Politics in General

[Rhys Benjamin]

In the other news, Conservative Alan Duncan has gone rogue in an LBC interview, calling out members of the Conservative party for supporting Israel, and is now under investigation from the party.

Nice way to whitewash antisemitism here. He suggested British Lords, one of whom is Jewish, were doing Israel's bidding. We were rightly appalled when leftists made that allegation against Luciana Berger and it is equally appalling here.

Not quite appalling as Owen Jones's latest brain rot though, which is that Germany are only supporting Israel because of the Holocaust.

[Gavin Chipper]

In the other news, Conservative Alan Duncan has gone rogue in an LBC interview, calling out members of the Conservative party for supporting Israel, and is now under investigation from the party.

Nice way to whitewash antisemitism here. He suggested British Lords, one of whom is Jewish, were doing Israel's bidding. We were rightly appalled when leftists made that allegation against Luciana Berger and it is equally appalling here.

Not quite appalling as Owen Jones's latest brain rot though, which is that Germany are only supporting Israel because of the Holocaust.

Why do you assume it's anti-Semitism? Maybe he thinks that's what they're doing. If only one of them is Jewish, it doesn't suggest he's singling out Jews.

Germany are one of Israel's biggest supporters and supplier of arms. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that the reasons are historic.

But in both cases and indeed many others, whether they are factually right or wrong, just throwing out the accusation of anti-Semitism is simplistic, dangerous to democracy, and a cheap way to try and shut down discussion.

[Tal Lessner]

Not quite appalling as Owen Jones's latest brain rot though, which is that Germany are only supporting Israel because of the Holocaust.

Why appalling? It's quite true

[Marc Meakin]

Not quite appalling as Owen Jones's latest brain rot though, which is that Germany are only supporting Israel because of the Holocaust.

Why appalling? It's quite true

Lets be honest, Israel would not have the support it has if it wasn't for the collective guilt of the holocaust.

[Marc Meakin]

Amirite that all the 4 leaders of the home nations and also the Republic of Ireland were not elected by the people?

[Gavin Chipper]

Amirite that all the 4 leaders of the home nations and also the Republic of Ireland were not elected by the people?

We don't directly elect leaders though so I think it's less of a big deal than some people make out. It should be more about policies than personalities anyway.

[Ian Volante]

Amirite that all the 4 leaders of the home nations and also the Republic of Ireland were not elected by the people?

Well yes, that's how our systems work. We elect a local rep who then choose an overall leader from within their ranks.

[Tal Lessner]

I wonder about the logic behind the UK system though, I'm all for a parliamentary system where parliament elects the head of government. But what's the point of the constituencies? How is it fair that a party get 43% of votes but 56% MP seats, or 12% of the votes and only 1.7% of the MPs?

I get the point of such system 100 years ago, without mass communication putting the trust in a local representative.
The % of parliament seats should reflect a parties total nationwide support.

[Marc Meakin]

I wonder about the logic behind the UK system though, I'm all for a parliamentary system where parliament elects the head of government. But what's the point of the constituencies? How is it fair that a party get 43% of votes but 56% MP seats, or 12% of the votes and only 1.7% of the MPs?

I get the point of such system 100 years ago, without mass communication putting the trust in a local representative.
The % of parliament seats should reflect a parties total nationwide support.

We are enteruming the whelms of AV or PR
Gevin and others have spoken of on this very forum

[Gavin Chipper]

National level proportionality is hard to achieve without doing away with candidate-based voting. Democracy shouldn't just be about party brands. A compromise would be to have larger constituencies with five or six MPs to elect using a system like STV, which achieves PR without requiring candidates to stand for parties.

[Tal Lessner]

National level proportionality is hard to achieve without doing away with candidate-based voting. Democracy shouldn't just be about party brands. A compromise would be to have larger constituencies with five or six MPs to elect using a system like STV, which achieves PR without requiring candidates to stand for parties.

