UK Politics: It's Life Pfeffel but not as we know it

[Toth]

14 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Owen Jones  got a hiding. Not sure that surprises me in the slightest. We are heading into very dark times and I dont know how we come back from it.

Had to look this one up and was seeing his post on twitter about being tailed and attacked after leaving a pub. Big mistake. About 90% of the responses seem to be people crying "BUT ANTIFA!" or saying that he had it coming. I never heard of this journalist before and couldn't care less of his opinion pieces, but I just felt reminded that every time I delved into the abyss of Brexit discussions for my research I feel sickened. At least from my impression the online hate and unwillingness to engage in any kind of civil conversation is even more pronounced in Britain than with the Trumpists in the US, at least when it comes to the omnipresent online trolls.

[The Anti-Targ]

19 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Not really. He wants to put a Tory Brexit before the people for a referendum again. As for a Labour Brexit, there his position is still less clear. Of course, the WA not getting renegotiated renders that fine distinction in his second referendum bit meaningless. However, when he was pressed whether he would campaign for remain during (theoretical) second referendum his response was again the typical fudge. That's for the party membership to decide. So his commitment to a second referendum to remain is not as strong as people hope.

General note, I am not sure how anybody can describe him as principled after having witnessed him doing three years of fence sitting and avoiding to take a concrete position.

What's requested is that remain be on the table, and he's made an undertaking that it will be in any referendum. The fact he's a Brexiter isn't the issue. He (Labour) will give the public another chance to say they want to stay in the EU. What else do you want from him? You want him to come out in favour of remain when he's not in favour of remain? This is meant to be a coalition for the sole purpose of stopping a no-deal Brexit. It's not a coalition of remainers. You can split into your various Brexit factions after the no-deal disaster has been averted.

[Safiya]

The Tory stink tank The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) has published a report saying the pension age should rise to 75! HAHAHAHA

70 + year olds will be forced to go or lose their benefits, well many have ALOT of health concerns, this is another genocide in the making.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

15 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

What's requested is that remain be on the table, and he's made an undertaking that it will be in any referendum.

Actually no, unless he changed his stance again. He only wants to put the Tory goverment negotiated deal before the people. A hypothetical Labour negotiated deal would not require that additional scrutiny. Like I said, in practice that distinction is pretty meaningless, as the WA will not be reopened. It's still one of those bits that are worthy to be pointed out.

15 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

He (Labour) will give the public another chance to say they want to stay in the EU.

It just took him about 3 years to get there reluctantly. Given the difference between his views, and the views of the vast majority of his party, I think the honourable/principled thing to do would've been to stand up at the last party conference when the more binding resolutions were brought forward to say. Ok, if this what you want, then my views do not represent the views of Labour party (anymore), so I will stand down and give you the chance to pick someone, who represents your views. Instead all the resolutions he did not like were watered down/fudged to a luaghable degree, that have made Labour's Brexit policy a total incoherent mess, of it is whatever to whoever is asking. Which did not go down too well at the EU elections, and the latest by-election in Wales was just pityful.

 

15 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

This is meant to be a coalition for the sole purpose of stopping a no-deal Brexit. It's not a coalition of remainers. You can split into your various Brexit factions after the no-deal disaster has been averted.

This is another thing. Corbyn is not palatable to a group of MPs he would need to become PM. It's fine that he wants the first bite as leader of the opposition - eventho it can be argued he has not done much in actually opposing the Tory's and their Brexit and just doen three years of handwringing, for which he now wants to become PM. However, he should be willing to step aside and elect a caretaker PM that has the confidence of MPs. But he seems to be more interested in becoming PM than avoiding no-deal. I mean it's May's My deal or no deal reloaded. Just this time it's make me PM or no deal.

Something's gotta give, or it'll be no-deal halloween.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I thought a few outlier countries have successfully stayed out of the the E.U. ? I'm thinking of those listed here-  https://www.quora.com/What-European-countries-are-not-in-the-EU

Norway, Iceland, Leichenstein(sp), Monaco, and a handful more.

Has the UK any hope or plan to replicate how those country's are getting by or is it just sudden and certain plunge into the dark age after a Brexit? 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

19 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Norway, Iceland, Leichenstein(sp), Monaco, and a handful more.

Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein are closely alligned to the EU. The mythical Norway model (EFTA membership). It's basically some sort of EU membership light. Wide ranging access to the SM, freedom of movement, contributions to the EU budget, no vote, and basically accepting EU regulations and ECJ rulings in some shape or form (not formally, but the rulings are binding in practical terms). Norway has repeatedly voiced their objection of the UK joining their little club, as in it's okay for us, but we really don't need the fat kid at the table.

Monaco no idea what their deal is, but they are far too small to be comparable to the UK anyway. Remember it's basically one low tax haven (city) with no country attached to it.

[A wilding]

@Safiya I think this was the only thing in your post relevant to anything I said.

8 hours ago, Safiya said:

I want you to give examples I have read that guide myself, too say I found it a hilarious read is an understatement, come on give me your examples, I saw what 1 or 2 lol, and the '800' 'complaints' of compltely non subtsance, let me think couldn't be a smear campaign by the 'intelligence' side of the Con now could it?  Yeah it could because that's exactly what it is.

It seems that you think that me linking to information stated to be fact by the BBC is insufficient. All I can say to that is that if you prefer alternative facts (for example that only widespread electoral fraud is concealing that Corbyn is actually massively popular) then there is nothing I can do to stop you, and probably no point in us continuing to engage.

However, while I obviously have no knowledge of your personal circumstances, and while it is true that we are spied on online on an industrial scale, if you really think that the establishment has made multiple attempts to assassinate members of your family in the UK, then you might want to seek help.

 

[Safiya]

23 minutes ago, A wilding said:

@Safiya I think this was the only thing in your post relevant to anything I said..
 

You can't respond is what happened, what a surprise lol.  You got eviscerated, shrill lol.

Quote

It seems that you think that me linking to information stated to be fact by the BBC is insufficient. All I can say to that is that if you prefer alternative facts (for example that only widespread electoral fraud is concealing that Corbyn is actually massively popular) then there is nothing I can do to stop you, and probably no point in us continuing to engage.

So you're not capable of giving examples, what a surprise again lol.  We know what is going on here, thank you for proving me correct this anti-semtisim bullshit is a smear campaign cooked up by rightwingers, and other rightwingers such as yourself have tried desperately to jump on the band wagon.  You're pathetic lol.

Quote

However, while I obviously have no knowledge of your personal circumstances, and while it is true that we are spied on online on an industrial scale, if you really think that the establishment has made multiple attempts to assassinate members of your family in the UK, then you might want to seek help

You're a child, I have not said multiple attempts but there was certainly a suspicious accident right after I exposed a politician for transphobia, and just looking at this thread we can see someone trying to smear me and now we have you trying to because you're incapable of answering what I have said at all.  How sad to be you lol.

[Heartofice]

Looking at the above it seems a good time to post a good article I read in the New Statesman

Why Liberals now believe in conspiracies

 

Quote

This is why liberals find conspiracy theory attractive. It serves to exonerate them from responsibility for what has gone wrong. Supported by liberals in all parties, a decade of austerity produced cuts in public services and infrastructure that damaged much of the British population. Liberals in all parties also promoted large-scale immigration. Anyone who suggested it might have costs as well as benefits, especially for the working poor, was denounced as racist. The rise of Ukip, and then of the Brexit Party, was the predictable result. Populism is the creation of a liberal political class that blames its decline on the stupidity of voters. If the liberal idea is dead, as Vladimir Putin has claimed, it is liberals who have acted as his useful idiots and killed it.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

13 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

 

Something's gotta give, or it'll be no-deal halloween.

On that we can all agree. So who should give? When everyone is being unreasonable the people being the most unreasonable should be the ones who give. 

Who is being more unreasonable over the PM issue? Labour, who is insisting that in any coalition the leader of the (by far) largest party in the coalition be the PM? Or everyone else who are insisting that someone else be PM because they don't like the politics of the current Labour Leader. It's pretty clear who I think is being the more unreasonable and petty bunch.

I may have got my wires crossed about what Corbyn has said would be in a people's vote. Watching too many videos and reading too many articles is jumbling up the memory.  I did think Labour (and hence Corbyn) had previously said any people's vote would have remain as an option. Still, does it matter? Corbyn's plan, if you believe he will be good to his word, is to ask for an extension and call a GE, ie no people's vote arranged or promised during the term of the caretaker govt. Whether there will be a people's vote and what will be the options in the vote will be part of the GE campaign manifesto of each party. Then the ensuing negotiations (within the party or between parties) of what to have in the people's vote will be determined after the GE, assuming the Tories aren't returned with a sufficient number of votes to get no-deal Brexit through at the new deadline.

[The Marquis de Leech]

16 hours ago, Safiya said:

70 + year olds will be forced to go or lose their benefits, well many have ALOT of health concerns, this is another genocide in the making.

While I am hardly a Tory fanboy, there are few things more irritating than people who throw around the term Genocide willy-nilly.

[Safiya]

30 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

While I am hardly a Tory fanboy, there are few things more irritating than people who throw around the term Genocide willy-nilly.

Well you are a Tory fanboy as I've already pointed out a landmark scientific study has linked 120 thousand people's deaths to Tory Austerity since it was first implemented in 2010, it is projected that number will rise to 200,000 deaths by the end of 2020.  You see this is the adult world where your denials backed with nothing are proof of your childish selfishness.  So enjoy that you are a Tory fanboy what a status to have.  Even though you lack the ethical and intellectual ability to understand this study I will again post a link to what has been called economic murder by the study creators themselves.  https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/11/e017722

These are the scientists:

 

1. Johnathan Watkins1,2,
2. Wahyu Wulaningsih2,3,
3. Charlie Da Zhou4,
4. Dominic C Marshall5,
5. Guia D C Sylianteng2,6,
6. Phyllis G Dela Rosa2,7,
7. Viveka A Miguel2,8,
8. Rosalind Raine9,
9. Lawrence P King10,
10. Mahiben Maruthappu9

And this is where they work:

Author affiliations

1. Institute for Mathematical and Molecular Biomedicine, King’s College London, London, UK
2. PILAR Research and Education, Cambridge, UK
3. MRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing, University College London, London, UK
4. Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
5. Oxford University Clinical Academic Graduate School, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
6. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
7. University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines
8. University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines
9. Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
10. Department of Sociology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

[Safiya]

45 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

While I am hardly a Tory fanboy, there are few things more irritating than people who throw around the term Genocide willy-nilly.

Now you tell me in what world 120 thousand deaths is not a genocide?  I'll tell you a fascist one.

[The Marquis de Leech]

13 minutes ago, Safiya said:

Now you tell me in what world 120 thousand deaths is not a genocide?  I'll tell you a fascist one.

*Head desk*.

Let's work with the (exaggerated) assumption that they're deliberately engineering 120,000 deaths. Not as a mere callous and inevitable side-effect of policy, but as the actual purpose of policy. It still wouldn't be Genocide, for the basic reason that Genocide involves the intent to destroy a particular ethnic, racial, national, or religious group - which wouldn't be case here.

Genocide doe not equate to mass-murder.

[Safiya]

6 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

*Head desk*.

Let's work with the (exaggerated) assumption that they're deliberately engineering 120,000 deaths. Not as a mere callous and inevitable side-effect of policy, but as the actual purpose of policy. It still wouldn't be Genocide, for the basic reason that Genocide involves the intent to destroy a particular ethnic, racial, national, or religious group - which wouldn't be case here.

Genocide doe not equate to mass-murder.

You're banging your head as if you're being frustrated?  Are you serious?  lol.  You have provided no sources to back your despicable ideology as being ethically correct one to follow, I'd like to see what you can provide go ahead.

To make this clear according to you the Nazi death camps weren't a genocide against the government created economic poor, the disabled, homo and trans people and political opponents beacuse mass murder is not genocide, except to target certain groups IS genocide it is the very definition of the word genicide.  The disabled have been FORCED to go to interview where someone with a brain tumor has been told they can work.  You are either completely uneducated or a Tory.  Tory austerity has targeted the very same groups I mentioned as the Nazi regime of 1930s and 40s.

[TrueMetis]

Genocide requires intent is one of those bullshit technicalities added in order to get people off the hook, like how terrorism technically needs to be "unlawful".

Deaths of tens of millions of indigenous people in the Americas? Not apparently genocide.

All those deaths in the USSR and Mao's China due to their dumbass policies. Mere unfortunate side effects apparently.

Because intent changes so much. I'm sure to the people impacted it makes such a difference that all that death wasn't the intended purpose, by merely an afterthought.

Fuck that, if we're gonna apply intent like it matters here we're going to use legal intent. IE a murder charge doesn't actually require you to intend to kill anybody, just that you intended to do the thing that caused the murder. If I go around firing a gun at random it doesn't matter one fucking bit that I didn't actually mean for anyone to die, if someone does I'm still a murderer.

[Heartofice]

“
Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about it physical destruction in whole or in part ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and]
forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

anyway:

Did austerity lead to 120,000 deaths

 

[Safiya]

14 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Genocide requires intent is one of those bullshit technicalities added in order to get people off the hook, like how terrorism technically needs to be "unlawful".

Deaths of tens of millions of indigenous people in the Americas? Not apparently genocide.

All those deaths in the USSR and Mao's China due to their dumbass policies. Mere unfortunate side effects apparently.

Because intent changes so much. I'm sure to the people impacted it makes such a difference that all that death wasn't the intended purpose, by merely an afterthought.

Fuck that, if we're gonna apply intent like it matters here we're going to use legal intent. IE a murder charge doesn't actually require you to intend to kill anybody, just that you intended to do the thing that caused the murder. If I go around firing a gun at random it doesn't matter one fucking bit that I didn't actually mean for anyone to die, if someone does I'm still a murderer.

There's two groups within the Tory concerning the despicable ongoing genocide, the knowingly and unknowingly, the second group believes what the first says usually because of friendship.  The driver behind the genocide is Ian Duncan Smith.  There is also a third group with people like Ken Clarke who in 2013 had said austerity had gone far enough.

[Safiya]

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

“
Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about it physical destruction in whole or in part ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and]
forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

 

So the disabled, and the homo and trans people who were murdered in the Nazi death camps weren't murdered in a genocide because people who constructed that convention 70 years ago were homo and transphobic.

Quote

 

anyway:

Did austerity lead to 120,000 deaths

 

The article says the academic consensus says it is a plausible hypothesis that 120 thousand deaths are linked to Tory Austerity, next time you should actually read what you link lol.  You're honing in on someone's alternative idea, a person who also think the landmark paper is plausible lol.

[Heartofice]

I didn’t add any comment to the link I posted , I thought I might be useful for this ‘conversation’