Politics in General

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2761
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:56 pm

Anyone see Boris Johnson on the Marr show this morning (and then immediately afterwards on the Peston show)? Having watched both I'm still a little bit bewildered as to what points he was trying to convey. He said "taking back control" a lot and talked loudly over both interviewers and guests but as far as I could tell wasn't really saying anything. It seemed to be more of the usual stuff; basically waffling on about the things that the government might like but settling on no definite position.

He said in both interviews that he had "clearly demonstrated our position" but he blatantly hadn't, or if he had I wasn't picking up on it. There seems to be a lot of this sort of thing going on these days, i.e. claiming that definite actions are obviously readable from very vague statements. Is this just an example of the post-truth politics that I read about or have I just had a comprehension failure?

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:21 pm

JimBentley wrote:Anyone see Boris Johnson on the Marr show this morning (and then immediately afterwards on the Peston show)? Having watched both I'm still a little bit bewildered as to what points he was trying to convey. He said "taking back control" a lot and talked loudly over both interviewers and guests but as far as I could tell wasn't really saying anything. It seemed to be more of the usual stuff; basically waffling on about the things that the government might like but settling on no definite position.

He said in both interviews that he had "clearly demonstrated our position" but he blatantly hadn't, or if he had I wasn't picking up on it. There seems to be a lot of this sort of thing going on these days, i.e. claiming that definite actions are obviously readable from very vague statements. Is this just an example of the post-truth politics that I read about or have I just had a comprehension failure?
Caught a tiny bit from my hotel room at CO:Birmingham. Sorry not to be more helpful!

Edit - there is this on the BBC news website.
Last edited by Gavin Chipper on Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:30 pm

What do people think of this idea of tougher sentences for causing death by dangerous driving? I think it's a load of nonsense myself, and it's really just to satisfy people's base feelings that these people deserve to be punished more severely. And I don't think that's a good way of setting legislation.

It's certainly not a sensible deterrent anyway. A better deterrent would be to crack down more on those who are found guilty of dangerous driving but don't cause a fatal accident. This would presumably be most people who drive dangerously.

When people drink and drive or otherwise drive dangerously do so, I think they probably don't really consider that what they're doing really is that dangerous, or that they'll probably get away with it - by which I mean not have an accident. I don't think they're thinking "This is fine, because if I crash and kill someone and also survive myself I won't get a very long sentence". For those who seriously consider that they might be involved in a fatal accident (which could kill themselves), I don't think the risk of a higher sentence if they survive would add much deterrent.

If you want to make people stop and think, send a message out to those who would otherwise think they'd got away with it - i.e. those who don't have a serious accident. There's no logical reason anyway for someone to get a greater sentence because they were unlucky that someone died through their dangerous driving. It just comes down to people's revenge impulse.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3440
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:25 pm

If mobile phones were automaticaly disabled when the engine is running,that would help.
Also, by your logic anyone who says they are going to murder someone should get a longer sentence than someone who actually carries it out
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:37 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:If mobile phones were automaticaly disabled when the engine is running,that would help.
Quite difficult to reasonable achieve. Would you ban passengers from using them?
Also, by your logic anyone who says they are going to murder someone should get a longer sentence than someone who actually carries it out
No. A more analogous situation would be attempted murder. But in any case, murder is different because you're actually trying to kill someone. So successfully killing someone has no deterrent effect at all, unlike the deterrent that would come with killing someone through dangerous driving.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2761
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:35 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:A better deterrent would be to crack down more on those who are found guilty of dangerous driving but don't cause a fatal accident. This would presumably be most people who drive dangerously.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how would this be done? Every day I see people driving in a way that could be considered "dangerous" - e.g. accelerating as fast as possible to 40mph in a 30mph zone when there's pedestrians around, pulling out straight into incoming traffic, overtaking when the view ahead isn't clear, etc. etc. - but unless you have a blanket coverage of traffic police, none of these things can ever be stopped. And if you mean dangerous driving that causes an accident, unless it's a very clear-cut situation (like the recent case of the lorry driver scrolling through music on his mobile phone prior to tail-ending a line of stationary traffic) then it's almost impossible to prove unless there are numerous witnesses or cameras in the vicinity.