Why not the system they have in Germany for example. Having both constituency representatives, but then add more representatives from a national party list to meet the actual party voting ratio representation. This way each constituency has its representative in parliament, but the balance of power actually represents the parties' national vote rate.

edit: Meant a mechanism like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveling_seat

[Gavin Chipper]

Ideally, I wouldn't want to have any votes/seats that are specifically for a party, but that kind of mechanism isn't necessary terrible depending on how it's done.

As I understand it, in Germany, they vote for a candidate and a party. Constituency candidates are still elected using First Past the Post and then the rest of the seats awarded to parties to make the result proportional overall.

FPTP is a pretty terrible system, but changing that part for another single-winner system wouldn't need to break the overall mechanism. The party vote is still vote-for-one as I understand it, so votes can still get wasted if someone supports a smaller party.

[Marc Meakin]

I think come December or whenever Sunak decides to go to the country they will lose so many seats that they may try and get a groundswell going for in the future AV, the fib dems will back it too

[Ian Volante]

I think come December or whenever Sunak decides to go to the country they will lose so many seats that they may try and get a groundswell going for in the future AV, the fib dems will back it too

The Lib Dems would be idiots to support AV (like they were last time) as they've supported PR forever, and AV is a poor substitute. Tories are unlikely to ever go for it, they know they'll be back soon enough.

[Marc Meakin]

I think come December or whenever Sunak decides to go to the country they will lose so many seats that they may try and get a groundswell going for in the future AV, the fib dems will back it too

The Lib Dems would be idiots to support AV (like they were last time) as they've supported PR forever, and AV is a poor substitute. Tories are unlikely to ever go for it, they know they'll be back soon enough.

I don't share your optimism (?) about the Tories coming back soon.
I have feeling that the labour landslide might put 1997 in the shade with Rishi and a few more high ranking cabinet members losing their seats.

I think there might be a split within the the Tories in a similar way Labour did during the forming of the SDP.
No doubt Boris might lead the "gang of 4"

[Gavin Chipper]

Labour winning but with Starmer losing his seat might work for me.

[Ian Volante]

I think come December or whenever Sunak decides to go to the country they will lose so many seats that they may try and get a groundswell going for in the future AV, the fib dems will back it too

The Lib Dems would be idiots to support AV (like they were last time) as they've supported PR forever, and AV is a poor substitute. Tories are unlikely to ever go for it, they know they'll be back soon enough.

I don't share your optimism (?) about the Tories coming back soon.
I have feeling that the labour landslide might put 1997 in the shade with Rishi and a few more high ranking cabinet members losing their seats.

I think there might be a split within the the Tories in a similar way Labour did during the forming of the SDP.
No doubt Boris might lead the "gang of 4"

The remaining chancers will do whatever they need to do to pick up the pieces after the clear-out. The current system weighs on an incumbent government, and it's a shitshow for the foreseeable; the new government will need to work out how to be radical/undo some of the policy failures of the last decade with what little resource is available, but should be able to blame the current lot for a while at least. The Tories will just have to find a leader the majority of their MPs actually wants to support; like twenty years ago, it took a while to get to that stage after Labour smooshed them in 1997.

[Gavin Chipper]

Is "brownface" or "blackface" intrinsically racist, or does intent and context matter?

Fast forward a few years, and David Harewood says go for it!

[Marc Meakin]

Is "brownface" or "blackface" intrinsically racist, or does intent and context matter?

Fast forward a few years, and David Harewood says go for it!

Blackface in Shakespeare was much like men playing women's parts as women wernt allowed to act in those days and presumably black actors were not in abundance.
So I kinda disagree with blackface in this context but RDJ using blackface in Tropic Thunder is OK and was hilarious

[Gavin Chipper]

Is "brownface" or "blackface" intrinsically racist, or does intent and context matter?

Fast forward a few years, and David Harewood says go for it!

