Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Saints_Alive said:
The EU economic growth is faster than it has been for a decade, 2.4% apparently...they are better off without us!
Click to expand...

Spin is a good thing. EU growth was stagnant much longer than us. Remember when they were in minus figures? That they are now growing a bit fast than us is catch up..........but I don't suppose anybody with a narrative remembers when we were bucking the EU trend and getting positive growth figures.

Indeed they can't remember much past a few weeks ago if it doesn't fit their argument. They;ve forgotten the result of the referendum for a start. Some of them have forgotten it was held and are still campaigning hard.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Brinkworth Saint
woolstonian said:
Really? You're making the mistake of thinking that NI funds the NHS - it largely doesn't.

In the United Kingdom, National Insurance (NI) is a system of taxes paid by workers and employers, used primarily to fund state benefits. It was initially a contributory system of insurance against illness and unemployment, and later also provided retirement pensions and other benefits.

The NHS is funded mainly from general taxation and National Insurance contributions. In 2001, an increase in National Insurance rates intended to boost NHS funding increased the proportion paid for by National Insurance, although general taxation still accounts for around 80 per cent of NHS funding.
Click to expand...

Nope. I know it is a consolidated fund where everything goes into one pot and no singular income is ringfenced for a particular use. I was meaning that "back in the day" it used to be called NHI and not NI. Maybe incorrectly but I certainly remember people referring to it as NHI. And by its title I would assume that at some point it actually was for what its name references.

I misread your last sentence (although it could easily be true in a few years) as "The NHS accounts for 80% of general taxation." lol
 
St Badger said:
I saw an article about how someone’s tax and NI deductions, for the tax year 2016-17, has been spent, which made quite interesting reading. (The notifications are being sent out, apparently, so I hope to receive one).

Total earnings £23113.00
Total deductions were £4227.00, of which:-
£1027.00 was spent on Welfare.
£858.00 on Health.
£545.00 on Pensions.
£520.00 on Education.
£46.00 on overseas aid
£30.00, a tad under 58p per week, on the EU Budget.
What the remainder was spent on I don’t know.

I’m thinking that leaving the EU is going to cost me a lot more than 58p per week, based on the various economic forecasts. It probably already is, plus I am still paying a contribution through my deductions.
I’m also thinking that those who complain about the amount of money we spend on overseas aid, may want to put it into context, although I do understand the desire to spend the money on home grown issues.
Click to expand...

A point about overseas aid, which to their credit even Conservative politicians understand (though their cheerleaders in the right wing press apparently do not); it serves our interests and is not entirely philanthropic.

The world is experiencing a refugee crisis that is threatening to engulf Europe (of which, geographically and culturally we remain part); one means of addressing that crisis is to support the countries from which the refugees are fleeing, in the hope that those refugees will be enabled to provide for themselves and their familes at home, rather than crossing the mediterranean adrift on overloaded rafts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VocalMinority
Archers Road said:
A point about overseas aid, which to their credit even Conservative politicians understand (though their cheerleaders in the right wing press apparently do not); it serves our interests and is not entirely philanthropic.

The world is experiencing a refugee crisis that is threatening to engulf Europe (of which, geographically and culturally we remain part); one means of addressing that crisis is to support the countries from which the refugees are fleeing, in the hope that those refugees will be enabled to provide for themselves and their familes at home, rather than crossing the mediterranean adrift on overloaded rafts.
Click to expand...

That is very naive especially the latter. It isn't about helping the country that refugees come from at all. Overseas Aid is all about getting money out of the country concerned. Put money in to help a country so that we can get our businesses in there and earning money.

I just don;t understand the "providing for their families and themselves at home" bit when we strip these countries of their talent, health professionals etc. If we were that bothered about helping these countries develop we wouldn't be pinching their doctors and nurses or engineers [or insert anyone that might be needed to actually help these countries progress."]

Far from the whole salespitch surrounding whatever we do abroad or how good immigration is, it isn't at all about other countries. It is all about what our government thinks is best for us and "tough titties" for everyone else. We just do exactly what Trump brazenly announces for the US. "Britain First" (forgive the unfortunate words there) is what is going on. We just don't openly say it like Trump does.