I agree that a lot of drivers get away with some very dodgy stuff when they shouldn't (and they can't all be drunk; some people are just shit at driving), but I think your idea would generally be unenforceable. What's more, in the cases where it could conceivably be enforced, it would potentially lead to as many spurious convictions as it would valid ones, given the highly subjective nature of what witnesses would describe as "dangerous driving".

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:15 pm

JimBentley wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:A better deterrent would be to crack down more on those who are found guilty of dangerous driving but don't cause a fatal accident. This would presumably be most people who drive dangerously.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but how would this be done? Every day I see people driving in a way that could be considered "dangerous" - e.g. accelerating as fast as possible to 40mph in a 30mph zone when there's pedestrians around, pulling out straight into incoming traffic, overtaking when the view ahead isn't clear, etc. etc. - but unless you have a blanket coverage of traffic police, none of these things can ever be stopped. And if you mean dangerous driving that causes an accident, unless it's a very clear-cut situation (like the recent case of the lorry driver scrolling through music on his mobile phone prior to tail-ending a line of stationary traffic) then it's almost impossible to prove unless there are numerous witnesses or cameras in the vicinity.

I agree that a lot of drivers get away with some very dodgy stuff when they shouldn't (and they can't all be drunk; some people are just shit at driving), but I think your idea would generally be unenforceable. What's more, in the cases where it could conceivably be enforced, it would potentially lead to as many spurious convictions as it would valid ones, given the highly subjective nature of what witnesses would describe as "dangerous driving".
I understand that if there isn't an accident, often there will be no evidence. But I suppose my main point is that dangerous driving is a recognised offence in its own right, and presumably at least some people are convicted of it. And I would say that I don't think people should be treated more harshly because of a worse (unintended) outcome, and arguably it should be the other way round if anything.

I'm also not suggesting that people should all get really long prison sentences for dangerous driving. But I don't think that long prison sentences for causing death by dangerous driving are a good solution either.

Something I find strange is that drinking and driving is treated as a serious offence. It's an automatic ban and a criminal record (I think). But using a mobile phone, including texting, is just a points-on-your-licence affair (unless of course you cause an accident and kill or injure someone of course). Texting while driving seems to me to be at least as dangerous as driving while drunk.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2761
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:44 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:Something I find strange is that drinking and driving is treated as a serious offence. It's an automatic ban and a criminal record (I think). But using a mobile phone, including texting, is just a points-on-your-licence affair (unless of course you cause an accident and kill or injure someone of course). Texting while driving seems to me to be at least as dangerous as driving while drunk.
Funnily enough this has come up again today: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -sentences

One thing that I do agree with (although it isn't articulated very well in the article, it's a definite subtext) is that until using a mobile phone whilst driving is penalised in a similar way to drink-driving, very little is likely to change.

Heather Styles
Rookie
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:29 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Heather Styles » Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:27 pm

Are all politicians who seem stupid as stupid as they seem?

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2761
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:52 pm

Heather Styles wrote:
Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:27 pm
Are all politicians who seem stupid as stupid as they seem?
This is impossible to answer unless you give us the names of some politicians that you think "seem stupid", because whilst I disagree profoundly with the views of many (OK, most) politicians, I can't think of one that I would call "stupid". I might think that their views are regressive, or just plain wrong, but this almost always boils down to a difference of opinion.

I think this is where the whole Brexit debate has come unstuck, to be honest. I think that Brexit is a bad idea and can supply arguments as to why I think this, but there are plenty of people who think the opposite and can supply counter-arguments as to why they think I am wrong and all that is fair enough. But the debate now has degenerated into the "Remainers" and the "Brexiteers" (I hate those terms but they're convenient) just calling each other names and it stultifies the whole debate. Plus it seeps into everything. Pretty much every news item these days gets tied into it, there's got to be an angle, however seemingly innocuous the story.

Heather Styles
Rookie
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:29 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Heather Styles » Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:40 am

I deliberately left the question open because I was interested to hear any response before I gave my tuppence-worth.

Like you, I cannot think of any politicians who are really stupid.