Blackface in Shakespeare was much like men playing women's parts as women wernt allowed to act in those days and presumably black actors were not in abundance.
So I kinda disagree with blackface in this context but RDJ using blackface in Tropic Thunder is OK and was hilarious

He appears to have changed his mind.

[Graeme Cole]

Fast forward a few years, and David Harewood says go for it!

Blackface in Shakespeare was much like men playing women's parts as women wernt allowed to act in those days and presumably black actors were not in abundance.
So I kinda disagree with blackface in this context but RDJ using blackface in Tropic Thunder is OK and was hilarious

He appears to have changed his mind.

To some extent the original article's headline seems to have taken his quote out of context.

His quote ("I say, if you want to black it up, have at it, man. It’d better be good, or else you’re gonna get laughed off the stage. But knock yourself out!") was fairly described in the article as "Harewood said he would not have a problem with a white actor using blackface - but he also implied it would be unlikely to be successful or meet with today's audience expectations".

However, as is often the case with these things, the headline then slapped on the top of the article ("Harewood says actors should be allowed to use blackface") was an oversimplification, written for engagement and clicks rather than to provide a fair summary.

[Elliott Mellor]

All the brouhaha about fake stamps at the moment seems like yet another instance of the Royal Mail failing to address the root cause of a problem.

If they really wanted to crackdown on this, instead of trying to fine the receiver £5, they could put a letter through asking them to contact the sender and ask where they got the stamp. Have an online portal where people can submit establishments that have sold fake stamps, and then target those establishments. Any place selling fake stamps then has to purchase all stamps directly from the Royal Mail.

Ideally everywhere would have to anyway, but implementing that would be logistically difficult at least in the short term.

[Mark James]

https://x.com/CountBinface/status/1783807825182884270

You know what to do.

[Gavin Chipper]

Looks good.

[Ian Volante]

https://x.com/CountBinface/status/1783807825182884270

You know what to do.

And here's his presence in a less toxic environment. https://mastodon.online/@CountBinface@mastodon.world

[Tal Lessner]

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-ea ... 024-04-26/

Don't think this recent ICC development will help much, but hopefully will get some international (mostly American) pressure on this weak, crazy, easily pressured excuse of a leader to end the massacre in Gaza, reach a ceasefire agreement and return the hostages.

[Gavin Chipper]

There's an article on the BBC about falling birth rates and the problems it can cause. I wouldn't be surprised if next week there was an article about overpopulation. It's strange that these articles never seem to reference each other. Also there's the thing about AI taking over all our jobs. I think some joined up thinking in these articles could go a long way.

[Philip A]

4th of July - General Election

[Marc Meakin]

4th of July - General Election

Isn't Wimbledon on then ?

[Paul Worsley]

4th of July - General Election

Isn't Wimbledon on then ?

Rishi has got more chance of winning that,

[Noel Mc]

Summer holidays where I am start on the 1st of July. I (and many many people, will be out of the country then.

Seems like no thought has been put in to the people of NI (shock horror!).

Obviously I can apply for a postal vote, but it's a bit annoying.


(in saying that, the last 8 MPs for my constituency have all been from the same party, with a mean % of about 63% of the vote. I normally like to exercise my right to vote in some way, but I feel I mightn't bother this time.

[Marc Meakin]

It bodes well for England's chances in the football.
England last won a trophy during a Labour government.

I think Sunak chose this date as it can't get any better for him
If he went to December I could see the biggest landslide in history
I still think it could be a 150 plus majority

[Marc Meakin]

Serious question
When do we get to see the manifestos?

[Martin Hurst]

Serious question
When do we get to see the manifestos?

Usually a couple of weeks after parliament dissolves, so would expect them around 3 weeks from now.

[Graeme Cole]

It bodes well for England's chances in the football.
England last won a trophy during a Labour government.

*England women's team has left the chat*

[Marc Meakin]

It bodes well for England's chances in the football.
England last won a trophy during a Labour government.

