Off Topic Politics Thread

For all the Trump hate and moaning it is strange that no-one is questioning the actions of an out-going president. Trying to put his foot down maybe but he is playing games with the job at the moment.

He is using the fact that Trump might get some lee way with Russia. Would any other outgoing president have taken such a risk with Russia as today? No because it might have been seen as something that might continue.

 

I don't think that immigration story has much to do with Brexit at all really. It's almost certainly a story about incompetent or overworked staff, and I'd put money on Brexit having little influence on these cases (other than triggering those people to apply). The headline is disingenuous for starters. It seems clear from the actual story that these people haven't really been told to prepare to leave the country; they've basically been sent an incorrectly-worded letter, probably by a relatively junior member of staff. I have a friend who works as a student immigration adviser and she has dozens - if not hundreds - of stories about poor decisions made by staff in the Home Office so this doesn't surprise me at all.

Once I combine my friend's experiences with my experience working in somewhat similar areas of the public sector I become almost certain that the people named in the story have been sent standard outcome letters. Perhaps the staff haven't read the outcome letters so haven't noticed they're wrong, perhaps they know the letters are wrong but are unable to edit them or perhaps they're expected to consider a certain number of cases per hour/day/week/whatever and so (have to?) focus more on the quantity of cases they deal with rather than the quality of their work.

The Home Office are in an awkward situation really. It's likely that the UK and EU will come to some sort of arrangement where people are able to stay where they currently live (possibly on condition that they were living there before a certain date) and I imagine they don't want to deal with a whole load of applications for citizenship that will probably end up being unnecessary.

 

You miss the point Puck. Even if the EU plays hardball with UK people in the EU, the UK will still not exact "revenge." It would be political suicide that even UKIP understand and are very vocal that anyone here should be allowed to stay.

Even if the EU says "No your people have to go home" the UK will set an example. You can't continually warble on about humanity r.e. refugees and then say "but UK citizens can F off."

I expect the EU to remain happy for British people to spend their money in the EU residing and any UK politician is not even going to think about anything other than "if you're here, you can stay" no matter how many alarms the Guardian and other publications want to suggest "could" happen.

Your analysis on the "stock" letter is on the money me thinks.

Still waiting for the wife's, and her brother and sister's, and Edyta down the road who spent Xmas eve with us, and Alvaro and his family we went out with last night. None of them have received the letter of doom yet!

 

This government, and Cameron's before it, haven't displayed much humanity towards refugees (remember the "swarms of people" comments?). We've closed our doors to most of them. What makes you think a May govt is suddenly going to "set an example" to anyone when it comes to fair treatment of European residents?

 

Seriously? You commented to disparage the article (and TSS's comment on it) without even reading it? Honestly?

If you can rubbish a comment (in some detail) without even bothering to read the article backing it up, I've realised that you aren't worth reading or listening to ever again. You need to learn that your personal experience is not all there is in this world. Pitiful. I hope everyone reading this takes note that your spoutings of "facts" about politics are just hot air and made up nonsense.

For background, I cleared out my ignore list some time ago and made a decision never to add anyone again. Well, that's a little resolution broken; you'll be proud to find out that you're now the only person on my list. Well done. A real triumph. Keep up the good work being ill-informed.

Vin

 

Because she is leading a political party that faces an open goal in 2020 is still rising in support and she will need to gain seats or be considered a failure. It is no good for her to just maintain the majority as it is with the other parties as they are. She has to deliver a large gain.

I think you are still clouded as to what Brexiteers voted for and if she were to go the silly "revenge" route she would lose a lot of leave voters and in 2020 that would be the end for her.

There is not even the slightest chance of this government doing anything other than ending up with "everyone who is here can stay" because to do otherwise would be political suicide no matter how remainers think all leavers want the "foreigners" booted out.

She made a grave mistake by not making it one of the first things she cleared up and lead by example. She didn't and because her team mistakenly thought it would be better to play hardball then she can't just change her mind now without weakening her hand, however there is no doubt in my mind and shouldn't be in any other minds that the end result will be that the UK will allow everybody to stay no matter what the EU decides to do.

She and the Tories have too much at stake to even think about it.

 

There was no link. I read it later and as Puck has said it is likely an automated or manual stock response which is not a policy error, it is an administration error just like the tax credits problems and the return to work assessments. The policies are OK but the way they are being administered needs sorting out.

As for the article. I have heard no policy release on this issue and it should be obvious to most people tat while it is concerning for the individual(s) concerned as well as others in the same situation the home office does not just make up rules as they go along and without a change in policy being announced then it is quite obviously an administration error.

anyway you can;t read this.

and my doormat only received a pizza advert and Capital one trying to offer me a £25k loan as they often do. Still waiting for the letter of doom.

 

I can only go by what Theresa May has actually said which to me makes sense so I see no reason to not believe it. If you think that allowing all EU residents to stay whilst all UK citizens in the EU must leave will gain the Tories votes, I think you are very mistaken. If she rolled over on this (and I don't believe it will come to that) she may as well give up all negotiations now and resign.

 

Mr. Putin sure is a clever man - took back Crimea without a whimper from the west. Makes Obama look petty with his expulsions by not responding - brokers cease fire in Syria without US involvement. Maybe if Obama had 20 years experience he could put up a fight? he's gonna murder Trump!

 

Prior to the election of Trump, Mr Putin was winning a lot of battles for domestic consumption while losing the war; the Russian economy has absolutely collapsed, to an extent that is unlikely to bounce back even if oil prices increase. The West has been unwilling to take him on because Russia is a wounded animal, and with Putin's domestic appeal contingent on his demonstrations of strength abroad, he isn't likely to back down.