I was thinking specifically when asked the question of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. I think they are both anything but stupid, but that they cultivate something of a stupid persona for political gain.

I also agree with you about the degeneration of the EU exit debate. I think I'm partly responsible, as I continued to label myself and allow myself to be labelled a Remainer long after the referendum. 'Remainer' and 'Brexiteer' (and their pejorative equivalents) have often had the effect of stultifying the debate.

Heather Styles
Rookie
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:29 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Heather Styles » Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:04 am

I don't know that journalists are going out of their way to find a Brexit angle on every story. Something so widely and profoundly consequential is always going to be newsworthy, in my view. So I don't think we should stop talking about it, but we should look for new terms of debate.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:37 am

I think that a lot of arguments that politicians use (not just about the EU but generally) are fundamentally stupid arguments (or just dishonest) rather than just a difference of opinion.

That's not to say that I'm saying these politicians are stupid themselves but it seems that the "more important" skill for politicians is a public speaking skill than anything like intelligence or logical thinking - looking like you know what you're talking about (even if it's rubbish) and when you've got no answer the ability to answer a completely different question.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2761
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:08 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:37 am
I think that a lot of arguments that politicians use (not just about the EU but generally) are fundamentally stupid arguments (or just dishonest) rather than just a difference of opinion.
This is what I was getting at, but you slightly spoiled it with your bracketed caveat. Of course they're being dishonest, it's a prerequisite of the job, but nonetheless the arguments they put forward aren't fundamentally stupid. The arguments - although you may think that they are misguided or whatever - aren't even necessarily wrong. They're just designed to appeal to somebody who is in a different situation to you and will therefore hold a different opinion.

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Kiloposter
Posts: 1138
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:02 pm

The last few months has been pretty insane for politics (particularly in the USA), but this manifesto (by a Stoke by-election candidate who has been arrested for it) is probably the most insane thing I've ever read.
go away xoxo

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:55 pm

Jennifer Steadman wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:02 pm
The last few months has been pretty insane for politics (particularly in the USA), but this manifesto (by a Stoke by-election candidate who has been arrested for it) is probably the most insane thing I've ever read.
That's pretty amazing.

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Kiloposter
Posts: 1138
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:05 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:55 pm
Jennifer Steadman wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:02 pm
The last few months has been pretty insane for politics (particularly in the USA), but this manifesto (by a Stoke by-election candidate who has been arrested for it) is probably the most insane thing I've ever read.
That's pretty amazing.
Not decided what my favourite bit is yet. Probably either the psychiatrists one near the end, or the 'charging Winston Churchill for treason' one. I keep finding new ones to go "Oh wow" about.
go away xoxo

Thomas Cappleman
Acolyte
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:42 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Thomas Cappleman » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:58 pm

Jennifer Steadman wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:05 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:55 pm
Jennifer Steadman wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:02 pm
The last few months has been pretty insane for politics (particularly in the USA), but this manifesto (by a Stoke by-election candidate who has been arrested for it) is probably the most insane thing I've ever read.
That's pretty amazing.
Not decided what my favourite bit is yet. Probably either the psychiatrists one near the end, or the 'charging Winston Churchill for treason' one. I keep finding new ones to go "Oh wow" about.
I prefer "The Israeli terrorist Karl Marx will be charged with Treason and causing the Paris Revolution and the end of the French Monarchy." for the sheer number of things wrong with the sentence. Also, the non-specificity of "descendants", presumably preventing anyone at all from many jobs.

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:27 pm

The best has to be the death penalty for anyone who uses radio signals to kill people. Except of course during warfare. That's only common sense really.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:44 pm

Mark James wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:27 pm
The best has to be the death penalty for anyone who uses radio signals to kill people. Except of course during warfare. That's only common sense really.
I assume that includes Heart FM.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Kiloposter
Posts: 1138
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:23 am

go away xoxo

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:02 pm

Jennifer Steadman wrote:
Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:23 am
Economist columnist suggests making Manchester the administrative capital of the UK. Really interesting piece. Any thoughts?
Yeah, it's not completely insane. It could be an interesting move.

