UK Politics: Spaffed up the wall while chuntering from a sedentary position

[HexMachina]

18 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The figure appears to have been pulled out of the arse of a passing monkey. It seems to assume that Labour will renationalise everything on their first day in office and that all the assets gained by the process (which would be worth tens of billions at the lower end) would immediately, and somewhat inexplicably, become worthless. This is typical Conservative economics, where expanding your asset base is a bad thing (which is why they like flogging them off, preferably to the Chinese), somehow.

It also assumes that every other economic idea in the Labour playbook would be enacted immediately and paid for in advance rather than, say, over two or three terms. There isn't actually enough time or people to actually do that. Labour would have to choose which economic policies to enact and do them one after another, which would spread the cost over a much longer period of time.

The other, typical piece of economic BS in this argument is that by investing in the economy, Labour would not grow the economy, in defiance of logic and precedent. The Conservatives prefer to rip money out of the economy and put nothing back in, and then moan (at length) when the economy stagnates.

Really, this analysis only proves what we already knew: the Conservatives either 1) do not understand how national economics work, or 2) are lying their tits off to score political points and get ahead of the fact that Labour's manifesto policies will be costed and theirs apparently are not (again).

 

Brexit is rooted in base sentimentality and a very cliched view of the world. It's clearly not rooted in any kind of economic argument (on which it loses every single time) and it's not rooted in any kind of greater geopolitical reality (where Britain's power and influence in the world is always greater within the European Union than outside of it). So the argument that's left is that people "feel" that Britain shouldn't be part of the EU based on some vague idea that it should stand alone, independent etc (you made this argument yourself previously). Talk to Brexiters and you will very quickly get people talking about fishing waters, WWII, not taking orders from Germans and the French and so on. I've heard Brexiters actually say, "Well, we can be an Empire again!" as one of the reasons it'll be better to leave.

The belief in British exceptionalism and English exceptionalism within that context is very strong out there, almost as much as American exceptionalism (but with far, far less cause).

Indeed. To the credit of the news stations reporting on this, they were very clear that the Tory figures assumed immediate enactment of all policies etc. like you mentioned. You know, because that happens in government all of the time even in times of stability...

[Spockydog]

7 hours ago, Werthead said:

Genocide is perhaps strong at this point in time.

Is it, though?

There's been a fair bit of debate as to the exact definition of that word, and while I cannot be arsed with getting into a semantics argument with anyone, I will say this. If you were to pile up the bodies of every Palestinian who has died as a result of Israeli war crimes over the past sixty years, you'd probably have a pile big enough to satisfy anyone's definition. But seeing as this has been going on for so long, it's much easier to sweep the evidence under the carpet. Fewer unsightly lumps, you see.

And I will not be thought-policed by anyone into ignoring the irony of a nation being created specifically to allow one group of people to be free from oppression, only to result in another group of people being systematically and horrifically oppressed. 

If it were not for the Red Cross, MSF, and all those other guys, constantly battling Netanyahu and his goons to get aid to these people, the city of Gaza would be the world's biggest ever concentration camp.

 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

The figure appears to have been pulled out of the arse of a passing monkey. It seems to assume that Labour will renationalise everything on their first day in office and that all the assets gained by the process (which would be worth tens of billions at the lower end) would immediately, and somewhat inexplicably, become worthless. This is typical Conservative economics, where expanding your asset base is a bad thing (which is why they like flogging them off, preferably to the Chinese), somehow.

It also assumes that every other economic idea in the Labour playbook would be enacted immediately and paid for in advance rather than, say, over two or three terms. There isn't actually enough time or people to actually do that. Labour would have to choose which economic policies to enact and do them one after another, which would spread the cost over a much longer period of time.

The other, typical piece of economic BS in this argument is that by investing in the economy, Labour would not grow the economy, in defiance of logic and precedent. The Conservatives prefer to rip money out of the economy and put nothing back in, and then moan (at length) when the economy stagnates.