*England women's team has left the chat*

Oops , should have used pronouns.
Though I could have got out of it by saying World Cup

[Martin Hurst]

It bodes well for England's chances in the football.
England last won a trophy during a Labour government.

*England women's team has left the chat*

Oops , should have used pronouns.
Though I could have got out of it by saying World Cup

Ahhh, but then others might get offended on behalf of the England blow football, table football, underwater football and under 9s teams!

[Marc Meakin]

Watched Question time last night (live on Iplayer at 8pm)
Usual shite but one panelist did talk sense about War Criminals and how Netenyahoo (now you know why I say Benni ) being singled out without Putin the recently deceased leader of Iran being previously charged

[Gavin Chipper]

In 2015 we had a poll for the general election, so it might be worth doing that again. I won't start a poll on whether to do a poll though. There was a separate thread as well but I think one thread with a poll should cover it.

[Marc Meakin]

In 2015 we had a poll for the general election, so it might be worth doing that again. I won't start a poll on whether to do a poll though. There was a separate thread as well but I think one thread with a poll should cover it.

Will The Tories have less than two hundred seats.
That's my prediction
Edit , oh sorry I thought it was going to be a poll on seats.
It might be loaded though as I can't see many admitting they are voting tory

[Martin Hurst]

In 2015 we had a poll for the general election, so it might be worth doing that again. I won't start a poll on whether to do a poll though. There was a separate thread as well but I think one thread with a poll should cover it.

Will The Tories have less than two hundred seats.
That's my prediction
Edit , oh sorry I thought it was going to be a poll on seats.
It might be loaded though as I can't see many admitting they are voting tory

The spread markets have the Tories on 169 seats at the moment (Labour on 396, though this is slightly down from 414 when the election was announced)

[Mark James]

I used to hate everyone who said we're living in the movie Idiocracy but then you see Hulk Hogan at the RNC and well...

[Marc Meakin]

Who should be leader of the opposition?
Cleverly or Tugenhat ?
Surely not Suella !!

[Gavin Chipper]

Who should be leader of the opposition?
Cleverly or Tugenhat ?
Surely not Suella !!

Well Cleverly is my MP, so that would be interesting for me.

In other news, Starmer has gone on a suspension rampage over the two-child benefit cap.

[Marc Meakin]

Who should be leader of the opposition?
Cleverly or Tugenhat ?
Surely not Suella !!

Well Cleverly is my MP, so that would be interesting for me.

In other news, Starmer has gone on a suspension rampage over the two-child benefit cap.

That's what you can do with a large majority.
It will eventually dawn on people that the Labour Party are not in anyway a socialist party but are like an 80sTory party with Ken Clarke in charge instead of Thatcher

[Rhys Benjamin]

This is what we call a three-line whip.

Rebel on the King's Speech and you will lose it.

Simple.

[Gavin Chipper]

It's the fact that he's chosen this specific thing for the "three-line whip". Showing his true colours. And they seem more blue than red.

[Gavin Chipper]

Apparently Huw Edwards's crime was just someone else sending him unsolicited illegal images.

The court was earlier told that, on 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Edwards asked him not to send any underage images.

The final indecent image was sent in August 2021 - a category A film featuring a young boy.

The man told Edwards the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal, the court was told.

Edwards told him not to send any illegal images.

No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022.

"Making" indecent images can have a wide legal definition, and covers more than simply taking or filming the original picture or clip.

The Crown Prosecution Service says, external it can include opening an email attachment containing an image; downloading an image from a website to a screen; storing an image on a computer; accessing a pornographic website in which an images appears in an automatic "pop-up" window; receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group; or live-streaming images of children.

So if someone just sent you an illegal image you'd be breaking the law?

Though it does seem possible that Edwards was happy to receive the images and just said what he said as a disclaimer when explicitly asked. And he carried on communications with this very dodgy character.

I do think it's slightly weird that the BBC are going through the process of erasing him from history, including the Dr Who episode featuring him.