Heather Styles
Rookie
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:29 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Heather Styles » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:13 am

It seems a decent idea, which makes it almost guaranteed not to happen under this government.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3440
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:10 am

With HS2 on the horizon, Birmingham would be a good shout.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Euan Slatter
Acolyte
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:06 pm
Location: Portishead, NORTH SOMERSET

Re: Politics in General

Post by Euan Slatter » Sat Mar 04, 2017 8:58 am

There were plans a while back to move Parliament to Bristol, so that could be in with a shout...
COUNTDOWN or THE TUBE? Which is better? There's only one way to find out....

Call it a draw :)

Robins Till I Die

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3440
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:48 am

Will the Tories get a 100 + majority ?
Can't think of a more depressing future
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:19 pm

Labour MP Clive Lewis used the word "bitch", apparently to a bloke, and everyone is going crazy. It is crazy. What do you think, bitches?

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:39 pm

And it's a shame that Jeremy Corbyn has decided to react in the same way as all the other sheep.

I don't know why people pretend that this is something really terrible, rather than something that 99% of people do all the time. Sure, it was ill-considered considering the likely backlash, but really people need to get over themselves.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2761
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:13 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:39 pm
And it's a shame that Jeremy Corbyn has decided to react in the same way as all the other sheep.
Couldn't agree more, it was disappointing. I kind of understand why though, this gets it out of the way quicker than him having to then do a bunch of follow-ups explaining why, which would then all be endlessly picked apart, etc. etc.
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:39 pm
I don't know why people pretend that this is something really terrible, rather than something that 99% of people do all the time. Sure, it was ill-considered considering the likely backlash, but really people need to get over themselves.
Even though much of it is obviously completely faux outrage for political reasons (it was unsurprising to see Jess Phillips heavily involved in the early promotion of the story), a proportion of the bandwagon-jumpers seem genuinely to be offended, even after having seen the incident in context. That's the disturbing thing. It's difficult to empathise with these people, they must spend their entire life being perpetually outraged by something. Must be exhausting.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3440
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Sun Oct 22, 2017 4:54 pm

Whenever a story like this breaks, we always get the Twitter is outraged line.
When isn't Twitter outraged
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Tom S
Devotee
Posts: 775
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:38 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Tom S » Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:05 pm

Everyone is going crazy about Clive Lewis' comments, but a more extreme approach should be taken when considering the position of Sheffield Labour MP Jared O'Mara, I think even though the comments were made 13 years ago, they really were extreme for a modern day politician. I personally think that he should be dismissed.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3440
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:23 am

Tom S wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:05 pm
Everyone is going crazy about Clive Lewis' comments, but a more extreme approach should be taken when considering the position of Sheffield Labour MP Jared O'Mara, I think even though the comments were made 13 years ago, they really were extreme for a modern day politician. I personally think that he should be dismissed.
Should we shut the BBC down for showing Racist and Homophobic and sexist comedies 13 years ago ?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:10 pm

Tom S wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:05 pm
Everyone is going crazy about Clive Lewis' comments, but a more extreme approach should be taken when considering the position of Sheffield Labour MP Jared O'Mara, I think even though the comments were made 13 years ago, they really were extreme for a modern day politician. I personally think that he should be dismissed.
Extreme? That stuff's pretty tame for a young bloke online in my experience. He wasn't a modern-day politician back then, doesn't everyone get a free pass for having been a knobhead when younger?
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:26 pm

I'm with Ian. He wasn't a politician at the time, was failry young and enough time has passed for him to grow up and see the error in his ways. For me an apology should be acceptable and then be the end of story. No one has to lose their job.

Same for Lewis really. I found it more cringey than offensive (in that politician trying to be cool and failing kind of way) and yeah some people overreacted but I don't see the harm in him apologising. I read the metro online and it was pretty much a non story for the general public as it had no comments underneath the article. It was like, man says something in bad taste, is asked to apologise and he apologised. Done.

I thought Corbyn handled it pretty well. There was basically an insinuation that misogyny is rife within his party. Saying Lewis' remarks was totally unacceptable might be hyperbolic but if he had said anything else you know the media would have twisted it. He did well to deflect any of that by saying they were remarks made by an individial that the party doesn't endorse. It wasn't the time to fight for some sort of free speech absolution or to tell people they're too sensitive and to get over themselves.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:43 pm

It's really bad that we still have homeless people and people that feel the need to beg on the streets isn't it? Well yes, but apparently only because they might spoil some sort of "royal wedding".