Really, this analysis only proves what we already knew: the Conservatives either 1) do not understand how national economics work, or 2) are lying their tits off to score political points and get ahead of the fact that Labour's manifesto policies will be costed and theirs apparently are not (again).

 

Brexit is rooted in base sentimentality and a very cliched view of the world. It's clearly not rooted in any kind of economic argument (on which it loses every single time) and it's not rooted in any kind of greater geopolitical reality (where Britain's power and influence in the world is always greater within the European Union than outside of it). So the argument that's left is that people "feel" that Britain shouldn't be part of the EU based on some vague idea that it should stand alone, independent etc (you made this argument yourself previously). Talk to Brexiters and you will very quickly get people talking about fishing waters, WWII, not taking orders from Germans and the French and so on. I've heard Brexiters actually say, "Well, we can be an Empire again!" as one of the reasons it'll be better to leave.

The belief in British exceptionalism and English exceptionalism within that context is very strong out there, almost as much as American exceptionalism (but with far, far less cause).

A straw man.  It's based on much the same arguments that were made in 1975, by people who were mainly on your side of the political spectrum then, like Tony Benn, and Peter Shore, that the UK is capable of governing itself.

[SeanF]

15 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Is it, though?

There's been a fair bit of debate as to the exact definition of that word, and while I cannot be arsed with getting into a semantics argument with anyone, I will say this. If you were to pile up the bodies of every Palestinian who has died as a result of Israeli war crimes over the past sixty years, you'd probably have a pile big enough to satisfy anyone's definition. But seeing as this has been going on for so long, it's much easier to sweep the evidence under the carpet. Fewer unsightly lumps, you see.

And I will not be thought-policed by anyone into ignoring the irony of a nation being created specifically to allow one group of people to be free from oppression, only to result in another group of people being systematically and horrifically oppressed. 

If it were not for the Red Cross, MSF, and all those other guys, constantly battling Netanyahu and his goons to get aid to these people, the city of Gaza would be the world's biggest ever concentration camp.

 

The Israelis have been on the receiving end of three attempts in 1948, 1967, and 1973, by Arab governments, to wipe them out.  That doesn't justify ill-treatment of the Palestinians, but it does place it in context.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Its almost like the narrative that Brexit is English nationalism and a longing for Empire is an ignorant and incorrect one. Who'd have thought that from the NY Times.

Um, not the NY Times, silly. Book's author is a citizen of the UK.   Unless, of course, you believe the book shouldn't be noticed or reviewed ... in favor of ... o I dunno. 

Recall, you -- yes YOU --  also stated there was no money to be made by the teeny portion of the obscenely wealthy out of Brexit and that racism didn't have any part in it, so one may well say what would one expect out of you .

Not that anyone would, particularly me, think that the NY Times is always right -- but this has nothing to do with the NY Times, but a review of a book -- a review, btw, that you didn't read, because if you had you'd know how much the reviewer criticized some of it.

 

[polishgenius]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

Is it, though?

I'm not sure if it is or isn't genocide, but there seems to be a drive to blacklist that word when talking about that situation and that should not happen.

What it definitely is though is apartheid.

Obviously we both as individuals and nations have to be super careful not to undermine Israel's standing in a way that would encourage those who want to destroy it to attack and also just not to let criticism of Israel's policies let us end up siding with anti-semites, but any form of defence of what Israel is doing is a disgrace at this point.

[Gaston de Foix]

Visiting this space after a while and surprised the debate has shifted to Israel rather than upcoming general election.  But q. for everyone in Blighty: what's the mood like? Is the GE still operating as a Leave v Remain or is it about other stuff? 

 

[HexMachina]

31 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Visiting this space after a while and surprised the debate has shifted to Israel rather than upcoming general election.  But q. for everyone in Blighty: what's the mood like? Is the GE still operating as a Leave v Remain or is it about other stuff? 