[Elliott Mellor]

Apparently Huw Edwards's crime was just someone else sending him unsolicited illegal images.

The court was earlier told that, on 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Edwards asked him not to send any underage images.

The final indecent image was sent in August 2021 - a category A film featuring a young boy.

The man told Edwards the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal, the court was told.

Edwards told him not to send any illegal images.

No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022.

"Making" indecent images can have a wide legal definition, and covers more than simply taking or filming the original picture or clip.

The Crown Prosecution Service says, external it can include opening an email attachment containing an image; downloading an image from a website to a screen; storing an image on a computer; accessing a pornographic website in which an images appears in an automatic "pop-up" window; receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group; or live-streaming images of children.

So if someone just sent you an illegal image you'd be breaking the law?

Though it does seem possible that Edwards was happy to receive the images and just said what he said as a disclaimer when explicitly asked. And he carried on communications with this very dodgy character.

I do think it's slightly weird that the BBC are going through the process of erasing him from history, including the Dr Who episode featuring him.

This is the bit that makes Edwards very dodgy. He clearly didn't consider it reportable, whatever he said in the messages, and continued associating with a paedophile. Whether he was actively interested in it or not, he clearly has some rather skewed morals.

As for erasing from history, I do think it's a bit odd to just pretend someone never existed like this - the announcement of the Queen's death especially was a historic moment that they're effectively now pretending never happened. There's an argument to be had for the separation of individuals and events, and it's difficult to really imagine where to draw the line.

[Marc Meakin]

I'm sure (Sir) Clive Myrie can do a retrospective voice over for posterity

[Matt Rutherford]

Apparently Huw Edwards's crime was just someone else sending him unsolicited illegal images.

The court was earlier told that, on 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Edwards asked him not to send any underage images.

The final indecent image was sent in August 2021 - a category A film featuring a young boy.

The man told Edwards the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal, the court was told.

Edwards told him not to send any illegal images.

No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022.

"Making" indecent images can have a wide legal definition, and covers more than simply taking or filming the original picture or clip.

The Crown Prosecution Service says, external it can include opening an email attachment containing an image; downloading an image from a website to a screen; storing an image on a computer; accessing a pornographic website in which an images appears in an automatic "pop-up" window; receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group; or live-streaming images of children.

So if someone just sent you an illegal image you'd be breaking the law?

Though it does seem possible that Edwards was happy to receive the images and just said what he said as a disclaimer when explicitly asked. And he carried on communications with this very dodgy character.

I do think it's slightly weird that the BBC are going through the process of erasing him from history, including the Dr Who episode featuring him.

This is not legal advice, but comes from someone with a bodged Law A-level who enjoys courtroom drama

There are methods to report such things. If on social media, they have their own (albeit often fucking useless) systems. For those outside, there exists these (among others) that he could have used if he had concerns, which obviously weren't far enough to escalate.

https://fostercarecharity.org.uk/nspcc- ... ne-images/
https://www.iwf.org.uk/

To be found guilty of most crimes you must have the 'guilty act' and 'guilty mind' (actus reus and mens rea if you wanna get all Latin). Guilty act is 'receiving', in the broad terms outlined. The guilty mind (this is where the lawyers would have had their debate if he'd done differently) is another thing. Reporting it, making it clear that you do not wish to use it for gratification would (I imagine) negate a guilty mind Edwards expressed concerns that they seemed young, but did not take any other such action, and continued association.

If you received an indecent image and then went about reporting it by any proper means, I would imagine that would negate the guilty mind. Edwards did not do that

[Marc Meakin]

Looks like Starmer is taking sides in the conflict.
On the Day that old adversary Jeremy Corbin has formed a pro Gaza alliance

[Gavin Chipper]

Looks like Starmer is taking sides in the conflict.
On the Day that old adversary Jeremy Corbin has formed a pro Gaza alliance

Indeed he is. Labour have announced they're continuing with over 90% of their arms sales to Israel. I'm not sure what difference this makes over 100%, but it will still do for a good few Palestinians, and that's what it's all about, right?