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:15 pm

This Labour anti-Semitism thing is getting a bit ridiculous. And in a way I do blame Jeremy Corbyn. He needs to come out and defend himself more aggressively. When people criticise Labour for not using the definition of anti-Semitism used by the "IHRA", he needs to come out and explicitly say it's because their definition is bullshit. A lot of the stuff in their definition has nothing to do with anti-Semitism or racism. You can't just define something to be true. Come out fighting Corbyn.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3440
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:24 pm

Society seems to think you can't be pro Palestinian without being accused of being an anti-semite.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Peter Mabey
Kiloposter
Posts: 1038
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Harlow

Re: Politics in General

Post by Peter Mabey » Wed Aug 01, 2018 7:15 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:24 pm
Society seems to think you can't be pro Palestinian without being accused of being an anti-semite.
.. which is ironic because the Palestinians are also a Semitic race ;)

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:08 pm

Re: Labour antisemitism. Anyone following Rachel Reilly on twitter at the moment?

User avatar
James Robinson
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9659
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Politics in General

Post by James Robinson » Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:29 pm

Mark James wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:08 pm
Re: Labour antisemitism. Anyone following Rachel Reilly on twitter at the moment?
Who's Rachel REILLY!!!??? :!: :!: :!: :?: :?: :?:
CO:WY COMING SOON.... ;) :) :D :mrgreen: 8-) :geek: :ugeek:

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Kiloposter
Posts: 1979
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:53 pm

Sadly, yes.

The Labour antisemitism thing keeps rumbling on. At first, I thought the Lab leadership was being nice but dim and not understanding, but given some of the things Corbyn has said I'm not sure.

The problem is that a lot of people conflate "Israel" and "Jews" since Israel is the only Jewish nation state at the moment. The foundation of Israel was done on religious grounds, yes, but if you're going to argue for its abolition you also need to argue for the abolition of Pakistan as it was founded in virtually identical circumstances, and I haven't read a single opus saying that Pakistan should be abolished.

What's more, a lot of people are wilfully blind to some of the antisemitism that's happening from the Left at the moment, particularly by Corbynistas. It is not difficult to conduct even the lightest of Google searches for countless examples by Labour supporters in the last few years. It's now so bad that Nick Hewer has now left the Labour Party over this.

Either I'm mistaken or Nick Hewer was instrumental in supporting the failed Hoon/Hewitt coup of 2010, so he's not just your typical celebrity supporter.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:29 pm

James Robinson wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:29 pm
Mark James wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:08 pm
Re: Labour antisemitism. Anyone following Rachel Reilly on twitter at the moment?
Who's Rachel REILLY!!!??? :!: :!: :!: :?: :?: :?:
She spelled Chomsky wrong so.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:48 am

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:53 pm
Sadly, yes.

The Labour antisemitism thing keeps rumbling on. At first, I thought the Lab leadership was being nice but dim and not understanding, but given some of the things Corbyn has said I'm not sure.

The problem is that a lot of people conflate "Israel" and "Jews" since Israel is the only Jewish nation state at the moment. The foundation of Israel was done on religious grounds, yes, but if you're going to argue for its abolition you also need to argue for the abolition of Pakistan as it was founded in virtually identical circumstances, and I haven't read a single opus saying that Pakistan should be abolished.

What's more, a lot of people are wilfully blind to some of the antisemitism that's happening from the Left at the moment, particularly by Corbynistas. It is not difficult to conduct even the lightest of Google searches for countless examples by Labour supporters in the last few years. It's now so bad that Nick Hewer has now left the Labour Party over this.

Either I'm mistaken or Nick Hewer was instrumental in supporting the failed Hoon/Hewitt coup of 2010, so he's not just your typical celebrity supporter.
I think a lot of the conflation of "Israel" and "Jews"* comes from the people accusing others of anti-Semitism. And the definition some people use includes "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis". However much you might disagree with people making these comparisons and think it's repugnant, it's not anti-Semitic, and it's not racist. Find some other adjectives that do apply.

