General Politics Thread

thedoctor2016

Shrine Maiden
Well this referendum was democray and really helped didn’t it, so I can see why they are not giving power. I want more democracy but when democracy can produce such weird results like Farage biggest EU party and Trump in America my faith gets eroded.
 

WMD

Adventurer
Well this referendum was democray and really helped didn’t it, so I can see why they are not giving power. I want more democracy but when democracy can produce such weird results like Farage biggest EU party and Trump in America my faith gets eroded.
Amen to that.
 
The Conservative party only has that slim-line mandate to carry out the manifesto from the previous election. If he new PM deviates from that manifesto, then yes, they should call a general election.
 

ayase

State Alchemist
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.
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.
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.
Flawed as it might be, I still believe our parliamentary system is preferential to a presidential system. When you have a separately elected legislature and president, it's entirely possible (and in the case of the USA in recent years, fairly common) for the president and the majority in the legislature to be from opposing parties or at least opposed to each others' agendas, meaning they spend most of their time blocking each other from doing the things they were voted in to do. At least in a parliamentary system a PM has the ability to carry out their manifesto pledges because they have to command a majority to be PM in the first place.

Plus presidents can usually choose whoever they like to make up their equivalent of our cabinet, entirely unelected, which is hardly democratic. So even as a lefty I'm perfectly fine for the unelected monarch to stay where they are, it's not like they have any real power anyway. I'd rather have that than a useless, probably even more expensive president who is unable to actually do anything they promised to do once in office except get their mates on the gravy train. Or even more pointless, an elected ceremonial head of state who serves the exact same role as a monarch, but is a divisive partisan figure rather than a neutral one and also entails the added cost of elections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WMD

thedoctor2016

Shrine Maiden
The monarchy are undemocratic but what I hate more is the whole circus aspect of them. It makes us and America look like a joke why should I care about a wedding or a pregnancy.
The lords is the thing I would sort out first the fact Sugar can stay in and hate Labour even though Labour is why he is a Lord is a disgrace and a joke.
 

ayase

State Alchemist
The monarchy are undemocratic but what I hate more is the whole circus aspect of them. It makes us and America look like a joke why should I care about a wedding or a pregnancy.
The lords is the thing I would sort out first the fact Sugar can stay in and hate Labour even though Labour is why he is a Lord is a disgrace and a joke.
With you there doc. The Lords is our nepotistic gravy train and it needs completely abolishing ASAP. But at least the Commons can ultimately ram legislation through without their say so.

As for the celebrity aspect of the royals, I just ignore it like I ignore all the non-royal celebrity "news" people fawn over.
 
Last edited:

ayase

State Alchemist
Bring back the Republic I say, things were so much better before the dark times, before the empire.
Given that the last (and only) time that happened in the UK it rapidly degenerated into a Puritan version of Afghanistan under the Taliban, ehhh... No thanks.
 

ayase

State Alchemist
It was a joke.....
Yeah, I know. So was my reply, sort of.

It’s generally not a bad rule to just presume flippancy* on the part of my posts unless I’m like, really angry.

*or perhaps “levity” is more appropriate. I just know I’ve been accused of flippancy a couple of times and it’s not a bad description, honestly. Not that I don’t take things seriously, I’m just more of the “you have to laugh” school of thought.
 
Last edited:

thedoctor2016

Shrine Maiden
You actually watched it wow. But if you kept up with it its nothing new its to brodcast it to people who don't read all politics news like I do. Oh well I think Labour will lose cos of this and Brexit so I've reached giving up point.
 

ayase

State Alchemist
You actually watched it wow.
I wouldn't feel justified in criticizing something I hadn't seen. But that was even worse than I expected, just pure propaganda - Sad music and weepy eyed interviewees juxtaposed with sinister grainy footage of Corbyn... The part that made me most angry though (other than the pathetic sob stories - If you can't take the heat get out of the damn kitchen, you're not made for politics) was when one said something along the lines of "If you say [x criticism] but replace 'Jews' with 'Israel' it's seen as acceptable". Not the point he was making but yes, in fact. Yes it is acceptable. Because the difference between criticizing somebody for being Jewish and criticizing them for being a supporter of the current Israeli government is the same as the difference between criticizing somebody for being black and criticizing them for supporting the governments of Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe. You might be born Jewish, but nobody exits the womb a supporter of Israeli ethno-nationalism carrying a Benjamin Netanyahu placard. There are plenty of Jewish people who oppose his government and its actions both in Israel itself and the wider world, and I think equating their ethnicity with a political position they are in opposition to is far more horrible and racist than any of the accusations being leveled at Corbyn & Co.