Yes we open our universities to overseas students. Not to the poor ones though, Only the privileged ones that can afford it. And those privilieged ones either don't need to work, are guaranteed some high office by birth, or will end up using that education in a country other than their own anyway. It isn't charity.

We send charity to these countries to make us feel better, to add to our soft power and to enable our business interests to earn money outside of the UK. Nothing to do with actually helping people. All about helping ourselves.

I'm all for the actual charity work done overseas and I think the overseas aid budget should be increased but the aim should be to help countries progress not just survive and that has to include countries like us not stripping them bare of the people they need to progress. "The hand that giveth taketh away" is very true of the current situation.
 
Last edited:
ImpSaint said:
That is very naive especially the latter. It isn't about helping the country that refugees come from at all. Overseas Aid is all about getting money out of the country concerned. Put money in to help a country so that we can get our businesses in there and earning money.

I just don;t understand the "providing for their families and themselves at home" bit when we strip these countries of their talent, health professionals etc. If we were that bothered about helping these countries develop we wouldn't be pinching their doctors and nurses or engineers or (insert anyone that might be needed to actually help these countries progress."

Far from the whole salespitch surrounding whatever we do abroad or how good immigration is, it isn't at all about other countries. It is all about what (our government) thinks is best for us and "tough titties" for everyone else. We just do exactly what Trump brazenly announces for the US. "Britain First" (forgive the unfortunate words there) is what is going on. We just don't openly say it like Trump does.

Yes we open our universities to overseas students. Not to the poor ones though, Only the privileged ones that can afford it. And those privilieged ones either don;t need to work, are guaranteed some high office by birth, or will end up using that education in a country other than their own anyway. It isn't charity.

We send charity to these countries to make us feel better, to add to our soft power and to enable our business interests to earn money outside of the UK. Nothing to do with actually helping people. All about helping ourselves.

I'm all for the actual charity work done overseas and I think the overseas aid budget should be increased but the aim should be to help countries progress not just survive and that has to include countries like us not stripping them bare of the people they need to progress. "The hand that giveth taketh away" is very true of the current situation.
Click to expand...

Imo the created wealth outweighs the amount taken out, especially if you include the amount sent back by these doctors and students etc that right wingers keep going on about.

Certainly a problem with some of this money getting invested where it should be though.
 
I Sorry I Ruined The Party said:
The Florida shooter, you mean? It was his. He bought it legally last year.
Click to expand...

Course he did. Regular shopping trip. My wife's just texted to say Aldi are out of AK47's but there's a special on this week on Czech sub machine guns. FFS.

The gun lobby are quite right. People kill people, not guns. But stop and think. How many times could arguments, confrontations and general fisty-cuffs become lethal if the participants had access to machine guns. I don't know if the stats are available on the number of road rage killings, for example.

We've seen the problem with reducing knife crime is the fact that knives are easily available. The difference is that knives have many purposes other than stabbing people. So which culinary process requires an automatic rifle? You can only want a machine gun to shoot something/someone. The logic of allowing unfettered access to these weapons has been lost on me somewhere
 
Missing Lambo said:
Course he did. Regular shopping trip. My wife's just texted to say Aldi are out of AK47's but there's a special on this week on Czech sub machine guns. FFS.

The gun lobby are quite right. People kill people, not guns. But stop and think. How many times could arguments, confrontations and general fisty-cuffs become lethal if the participants had access to machine guns. I don't know if the stats are available on the number of road rage killings, for example.

We've seen the problem with reducing knife crime is the fact that knives are easily available. The difference is that knives have many purposes other than stabbing people. So which culinary process requires an automatic rifle? You can only want a machine gun to shoot something/someone. The logic of allowing unfettered access to these weapons has been lost on me somewhere
Click to expand...

It just baffles me. How many Dunblanes did it take for our country to radically change gun policy? The US has a Dunblane almost every day it seems. I just don't get it.