*Also, people who are Jewish by descent v by religion.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:52 am

I might as well use this thread for this. What do you think of feminism? Are you a feminist? I just read this article, and the thing the article refuses to explicitly state is basically my opinion on the matter and I'd been considered posting something on the matter anyway. In short - people agree with equality of the sexes but they don't call themselves feminists, because it's such a stupid and unclear term to mean such a thing. I think people need to realise this, and that getting more people to identify as feminists is not any sort of victory apart from a semantic one.

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:36 am

I kind of agree. I wouldn't call myself a feminist, I would say I support feminism. If people want to call me a feminist that's fine, I try not to give myself labels. It's useless to just call yourself one anyway, it should be defined by your actions.

However I think another problem is that, for some people, the word doesn't just mean believing in equality of the sexes but that a feminist is an actual activist, someone who belongs to an organisation or goes on marches, you can't just be a normal person who goes about their business and hopes equality improves.

This a wrong attitude for me and helps add to some of the negative stereotypes associated ie. You're just an agitator looking for a fight.

I can also agree that more people identifying as feminist could be a fairly shallow victory however I think it would be useful purely as push back against anti-feminism. If I were to call myself a feminist it would be basically to differentiate myself from those assholes.

Youtube in particular has seen a rise of morons promoting anti-feminism, many of whom do so under the guise of being liberal but really it's just a way to smuggle in right wing conservatism.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:03 pm

Mark James wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:36 am
I kind of agree. I wouldn't call myself a feminist, I would say I support feminism. If people want to call me a feminist that's fine, I try not to give myself labels. It's useless to just call yourself one anyway, it should be defined by your actions.
I also wouldn't call myself a feminist. If someone outright asked me "Are you a feminist?" I'd say that I don't call myself one, but I'll tell you my views and you can then decide if you think I'm a feminist or not. And yes, actions are important too.
However I think another problem is that, for some people, the word doesn't just mean believing in equality of the sexes but that a feminist is an actual activist, someone who belongs to an organisation or goes on marches, you can't just be a normal person who goes about their business and hopes equality improves.
I think it's a problem that there is no one clear meaning of the word, and the name doesn't exactly scream "equality" anyway, so it's confusing.
I can also agree that more people identifying as feminist could be a fairly shallow victory however I think it would be useful purely as push back against anti-feminism. If I were to call myself a feminist it would be basically to differentiate myself from those assholes.

Youtube in particular has seen a rise of morons promoting anti-feminism, many of whom do so under the guise of being liberal but really it's just a way to smuggle in right wing conservatism.
I think maybe that the term "feminism" actually helps these people smuggle in right-wing conservatism. People can get away with calling themselves anti-feminist because the term is unclear and sounds like it could mean women's rights above men's. Whereas if they called themselves "anti-equality" or "anti-equality for women" they'd have nowhere to hide.

So personally, I would avoid the term altogether in a description of myself.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:41 am

MP Robert Halfon thinks we should scrap GCSEs. And even though he's a Tory, I agree with him. We go to school to learn stuff, and I think it should be a safe learning environment, not something for employers to be able to use against you at a later date if you haven't paid enough attention. Obviously certain jobs require certain qualifications, but GCSEs aren't exactly job-related qualifications. I'd probably have something like a numeracy and literacy "driving licence" that's typically taken at around the age of 16, but like a driving test, it would be something you could take and retake at any stage of your life quite simply. I think this is quite a good read by just some random guy on the subject.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2761
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:11 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:41 am
MP Robert Halfon thinks we should scrap GCSEs. And even though he's a Tory, I agree with him. We go to school to learn stuff, and I think it should be a safe learning environment, not something for employers to be able to use against you at a later date if you haven't paid enough attention. Obviously certain jobs require certain qualifications, but GCSEs aren't exactly job-related qualifications. I'd probably have something like a numeracy and literacy "driving licence" that's typically taken at around the age of 16, but like a driving test, it would be something you could take and retake at any stage of your life quite simply. I think this is quite a good read by just some random guy on the subject.
But who knows what qualifications will be needed in even twenty years time? Seriously, that's what people need to be thinking about. The whole world might have changed by then, how can you predict what people are going to need to know to know about?