But with every such move, Russia overextends its already limited resources. If not for the inexplicably Putin-mad Trump, it was a losing gambit. Now, who knows.

 

Spending money on aggression instead of its infrastructure!! What is the matter with states such as the US, Russia, India, Pakistan and North Korea spending absurd amounts on what is so futile and unnecessary. Having seen crumbling buildings in Russia you would have thought Putin would have been better spending money there. He should also sek to improve relationships with the EU as 70% of its population live to the west of the Urals, It is Russia's most natural market for trading as well as sharing social and cultural interests.

 

Perhaps you should have. You might then begin to distinguish the difference between balanced reporting [Guardian] and hate [Daily Mail/Express]

 

I'm not sure it's really Russia causing the problems. The EU (supported by the US, who want Germany to dominate Europe) has been expanding into territory previously aligned with Russia for about 25 years now.

 

I have read it now but to suggest the Guardian is balanced is key to the problem. The Guardian is equally as unbalanced as those "right leaning" publications you (and I in the main) hate.

They are all what is now being called "post truth" in that they only print the parts of the truth that support their angle missing out the rest to skew the context.

Anybody who thinks the Guardian is balanced is either joking or just not seeing straight.

That is the whole point of all these Breitbart style publications (there are left and right ones) to quite literally make people see that the MSM are doing a pot/kettle/black.

 

If people actually opened their eyes and followed the trail of Soros money you would find involvement in most of the "civil wars" going on including huge involvement in the Arab Spring and jsut as much involvement in the Ukraine. All from money which he made from the breakup of Russia which started him off on his trail of destruction.

 

Imps, do you think the Independent is as bad (or worse) than the Guardian, and do you think there is any news source where a balanced view is given?

Question open to everyone I guess.

Or, are we trapped in an Orwellian nightmare and essentially ****ed?

 

When you read any mainstream publication do you believe the entirety of the report / article? Or do you sift through it and assume that it has factual information within it but probably is skewed in favour of the narrative of said publication?

I think all publications have their share of truth including the Mail, the Independent and the Guardian but I am always suspicious (with all of them no matter which leaning) as to the way they present the story.

You can see the same story in several publications and if you read through it you would end up with a different resulting viewpoint because each one will ignore some facets that would counter their narrative.

It isn't the Orwellian nightmare that you suggest. Merely that you have to be able to read a story and not soak up the narrative each publication is trying to present with the way they present their story.

Breitbart and others like it (left and right) are labelled as post truth which is not true at all. Like all publications and TV media as well as facebook there is truth in the story but the use of exaggeration as well as suppressing some key context makes the interpretation of the news different to the reader.

Key at the moment is the downplaying of "good news" since Brexit in terms of a lot of the financial "pointers". One side is downplaying everything and actually looking for things to say "ahah, look" where the other side is saying "look it's all rosy." The context is ignored and the real interpretation is somewhere in the middle of "yes the pointers are good BUT......."

At the moment the economists and those who want to push the picture of something around the corner are so focused on the Brexit doom angle that they are fatally ignoring the fact that consumer credit is rising dangerously and we could be facing another bust very soon. Nothing to do with Brexit that one but a recession could well hit us sometime soon because people are going mad on credit again.

This is nothing new and you could say it is actually not being biased. Like a football fan seeing a perspective through glasses tinted to your viewpoint however many media organisations add to that tint by purposefully ignoring context that may make their "argument" less convincing.

It is not the medias job to decide which news should be suppressed like the Cologne incidents. They should be reporting all news. I have no problem with them taking issue with any viewpoint that tries to paint the whole muslim community because of such incidents but they MUST report the news and not select what they want us to know and what they don't because that is the very same as they accuse right wing sensationalists like Breitbart of.

 

Breitbart is pure hate. They hate on the Jewish, trans, gays, women etc. Comparing it to normal papers is crazy.

 

You are missing the point of Breitbart and people like Milo. Their intent is to offend the so called "snowflake" demographic and ask people to question themselves why they are offended and not to be "told" they should be offended by a siege of twitter SJWs,

It is an intentional exaggeration of exactly what the MSM does while they call anybody that disagrees "post-truth."

While you may think many people "buy" what publications like Breitbart publish the reality is that most are in on the "joke."

You are missing the reality that "alt-right" which was a term coined by the horrible person that is Spencer has been stolen from him and it is those that now dominate alt-right that are fighting what alt-right began as while all the so called liberals just go around name calling anybody that disagrees. The liberals do nothing about trash like Spencer and sit in their homes and offices name calling while those that have taken up the "alt-right" label take these people to task.

Most of who you would now see as "alt-right" do more to fight people like Spencer than those that are happy to utilise the origins of the movement to ignore the fact that it is no longer 300 idiot racists that want idiotic ethnic cleansing.

IF you are offended by people like Milo then he is doing what he is intending to do and that is to try and force you to ask yourself why you are offended. Are you offended because you think any thought other than what you see as right should be suppressed and deleted or do you believe in deciding what you believe for yourself.

On here just like facebook we get post after post of tweets which are "see, I/we are right" to add to the idea that the right is wrong and the left is right. People need to start/return to question themselves and not base their whole idea of what is really happening in the world on a narrative because they have no time in their lovely lives to make up their own minds.

As for those behind Breitbart like Bannon. They may indeed have some intentions that we don't yet know of but you can bet Trump is just the visible face that someone(s) are using just like all political leaders are. People don't rise to the top on their own in politics, they are ALWAYS put in a position to be where they are because of someone else's money and power.

 

Hate speech isn't free speech