 

In my office at work (many fairly young recent grads in the 21-26 range, then the longer term employees too ranging from probably 30-50 as the upper end of the age range). Mostly remain supporters, i think there may be a handful of quiet Brexiters. The prevailing attitude is just lack of enthusiasm. Nobody wants to talk about the election, no-one passionately defends any party’s stance or any of the party leader, nobody really seems to have the energy at all to talk about it in any level of detail. The very brief discussions we have had though focused on non-Brexit issues/policies

[john]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

What it definitely is though is apartheid.

Apartheid is more accurate than genocide but they’re both unhelpful delegitimising terms.  It’s an illegal occupation, that’s an almost universally accepted term.  That’s bad enough.

Israel has made and continues to take wrong and unjustifiable actions but I do think it matters that it’s dealing with serious conflicting interests in a region that suffered from immigration, conflict and dispossession for fifty years before they even got a statehood, against the wishes of many international voices, in the face of strenuous (including military and terrorist) opposition, under the influence of various world powers, while trying to maintain this unmaintainable idea of the Jewish homeland. 

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Visiting this space after a while and surprised the debate has shifted to Israel rather than upcoming general election.  But q. for everyone in Blighty: what's the mood like? Is the GE still operating as a Leave v Remain or is it about other stuff? 

Meh, where I come from it’s more about wondering what the SNP will do when they win. The admin is a mess though. I filled in the postal vote application form about a week ago.  Got a reply today (direct reply to the submission email) thanking me for my request and attaching a postal vote application form for me to fill in.

[ants]

33 minutes ago, john said:

.....

Meh, where I come from it’s more about wondering what the SNP will do when they win. The admin is a mess though. I filled in the postal vote application form about a week ago.  Got a reply today (direct reply to the submission email) thanking me for my request and attaching a postal vote application form for me to fill in.

So you'll get to vote twice? 

[HexMachina]

3 hours ago, john said:

Apartheid is more accurate than genocide but they’re both unhelpful delegitimising terms.  It’s an illegal occupation, that’s an almost universally accepted term.  That’s bad enough.

Israel has made and continues to take wrong and unjustifiable actions but I do think it matters that it’s dealing with serious conflicting interests in a region that suffered from immigration, conflict and dispossession for fifty years before they even got a statehood, against the wishes of many international voices, in the face of strenuous (including military and terrorist) opposition, under the influence of various world powers, while trying to maintain this unmaintainable idea of the Jewish homeland. 

Meh, where I come from it’s more about wondering what the SNP will do when they win. The admin is a mess though. I filled in the postal vote application form about a week ago.  Got a reply today (direct reply to the submission email) thanking me for my request and attaching a postal vote application form for me to fill in.

Same here (as i had moved i had to register again). Really quite frustrating as i now need to go to a library or something to print it

3 hours ago, ants said:

So you'll get to vote twice? 

Might just be too early and i failed to detect sarcasm but no. If you register to vote by post you receive a postal ballot some time before the election and can send it off as and when you are ready. I believe you can still vote in person though, but only one vote will be counted

[Ser Hedge]

11 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Visiting this space after a while and surprised the debate has shifted to Israel rather than upcoming general election.  But q. for everyone in Blighty: what's the mood like? Is the GE still operating as a Leave v Remain or is it about other stuff? 

 

Tbh, hard to say. Every media outlet has chosen a side and spins it accordingly. Radio call-in programmes are full of ranters. A lot of campaigning takes place through directed feeds on social media anyway. There are a lot of polls, but we know they can potentially change quite fast. (Though my guess is in the absence of a major incident/leak, it doesn't change much with Labour re-running their 2017 campaign and the Tories re-running 2015).

In Remain areas, most thinking of voting Tory are going to keep quiet about it. It's probably still early, but I think the Lib Dem ground game seems limited to a few priority marginals, guess they don't have the resources or volunteers to make a serious impact in the whole SE Remain corridor.