Personally, I think we should all just get pissed and forget about it, it's too big a subject to really broach in a meaningful way.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:45 pm

JimBentley wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:11 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:41 am
MP Robert Halfon thinks we should scrap GCSEs. And even though he's a Tory, I agree with him. We go to school to learn stuff, and I think it should be a safe learning environment, not something for employers to be able to use against you at a later date if you haven't paid enough attention. Obviously certain jobs require certain qualifications, but GCSEs aren't exactly job-related qualifications. I'd probably have something like a numeracy and literacy "driving licence" that's typically taken at around the age of 16, but like a driving test, it would be something you could take and retake at any stage of your life quite simply. I think this is quite a good read by just some random guy on the subject.
But who knows what qualifications will be needed in even twenty years time? Seriously, that's what people need to be thinking about. The whole world might have changed by then, how can you predict what people are going to need to know to know about?

Personally, I think we should all just get pissed and forget about it, it's too big a subject to really broach in a meaningful way.
We can still scrap qualifications that we're pretty sure we won't need. I'm pretty sure that some German I learnt years ago and can barely remember any of now is ever going to help me in a job or indeed in any capacity, for example.

Zarte Siempre
Kiloposter
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Dadford, Buckinghamshire

Re: Politics in General

Post by Zarte Siempre » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:57 pm

Make GCSEs optional. Tbh, I *do* think that Maths, English and Science should be mandatory, but agree with the suggestion that they can be retaken at any time (and tbh, would add that like a driving license, perhaps they should probably be retested a couple of times to encourage the syllabus to become more based on things that would actually be useful)

But after that, whilst insisting that people choose subjects like at present, allow them to decide halfway through their final year of it if they'd like to take an exam or not. If not, no biggy, if so, they can get a qualification for it which they can use to big themselves up like any vocational qualification.
Possibly the first contestant to accelerate with a mic clipped...

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:26 pm

Zarte Siempre wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:57 pm
agree with the suggestion that they can be retaken at any time
They can be can't they?
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Tom S
Devotee
Posts: 775
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:38 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Tom S » Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:07 pm

I'd propose GCSE's being split up into 2 years- for example the "key" subjects as they were known as when I was in education- Maths, English, Science in the final year as that is what most colleges tend to look for should they be going to one. With rising adolescent mental health issues, splitting it out (in my eyes) puts less stress on the pupils the second time round. I think exams are important, but one must remember that it is not the end of the world dhould things not go to plan. I think the present GCSE system (which was properly introduced in 2018, yet was trialled in 2017 with English and Maths) really induces unnecessary pressure which no child will ever endure in further education, in my opinion - speaking as someone who was a GCSE "guinea pig" in 2017.....

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:48 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:26 pm
Zarte Siempre wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:57 pm
agree with the suggestion that they can be retaken at any time
They can be can't they?
They can, but GCSEs are like two-year courses or something. Under my system, there would just be numeracy and literacy "driving tests", and anyone who is basically numerate and literate would be able to walk off the street and take these without having to worry about something weird being in the course that they weren't aware of.

I'm all for learning more in-depth stuff as well obviously, but I make a distinction between stuff we should learn for our own sake and stuff that employers should be able to use against us. And there would also be tests in the other stuff, but it would be for our own benefit to know how we are progressing.

My main point is that GCSEs are called "qualifications" but they don't actually qualify you to do anything. There is literally no job ever where an employer would say "OK, I'd like to have you in this job but I'm unsure you would be able to do it. Let's just check - do you have a GCSE in history?"

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2761
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:39 pm

Wow, a break from endless Brexit stories. Something semi-interesting has happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... bour-party

It's been amusingly shambolic so far, there couldn't really have been a worse start. They haven't exactly put a dream team together, have they? Mike Gapes, for chrissakes. Going to be interesting to see how it develops over the next few days, though, could be some others joining them. Very surprised Stephen Kinnock wasn't involved, for instance.