I haven't really bothered posting about Israel recently, but if anyone is still remotely thinking that their actions are reasonable after everything we've seen, I'm not sure what could happen to change their mind.

It's Corbyn by the way. Starmer's the one who should go in a bin.

What's also worrying is journalists who report on Palestine being arrested using UK terrorism laws, such as Richard Medhurst and Sarah Wilkinson. It seems very 1984.

[Tal Lessner]

I haven't really bothered posting about Israel recently, but if anyone is still remotely thinking that their actions are reasonable after everything we've seen, I'm not sure what could happen to change their mind.

It's enough to listen to Netanyahu to understand that without a shred of a reasonable government, Israeli actions will not be reasonable.
The current objective of the war from the Israeli side, is foremost to secure Netanyahu's position as PM. Everything else is secondary. And for this objective, the course of action is to appease Ben Gvir and his Nazi terrorist supporters.
The majority of Israelis want a ceasefire deal to return all hostages, but Bibi keeps making different excuses. Since the previous excuse, that only military pressure will bring the hostages safely completely collapsed due to those who recently died, now the excuse is that we must keep control of Philadelphi Corridor. Now this place is so high priority, that despite being able to conquer it after a few weeks of war, IDF didn't even bother with it for the first 8 months of the war. The heads of the military & even the (very conservative) defence minister say we don't need it, said defence minister seems to be the only single member of the coalition who actually cares more about defence and the return of the hostages (he warned that not seeking ceasefire will result in their killing) so obviously the insane members of the government want him fired. Netanyahu is just sacred of the backlash and prefers just making statements about him.
So basically in Netanyahu's eyes, everybody is the enemy, protesters, heads of the military, his own most important cabinet minister, the press etc. The guy is crazy & dangerous way beyond what is seen on the international press.

Meanwhile, the recent execution of 6 hostages has sparked again the demonstrations in favour of a ceasefire, including hundreds of thousands demonstrating the past two days and even a general strike. But there is not much hope here that it'll actually do something. Because, as said before:
1. The most important thing for Netanyahu is his position as PM.
2. To maintain this position, his "safest" way of action is continuing to do whatever the most horrible people in this country want him to.

Before ending this rant about the Nazis controlling my country, last month John Oliver made a brilliant piece about the west bank settlements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqK3_n6pdDY
For now the West Bank is talked about less because of Gaza, but since the war started, settlers lynch mobs violence has skyrocketed, burning, pillaging, and once every few days killing innocent Palestinians. They want to drag the West Bank into the war too, just to make absolutely sure there's nobody left to to govern in the occupied territories or Gaza.

Rant over, for now.

[Gavin Chipper]

That video is not available in my country.

[Tal Lessner]

That video is not available in my country.

Interesting, it's directly from the Last Week Tonight US channel, and it is broadcast on Israeli cable so expected they open it for all.
If you have somewhere to catch episodes of "Last Week Tonight" then look for it, about a month ago. And regardless, John Oliver is brilliant and I love this show.

[Marc Meakin]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ykz4nr11no.
Why can't they just fine parents during important exam times.
My grandkids went to Pompeii and learned loads but my daughter still got fined.

If holiday companies didn't inflate their prices so much it wouldn't happen.
At least offer a Premier Inn style , book early and save package.

Even Ticket(tout)master are inflating prices for some aging Beatles tribute band

My Paul McCartney tix at £95 already look a bargain.
As long as he doesn't make the deadpool

[Gavin Chipper]

So Kirk Bevins is calling himself Michael Hall now.

[Callum Todd]

Even Ticket(tout)master are inflating prices for some aging Beatles tribute band

[Gavin Chipper]

I know a lot of people don't like Owen Jones, but in one of his few non-Israel videos, I think he's done a good job of exposing Starmer's Labour over the winter fuel allowance.