Off Topic Politics Thread

I am torn on this.

I don't believe in a 'National ID' mandate at all, but I do think that people need some form of ID to prove who they are.

Voter fraud isn't prevalent (as far as we know) in the UK, but times are changing and it is now a lot easier (and there are possibly financial incentives) to commit fraud than say 10 years ago. There is also more likely to be 'gangs' now that can do this than 10 years ago. However, the crux of the issue I believe are the allowed forms of ID. I can actually understand the Oyster card issue as over 65s have had to prove (by the way of a government issued ID or checks) that they are over 65, thus proving who they are (i believe - correct me if I am wrong), whereas you will be surprised how easy it is to obtain a Student Union card to provide as Student ID.

How do we provide government forms of of ID to all, without infringing on civil liberties. If we use forms of ID that are easily faked, then there is no point needing ID.

San Tejón said:

During WWII, the SS selected Jews, in the death camps, to act as “supervisors” and to help control the population of the camps.
Many of them, in order to curry favour with their SS overlords, used their position and power to unnecessarily abuse and punish their own people.
I believe that they were known as Kapos.
Is there an equivalent name for people in politics who, despite being in an ethnic minority group, are over zealous in their condemnation of ethnic minority groups?
Braverman, yesterday, was very vocal in condemning British Pakistanis for the part they play in grooming young girls for sexual exploitation, yet the Home Office’s own report clearly found that the people most likely to be guilty of grooming young girls are white men under the age of 30.
Yes we have to go after every person that fits the description of being a groomer, but her comments are clearly designed to scapegoat one group of people over others, causing division.
IMO the Tory party, that is mostly made up of elderly white people, has pulled off a master stroke in the way they have promoted people from ethnic minority backgrounds into positions of power, to carry out their anti migrant and racist agenda.

Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with this badger. Firstly, comparisons with the SS using Jews against Jews in the death camps are way over the top.
But putting that to one side, although they are both ethnic minorities there is no love lost between Indians and Pakistanis so I don't think there would be any reluctance to call out Pakistani men by people of Indian descent. But why should there be anyway? This infers that an Asian* Home Secretary should not be even handed when it comes to crime amongst fellow Asians* and to say this she is betraying them. Racism can't effectively be used directly in this case so accusations of her colour being exploited by whites are the next best bet.
What she emphasised was that the Pakistani men were not prosecuted initially because the authorities were afraid of being accused of racism. There was also reluctance to mention the ethnicity of the men involved. That has been admitted to and she said it wouldn't happen again. That's what is being missed here as it's not about who commits the most grooming sex crimes but why some cases were overlooked in the past.

*When I say Pakistani, Indian and Asian, I obviously mean in most cases they are British Asians.


On a separate issue about voter registration. While I agree the need and timing are all very questionable, why is the access to ID seen as a problem? I ask this not for arguments sake but I'm genuinely not sure why. I've received my Polling Card for Election of Councillors on the4th May and on the back it gives me about 10 options on how to ID. (There are actually 20 in total but the others refer to Scotland, NI and Wales). If none of those choices are suitable then you can apply for a free Voter Authority Certificate, so to me, the actual process to get acceptable ID is not too much of a barrier.
Just to repeat myself, I agree the need for this seems unnecessary, I'm not trying to justify it.

San Tejón said:

During WWII, the SS selected Jews, in the death camps, to act as “supervisors” and to help control the population of the camps.
Many of them, in order to curry favour with their SS overlords, used their position and power to unnecessarily abuse and punish their own people.
I believe that they were known as Kapos.
Is there an equivalent name for people in politics who, despite being in an ethnic minority group, are over zealous in their condemnation of ethnic minority groups?
Braverman, yesterday, was very vocal in condemning British Pakistanis for the part they play in grooming young girls for sexual exploitation, yet the Home Office’s own report clearly found that the people most likely to be guilty of grooming young girls are white men under the age of 30.
Yes we have to go after every person that fits the description of being a groomer, but her comments are clearly designed to scapegoat one group of people over others, causing division.
IMO the Tory party, that is mostly made up of elderly white people, has pulled off a master stroke in the way they have promoted people from ethnic minority backgrounds into positions of power, to carry out their anti migrant and racist agenda.

Click to expand...

You are burying your head in the sand if you think the groomer gangs are fake.

Obviously the statistics currently show that they aren’t a problem - because we currently rarely go after them and catch them.

It is absolutely great that the government go after groomer gangs as hard as possible, regardless of their background.

It's Only A Game said:

Not sure I agree with this badger. Firstly, comparisons with the SS using Jews against Jews in the death camps are way over the top.
But putting that to one side, although they are both ethnic minorities there is no love lost between Indians and Pakistanis so I don't think there would be any reluctance to call out Pakistani men by people of Indian descent. But why should there be anyway? This infers that an Asian* Home Secretary should not be even handed when it comes to crime amongst fellow Asians* and to say this she is betraying them. Racism can't effectively be used directly in this case so accusations of her colour being exploited by whites are the next best bet.
What she emphasised was that the Pakistani men were not prosecuted initially because the authorities were afraid of being accused of racism. There was also reluctance to mention the ethnicity of the men involved. That has been admitted to and she said it wouldn't happen again. That's what is being missed here as it's not about who commits the most grooming sex crimes but why some cases were overlooked in the past.

*When I say Pakistani, Indian and Asian, I obviously mean in most cases they are British Asians.


On a separate issue about voter registration. While I agree the need and timing are all very questionable, why is the access to ID seen as a problem? I ask this not for arguments sake but I'm genuinely not sure why. I've received my Polling Card for Election of Councillors on the4th May and on the back it gives me about 10 options on how to ID. (There are actually 20 in total but the others refer to Scotland, NI and Wales). If none of those choices are suitable then you can apply for a free Voter Authority Certificate, so to me, the actual process to get acceptable ID is not too much of a barrier.
Just to repeat myself, I agree the need for this seems unnecessary, I'm not trying to justify it.

Click to expand...

I agree with all you have said.

However, as someone of ½ Indian decent, although I am aware of the Indian/Pakistan issue, the majority of the population and bigots aren't. To them anyone of a darker skin (but not black) is a 'Paki'. Trust me. No-one has ever chased me up the road shouting "½ Indian, ½ Italian bastard". Or "go back to your country you ½ Indian, ½ Italian" (incidentally, that would be a problem as being born here and of that decent, what would my country be? Can I pick?)

If say 80% of grooming gangs were Pakistani men and that also meant that 80% of Pakistanis were involved in grooming then I would have no issue with coming out with that statement. However, the statement is wrong. I do agree that many perpetrators have been missed for fear of racism, but to call out a particular minority feeds the bigots and bundles all ethnicities and 'foreigners' (I put that in quotes as to a bigot I am a foreigner, but I am not).

It is a tricky one though as as I say so many times to Mrs No7 (a white blonde woman), it is hard for someone not from an ethnic background to understand fully (I am not patronising at all here). Sue Ellen saying this just feeds the bigots as they now are justified "See, even one of them think so...send them all back to their country", etc, etc.

thereisonlyoneno7 said:

I agree with all you have said.

However, as someone of ½ Indian decent, although I am aware of the Indian/Pakistan issue, the majority of the population and bigots aren't. To them anyone of a darker skin (but not black) is a 'Paki'. Trust me. No-one has ever chased me up the road shouting "½ Indian, ½ Italian bastard". Or "go back to your country you ½ Indian, ½ Italian" (incidentally, that would be a problem as being born here and of that decent, what would my country be? Can I pick?)

If say 80% of grooming gangs were Pakistani men and that also meant that 80% of Pakistanis were involved in grooming then I would have no issue with coming out with that statement. However, the statement is wrong. I do agree that many perpetrators have been missed for fear of racism, but to call out a particular minority feeds the bigots and bundles all ethnicities and 'foreigners' (I put that in quotes as to a bigot I am a foreigner, but I am not).

It is a tricky one though as as I say so many times to Mrs No7 (a white blonde woman), it is hard for someone not from an ethnic background to understand fully (I am not patronising at all here). Sue Ellen saying this just feeds the bigots as they now are justified "See, even one of them think so...send them all back to their country", etc, etc.

Click to expand...

Always interesting to hear someone's lived experience, as opposed to simply their opinion.

In my (limited) experience of Southampton in the 1970s, you'd have been taking your life in your hands calling any member of Southampton's large Sikh community a paki (an insulting term, whoever it's aimed at). But what a tragedy that a group of hardworking immigrants got such a **** reception, when they arrived from their far corner of the British Empire. There is, and rightly so, a lot of attention given to the so-called Windrush generation of West Indian immigrants; not so much gets said about the generation who arrived from the sub continent. There are stories there that should be told, I think.

Osvaldorama said:

It’s calibrating elections to be geared towards honesty.

It really isn’t a big issue. Everyone should have a form of ID. I really struggle to understand why it’s a bad thing? Surely we should do everything possible to make elections fair and honest?

I honestly don’t understand how it’s voter suppression, seems like an outrageous take to me

Click to expand...