Oh also I now know the real reason that Chukka Umuna withdrew from the Labour leadership race in 2015. His excuse, that he didn't like being under so much media scrutiny, turns out to be actually quite honest. Of course, the reason that he didn't want the scrutiny was because of what he was up to at the time, the dirty bugger.

David Williams
Devotee
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by David Williams » Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:50 pm

JimBentley wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:39 pm
It's been amusingly shambolic so far, there couldn't really have been a worse start. They haven't exactly put a dream team together, have they? Mike Gapes, for chrissakes. Going to be interesting to see how it develops over the next few days, though, could be some others joining them. Very surprised Stephen Kinnock wasn't involved, for instance.

Oh also I now know the real reason that Chukka Umuna withdrew from the Labour leadership race in 2015. His excuse, that he didn't like being under so much media scrutiny, turns out to be actually quite honest. Of course, the reason that he didn't want the scrutiny was because of what he was up to at the time, the dirty bugger.
I believe this is the first draft of Jeremy Corbyn's response to the news.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2761
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:08 pm

David Williams wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:50 pm
JimBentley wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:39 pm
It's been amusingly shambolic so far, there couldn't really have been a worse start. They haven't exactly put a dream team together, have they? Mike Gapes, for chrissakes. Going to be interesting to see how it develops over the next few days, though, could be some others joining them. Very surprised Stephen Kinnock wasn't involved, for instance.

Oh also I now know the real reason that Chukka Umuna withdrew from the Labour leadership race in 2015. His excuse, that he didn't like being under so much media scrutiny, turns out to be actually quite honest. Of course, the reason that he didn't want the scrutiny was because of what he was up to at the time, the dirty bugger.
I believe this is the first draft of Jeremy Corbyn's response to the news.
Good one. I don't know why you don't comment more, you obviously have strong opinions and you're often quite pithy. You do good responses. Post more, please.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:43 pm

JimBentley wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:39 pm
Oh also I now know the real reason that Chukka Umuna withdrew from the Labour leadership race in 2015. His excuse, that he didn't like being under so much media scrutiny, turns out to be actually quite honest. Of course, the reason that he didn't want the scrutiny was because of what he was up to at the time, the dirty bugger.
So you think he was planning this as far back as 2015? That would make it even worse.

I think David Williams should come to a CO-event, not just post more on here.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:19 pm

What about the whole Shamima Begum thing then? It's obviously just Sajid Javid trying to appeal to the "string 'em up" vote, which is not to be underestimated when it comes to a general election, which he wants to lead the Tory party in.

It's total rubbish though. There's the thing about her maybe having Bangladeshi citizenship - but so what anyway? It's such a parochial and insular view to just say you don't want her in your country. What's so better about her being in Bangladesh? Would they want her any more than the UK do anyway? And if she is this potentially dangerous individual, wouldn't it be better to bring her over here where you can keep an eye on her, and keep her under surveillance if it's deemed really necessary? I say bring her back, and as part of her rehabilitation, force her to debate Richard Dawkins.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Postmaster General
Posts: 3440
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:27 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:19 pm
What about the whole Shamima Begum thing then? It's obviously just Sajid Javid trying to appeal to the "string 'em up" vote, which is not to be underestimated when it comes to a general election, which he wants to lead the Tory party in.

It's total rubbish though. There's the thing about her maybe having Bangladeshi citizenship - but so what anyway? It's such a parochial and insular view to just say you don't want her in your country. What's so better about her being in Bangladesh? Would they want her any more than the UK do anyway? And if she is this potentially dangerous individual, wouldn't it be better to bring her over here where you can keep an eye on her, and keep her under surveillance if it's deemed really necessary? I say bring her back, and as part of her rehabilitation, force her to debate Richard Dawkins.
So you would be happy for taxpayers money giving her a bodyguard for the rest of her life.
I think she's better of going to the Netherlands where the child's father comes from

Apropos of nothing in particular, the snowflake brigade that say bring her home she's just a misguided youth etc.
are the same people who are calling Liam Neeson a pariah for an unsavoury comment taken out of context 40 years ago
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 8814
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:44 pm

If she'd stolen a bicycle while she was out there I'd probably say leave her to rot out there.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests