was then that I realised that this whole scenario had been predicted in its entirety in the final episode of The New Statesman starring Rik Mayall.
You can turn the Matrix off and let us out now guys, I’m sure you’re having fun messing with us but you’ve made it too obvious.
Patient-X
Railgun
It makes me sad that a fool like Boris will probably be the prime minister, what with the other idiot, Trump, the world has gone crazy.
One thing I've always disagreed with is when a prime minister leaves, the new leader of that party instantly becomes prime minister. This person wasn't voted in by the people to be prime minister, so why? In my opinion when a PM leaves there should be an immediate general election once a new leader of the party has been appointed.
One thing I've always disagreed with is when a prime minister leaves, the new leader of that party instantly becomes prime minister. This person wasn't voted in by the people to be prime minister, so why? In my opinion when a PM leaves there should be an immediate general election once a new leader of the party has been appointed.
WMD
Guild Member
I get what you mean but it's because technically you never vote for the PM. You vote for your local MP and the party with the most MPs in parliament gets to choose their leader who then becomes PM.
I doubt well ever see the parties try to change the system either as it would remove a level of control they currently have.
thedoctor2016
Mushi-shi
Because we have a monarchy we will never directly elect the person in charge. So I don’t think that method will ever change especially how many people don’t like the idea of directly electing a leader.
WMD
Guild Member
For sure and I think that's true for most people these days. The world has become very connected and celebrity culture means party leaders are viewed differently than in the past. Also our system is several hundred years old so some if it doesn't make much sense anymore but it won't get changed as the parties dont want more power going to the people.