Do you deliberately and consciously ignore anything that doesn’t agree with your own narrative? Because if you didn’t you would see other posters on here point out thing like over 60s Oyster cards being allowed and not student ones. But you don’t mention it

The issue people have is that there are lots of forms of ID being allowed for older voters (who skew conservative) but far more limited options for the young. You wail about people attacking the poster but you really leave yourself open to it by just being so staggeringly disingenuous. You don’t even pretend to read from an opposite perspective. Indeed you seem to just blank it out

Gregm1988 said:

Do you deliberately and consciously ignore anything that doesn’t agree with your own narrative? Because if you didn’t you would see other posters on here point out thing like over 60s Oyster cards being allowed and not student ones. But you don’t mention it

The issue people have is that there are lots of forms of ID being allowed for older voters (who skew conservative) but far more limited options for the young. You wail about people attacking the poster but you really leave yourself open to it by just being so staggeringly disingenuous. You don’t even pretend to read from an opposite perspective. Indeed you seem to just blank it out

Click to expand...

If someone is too stupid to work out how to get a valid ID, I don’t want them voting on the election anyway.

I haven’t blanked anything out, I just think people are whining about nothing.

Naturally older people will have Photo ID for more things as a result of more lived experience and having more responsibilities. You don’t need to prove who you are until you’re older as you have parental guardians.

It’s just a ridiculous point to suggest that it’s voter suppression. It’s not.

Osvaldorama said:

You are burying your head in the sand if you think the groomer gangs are fake.

Obviously the statistics currently show that they aren’t a problem - because we currently rarely go after them and catch them.

It is absolutely great that the government go after groomer gangs as hard as possible, regardless of their background.

Click to expand...

I may be missing something but where does Badger say the grooming gangs are fake? I can’t see that here. Are you straw manning again? It wouldn’t be the first time. And I expect it isn’t going to be the last

Osvaldorama said:

If someone is too stupid to work out how to get a valid ID, I don’t want them voting on the election anyway.

I haven’t blanked anything out, I just think people are whining about nothing.

Click to expand...

But so are you? Election fraud is another US “problems that has been imported over here when it isn’t relevant. And guess what? It isn’t a problem their either. It only became one when trump felt he should have had more votes because he is too thin skinned to accept he isn’t as popular as he’d like to be (despite being very popular anyway)

It’s just like the hamfisted attempts to import American style BLM to the U.K. when our environment is very different. It doesn’t make sense. The voter fraud thing is just the right wing version and BLM the left wing

Gregm1988 said:

I may be missing something but where does Badger say the grooming gangs are fake? I can’t see that here. Are you straw manning again? It wouldn’t be the first time. And I expect it isn’t going to be the last

Click to expand...

My point is that if cover ups of even one groomer gang happens due to religion and ethnicity, it is one too many.

Whether that be covering up Epstein’s island or Jimmy Saville on behalf of rich white folk, or covering up potential grooming gangs because they’re immigrants and it may stir up racial tension, any cover ups must stop immediately.

Osvaldorama said:

If someone is too stupid to work out how to get a valid ID, I don’t want them voting on the election anyway.

I haven’t blanked anything out, I just think people are whining about nothing.

Naturally older people will have Photo ID for more things as a result of more lived experience and having more responsibilities. You don’t need to prove who you are until you’re older as you have parental guardians.

It’s just a ridiculous point to suggest that it’s voter suppression. It’s not.

Click to expand...

I’d suggest not having a driving license and passport if you don’t need either has nothing to do with stupidity. Indeed that stance from yours is very condescending and elitist. The sort of attitude people on the channels you follow would accuse the “champagne socialists” and “establishment”

And you can say you don’t blank out disagreeing points. The evidence in your posts is the opposite

Osvaldorama said:

My point is that if cover ups of even one groomer gang happens due to religion and ethnicity, it is one too many.

Whether that be covering up Epstein’s island or Jimmy Saville on behalf of rich white folk, or covering up potential grooming gangs because they’re immigrants and it may stir up racial tension, any cover ups must stop immediately.

Click to expand...

That’s one hell of a back peddle. Since your point was actually that you accused Badger of saying grooming gangs were fake and he clearly didn’t. You have been called out and STILL will not back down. Can’t you ask it to being wrong even here? I appreciate it is not reasonable to expect you to admit to being wrong about your opinions (no matter informed by biased sources they are - which they all are). But in this case it is just a simple factual statement where you are completely wrong. I don’t know why you felt the need to lie about what another poster said. Or why you feel the need to continuously do it. You could have just made the point above without it ?