The very least they should be doing is banning assault weapons. Why would any sane person need a weapon of war? For self defence? Do they all fear an army turning up at their door?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD, Whiteley Saint, VocalMinority and 1 other person
St Badger said:
Is this for real? DWP staff received £41m in bonuses for the year 2016/17. :headbang:

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2...ed-paid-41m-bonuses-last-year-thats-not-half/
Click to expand...

The figure is by the by and probably not much each but...............WHY IS A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT PAYING BONUSES AT ALL?

I have to say I am having a bad week on reading things wrong. I initially read it as DUP and had to read it back thinking "how does a political party pay itself that much in bonuses.............although I would not put it past them (all politicians not just DUP) to work out a way."
 
Last edited:
I do not own a gun now, but I have in the past.

I enjoy going to the range, it’s kind of fun. I also view guns as a useful tool in case for whatever reason the **** hits the fan and there is some sort of zombie apocalypse. But I also think the licensing requirements for gun ownership should be much stricter. And while I prefer at least some small arms to remain legal, I wouldn’t be too bothered if they took them away, either.

To be blunt and a little dark, the main reason I would want a gun nowadays is because we do not allow assisted suicide. If I were to come down with a fatal disease that causes me great suffering, I’d like to have the option of deciding how and when I die.

The thing is, you can probably kill more people with a well-designed and placed IED than you can with a handgun. So I do not think banning all guns will stop these sorts of devastating crimes. It would probably however, prevent a decent number of accidental gun deaths.

If you are asking about assault rifles and stuff like that.. I don’t know? The vast majority of Americans favor stricter laws in theory. And most want to ban assault weapons. But the NRA is very powerful. And the issue of gun control has been tied to broader things and used effectively as a wedge issue by politicians.

In a nutshell, people are currently allowed to own certain guns. And the Right to Bear Arms is in our constitution. Therefore, attempts to constrict gun possession are seen as taking away people's freedom’s and usurping the Constitution. It’s not really about the guns, it’s about government. So while the true far right gun nuts are a small minority, they get sympathy from the larger group of libertarian/small government people and that’s enough to stop sensible legislation.

The government could pass a law tomorrow banning the use of light sabers, phasers, and freeze rays. And the libertarians would be like “Wow, now the government is trying to ban things before they even exist! Talk about stunning overreach! What next?” And the loonies would be “The only reason the government is banning this is because they’ve secretly developed these weapons. I knew it! We have to get our hands on some before the New World Order gets us!”

You think I’m joking about that, but I am 100% serious that is what would happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7 and ImpSaint
In a nutshell, people are currently allowed to own certain guns. And the Right to Bear Arms is in our constitution. Therefore, attempts to constrict gun possession are seen as taking away people's freedom’s and usurping the Constitution. It’s not really about the guns, it’s about government. So while the true far right gun nuts are a small minority, they get sympathy from the larger group of libertarian/small government people and that’s enough to stop sensible legislation.
Click to expand...

The 2A is in the Constitution, certainly, but the interpretation of such has been very malleable over time. It's only in recent years that the maximalist approach has gained any real favour, and only then because a huge amount of money has been pumped into advocating that position. All manner of gun control measures were enacted with little question as to their constitutionality prior to |Heller.
 
Schad said:
The 2A is in the Constitution, certainly, but the interpretation of such has been very malleable over time. It's only in recent years that the maximalist approach has gained any real favour, and only then because a huge amount of money has been pumped into advocating that position. All manner of gun control measures were enacted with little question as to their constitutionality prior to |Heller.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they would change certain things in the constitution if it suited them.

I guess we are quite lucky over here. Even before Dunblane I can only really remember the Hungerford massacre. Or it may be that one just sticks in the mind because we were travelling down from Lincoln to Winchester and just approaching Newbury as the news was coming over the radio at which point my Dad announced we were detouring.

When the NRA tried to bring up the Derrick Bird shootings the other day I had to laugh at how ridiculous that was. He was trying to say that we have shootings too and bringing up an example of a guy wandering around with a double barrelled gun. It is pretty rare in the UK and most of the 50-60 gun deaths a year are going to be criminal on criminal deaths.

It is very hard to get your head around the statistics that basically mean there are more guns than people in the US. 101 Guns per 100 people I read.
 