[Heartofice]

9 hours ago, Zorral said:

Recall, you -- yes YOU --  also stated there was no money to be made by the teeny portion of the obscenely wealthy out of Brexit and that racism didn't have any part in it.

Yes? I stand by that. Better than posting crackpot theories about every major political event being controlled by some tiny cabal of money men cos you ‘ read it off the Guardian’

7 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Visiting this space after a while and surprised the debate has shifted to Israel rather than upcoming general election.  But q. for everyone in Blighty: what's the mood like? Is the GE still operating as a Leave v Remain or is it about other stuff? 

 

It feels like Brexit has fallen off the radar very quickly , and all the talk amongst the parties is about everything but Brexit. 

I was surprised recently about how many people in my office were of the ‘ just get on with Brexit’ opinion, pretty unusual for London. But I wonder if there isn’t just a general sense of apathy towards the whole thing now, is dragged on so long, everyone is tired of it.

Really this Election should be about Brexit, it’s the one issue that is hanging over our heads. The last election ended up not being about Brexit and we ended up with a zombie parliament unable to move in any direction. That was entirely predictable. I’d rather the Tories got a big majority, we can get out and move forward.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

we can get out and move forward

Oh dear.

'Get out and move forward'. Ah, no. Once we 'get out', we are then paralysed by years if not decades of international trade negotiations that have to be completed just to get us back to somewhere approximating where we are now. 

There's only one way to avoid Brexit dragging on for the next ten years. Revoke Article 50. One can argue about if and how that should be done, of course. But one cannot argue that continuing with Brexit is in any way, shape or form going to bring resolution or allow the country to 'move forward'. We've barely started the process. People need to have that explained to them. When they do, they become distinctly less enthusiastic about Brexit.

[john]

6 hours ago, ants said:

So you'll get to vote twice? 

That was a bit of a confusing sentence I posted.

No, I applied to vote by post but they responded to my completed application by sending me another application. I can still vote if I turn up at the polling station. But I will get my postal vote dammit.

Similar thing happened two elections ago. It took so long to process a postal vote that I had to get my mum to vote as proxy. When she went there she found that her own vote had been cancelled. Eventually after much arguing they gave her a postal vote to fill in and submit on the spot.

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

When I say move forward, I am referring to a point at which we aren't stuck in this form of stasis where its not even clear whether we are leaving or not. We still aren't there yet, and there are still people trying to cancel Brexit and Labour is still banging on about its unicorn 'not really Brexit' deal. 

So I'm hoping Boris wins big, and we do in fact leave. And yes, then we can start 'moving forwards', and away from the EU. Of course the process isn't over and it will take a few years to get their (longer with the EU considering how snail-like they are at doing trade deals) but I think thats kind of accepted. 

[Spockydog]

13 hours ago, SeanF said:

The Israelis have been on the receiving end of three attempts in 1948, 1967, and 1973, by Arab governments, to wipe them out.  That doesn't justify ill-treatment of the Palestinians, but it does place it in context.

I'm sure having their suffering placed in historical context will be very comforting to all the men, women and children illegally imprisoned in Gaza. Smh.

 

[Spockydog]

So, on the day the world commemorates millions of people lost to the horror of war, the British Media decides it's time to attack Corbyn over his reluctance to kill even more millions with nuclear weapons. Fucking state of debate in this country.

 

[Spockydog]

In a poorly thought out concession to Johnson, the no-doubt future Lord Farage of Cuntingdon has today announced that the Brexit Party will not contend any Tory held seats in December.

Instead of splitting the Tory vote across the entire country, they're only going to split the vote in the seats the Tory's don't already hold.

Lol. Such genius.

Thanks Nige!

 

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

In a poorly thought out concession to Johnson, the no-doubt future Lord Farage of Cuntingdon has today announced that the Brexit Party will not contend any Tory held seats in December.

They're only going to split the vote in the seats the Tory's don't already hold. Lol. Thanks Nige!

 

Good news for the Tories that. Especially as some recent polls had shown an uptick in Brexit party votes against them.