There was even a part where Corbyn was criticized for supporting a single state solution... Yeah, supporting the idea of people of different races and religions living in peace and co-operating to govern the land they share is totally more racist than the people it's apparently racist to criticize, who want to segregate people by race with a massive concrete wall, deny their right to self determination and forbid people from different backgrounds from marrying each other. That makes perfect sense. Northern Ireland is a lesson in how to actually resolve these kinds of ethnic conflicts and achieve peace, and it wasn't done by giving the Protestants absolute power and treating the Catholics as second-class citizens confined in military guarded enclaves and denying them a voice in their government. And we got there by talking to the IRA and Sinn Fein even though they advocated armed struggle and terrorism, which seems no different to me than the idea of engaging with objectionable Palestinian militants that Corbyn advocates. If you want peace you need everybody on-side, including the people (on both sides) who are currently willing to blow up children. Because if you don't get them on side, they're not going to stop.

And perhaps people would be less likely to invoke "anti-Semitic tropes" if the Israeli government's actions and those of its supporters didn't kinda sorta live up to them. Most reasonable people would presumably agree that using money to influence foreign governments and politicians is somewhere between corruption and treason. Except if the people doing it happen to be Jewish, in which case it's racist to criticize them for doing it, because people wrongly accused their ancestors of doing it, even thought they actually are doing it, or something.

As for Tom Watson, he's gone from being someone I genuinely respected to a sycophantic tosspot establishment tool in record time. And he's not even in power yet. That's pretty impressive, in its own terribly disappointing way.

if you kept up with it its nothing new its to brodcast it to people who don't read all politics news like I do
That's part of what p*sses me off. The establishment media just will not let this go, any time the news cycle looks to be moving on and has the potential to actually talk about Labour's policies they drag all news about Labour and Corbyn back to being about anti-Semitism (I don't think it's a co-incidence that this is all over the news just after Labour made a decision on Brexit policy that has the potential to be popular). Because obviously, they're the establishment and every time anyone who might threaten their wealth or power gets anywhere near Downing Street, this is what they do. I honestly don't know who I hate more, the mainstream media or the people who are influenced by them.
 
Last edited:

thedoctor2016

Shrine Maiden
Tom Watson is weird how openly he dislikes the left like you can tell Keir is more moderate but doesn’t constantly undermine Jeremy. I feel Tom winning a vote (because trade unionist so people felt left) gave him some arrogant and it’s weird. I want Keir or Thornberry as leader and want Watson out of the cabinet so..
 

ayase

State Alchemist
Tom Watson is weird how openly he dislikes the left like you can tell Keir is more moderate but doesn’t constantly undermine Jeremy. I feel Tom winning a vote (because trade unionist so people felt left) gave him some arrogant and it’s weird. I want Keir or Thornberry as leader and want Watson out of the cabinet so..
I have a lot of time for Emily Thornberry. I don't agree with everything she says (just as I don't agree 100% with what anyone says) and I still think she's being too apologetic about all this anti-Semitism sh*te (as is Starmer, and I'm not sure I could name what any of his other beliefs are) but she is straight talking and seems like a real human being with actual convictions rather than an insincere opportunist like Watson has become. I think he lost his convictions along with his weight.
 

ayase

State Alchemist
I've allowed myself to relax a bit since Boris became PM, there's basically two ways this can go now. Either he manages to wrangle a new deal out of the EU that means we leave on reasonable terms and everything is okay... or nobody blinks, everything crashes and burns, the IRA put their balaclavas back on and the Tories lose the next election and every following election for the next 200 years.

I've been wrong before I suppose, as much as I disliked Theresa May I never imagined she'd manage to be quite so useless and incompetent, but the good news is if Boris proves to be equally or more useless and incompetent I can look forward to a Labour government in the near future.
 

Mr L

School Idol
At this point, looking at every party, I'll probably end up voting Lib Dem purely out of a process of elimination. Not an inspiring time.
 
Top