ImpSaint said:
I'm sure they would change certain things in the constitution if it suited them.
Click to expand...

They have changed them in the past, with the same constitution. It's only been in the past decade that the interpretation of the constitution has involved the "personal right to own", which came about through a case known as District of Columbia v. Heller.

The notion that it has ever been thus is complete fiction propagated by the NRA and their fellow travelers.
 
Yeah, as Jim Jeffries has pointed out the clue is in the name. The right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment and there’s no reason another Amendment couldn’t be made changing that. The UK’s Bill of Rights 1689 (which the US Bill of Rights is based on) included a right to bear arms, which was amended in 1920 when the words along the lines of “as permitted by law” were added.

I guess it’s worth pointing out that the recent changes in the law here and in Australia haven’t been quite as successful as some like to suggest - there have been a number of shootings in Australia since the law change that don’t qualify as “mass” shootings and we had a mass shooting in Cumbria in 2010 - but that’s not an argument for retaining the current law in the USA.

I also think we have a tendency to look at the issue in a simplistic way. In the UK we often seem to just say “Well ban guns.” While I’m sure making guns unavailable (or harder to buy) would be desirable and would likely have a huge impact on the situation I don’t think these shootings happen just because guns are available. Seems to me there’s something else, something deeper, going on. Mass shootings are something that have primarily become an issue in the last 50 years, with the problem seeming to snowball in the last 20 years or so, and guns have been around for a lot longer than that. I suspect these shootings are a symptom of a deeper problem and I’d like to see someone take a long, hard look at quite why there are so many young men (because let’s be honest, it’s mainly young men doing this) driven/drawn to these acts.
 
I Sorry I Ruined The Party said:
I do not own a gun now, but I have in the past.

I enjoy going to the range, it’s kind of fun. I also view guns as a useful tool in case for whatever reason the **** hits the fan and there is some sort of zombie apocalypse. But I also think the licensing requirements for gun ownership should be much stricter. And while I prefer at least some small arms to remain legal, I wouldn’t be too bothered if they took them away, either.

To be blunt and a little dark, the main reason I would want a gun nowadays is because we do not allow assisted suicide. If I were to come down with a fatal disease that causes me great suffering, I’d like to have the option of deciding how and when I die.

The thing is, you can probably kill more people with a well-designed and placed IED than you can with a handgun. So I do not think banning all guns will stop these sorts of devastating crimes. It would probably however, prevent a decent number of accidental gun deaths.

If you are asking about assault rifles and stuff like that.. I don’t know? The vast majority of Americans favor stricter laws in theory. And most want to ban assault weapons. But the NRA is very powerful. And the issue of gun control has been tied to broader things and used effectively as a wedge issue by politicians.

In a nutshell, people are currently allowed to own certain guns. And the Right to Bear Arms is in our constitution. Therefore, attempts to constrict gun possession are seen as taking away people's freedom’s and usurping the Constitution. It’s not really about the guns, it’s about government. So while the true far right gun nuts are a small minority, they get sympathy from the larger group of libertarian/small government people and that’s enough to stop sensible legislation.

The government could pass a law tomorrow banning the use of light sabers, phasers, and freeze rays. And the libertarians would be like “Wow, now the government is trying to ban things before they even exist! Talk about stunning overreach! What next?” And the loonies would be “The only reason the government is banning this is because they’ve secretly developed these weapons. I knew it! We have to get our hands on some before the New World Order gets us!”

You think I’m joking about that, but I am 100% serious that is what would happen.
Click to expand...
You know we have gun ranges in the UK?

We have 3m licenced firearms in the uk, enough for 1 in 20 people to legally own one. The main difference is you have to prove you have an actual requirement to own one and a fit to do so.

Honestly, I think it's a mentality thing. In the UK we think of guns as dangerous weapons we don't want near us whereas in the US, I believe, it's often taught theyre just tools that every person should own to 'stand their ground' and protect their constitution. Obviously not the same on every place but where they are prolific?

I just think Americans as a whole need to be taught to respect guns more and enforcing gun controls is a step towards that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back