Osvaldorama said:

Your arrogance is astounding to me.

Of course, there are clearly some thick Americans, just like in every country. We have a disproportionate amount over here too.

But the American constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. Decentralising power and putting it in the citizens hands is what has given us in the West almost all of the positive things we take for granted. I am glad they are willing to defend liberalism and freedom.

Governments trend toward authoritarianism over time. It’s the natural tendency of governments to get bigger & bigger and gain more and more power. The USA in 1788 is the only nation in history to have found a way to counter this. One of the biggest problems in the world now is that governments are completely ignoring constitutions and laws that were made centuries ago for the good of the people.

They are correct to be scared of socialism and communism (and facism). The biggest threats to humanity in history have always come from governments with too much power.

Have you ever considered that you are the ignorant one that hasn’t learned from history, and not them?

Click to expand...

Wow the gushing over the American constitution is certainly…something. Makes sense I guess

But I think I can help on the socialism point having studied it

The claim that Americans have little concept of socialism is not (or shouldn’t be) a dig at their intelligence. But a factual statement based on the history of their nation. Something that you appear to be implying a degree of reverence.

The early stages of socialism came about in the French Revolution (post founding of the US) and grew throughout the 19th century. It was never exported to America

Neither, for that matter, was paternalistic, aristocratic “We know what’s best for the poorer people” Toryism.

America has no tradition of either. American conservatism has no link to Toryism which is why it is so much more ruthless than our conservatives have (up until very recently) have been.

And socialism is an old world idea that grew throughout Europe in the 19th century and eventually became the labour movement in the U.K.

And of course communism in the ussr.

You just need to look at the difference between the US welfare state and workers rights and those in Europe to notice the lack of any kind of socialism underpinning it

And with the Cold War there was never any chance of even a mild form of that ideology getting any real traction. Socialism was presented as the enemy. That was a war primarily about which ideology / economic system would triumph

So to talk about Americans and socialism is not belittling them (at least not when I do it - the original poster might have meant it as a dig). It’s just an accurate presentation of how that country evolved. History and facts

To reinforce this - there is an LBC clip at the moment of a British woman who is in love with America and Trump accusing our CURRENT government of being communist. The host pushed back asking her to define it and it was clear she didn’t have a clue. So it isn’t just an American thing. But said woman would still be from a country with more of a concept of socialism - including NHS, mandatory sick pay, mandatory maternity leave etc - than the US does. Despite not understanding or being able to define it

Gregm1988 said:

I’d suggest not having a driving license and passport if you don’t need either has nothing to do with stupidity. Indeed that stance from yours is very condescending and elitist. The sort of attitude people on the channels you follow would accuse the “champagne socialists” and “establishment”

And you can say you don’t blank out disagreeing points. The evidence in your posts is the opposite

Click to expand...

To be honest, I want the country to improve and strive to be the best it can be. This would start with having a fair and incorruptible election.

I want to live in the best place I can, for myself and my family. If it’s “elitist” to want that, then yes, consider me a massive elitist.

Is it a big problem? I have no idea. But is it a big deal to correct it? Not at all. So the risk v reward skews towards making things less corrupt.

I've realised that I've regained my sense of humour about this thread at last.

thereisonlyoneno7 said:

I agree with all you have said.

However, as someone of ½ Indian decent, although I am aware of the Indian/Pakistan issue, the majority of the population and bigots aren't. To them anyone of a darker skin (but not black) is a 'Paki'. Trust me. No-one has ever chased me up the road shouting "½ Indian, ½ Italian bastard". Or "go back to your country you ½ Indian, ½ Italian" (incidentally, that would be a problem as being born here and of that decent, what would my country be? Can I pick?)

If say 80% of grooming gangs were Pakistani men and that also meant that 80% of Pakistanis were involved in grooming then I would have no issue with coming out with that statement. However, the statement is wrong. I do agree that many perpetrators have been missed for fear of racism, but to call out a particular minority feeds the bigots and bundles all ethnicities and 'foreigners' (I put that in quotes as to a bigot I am a foreigner, but I am not).

It is a tricky one though as as I say so many times to Mrs No7 (a white blonde woman), it is hard for someone not from an ethnic background to understand fully (I am not patronising at all here). Sue Ellen saying this just feeds the bigots as they now are justified "See, even one of them think so...send them all back to their country", etc, etc.

Click to expand...

That did make me laugh.

I do understand that racism is probably encountered far more than the white population realise and also that racism is still alive and kicking in this country, it's just the racists know they won't always get away with it now. I agree that you would know this far better than me, and I also agree that Braverman's comments will get the racists going, but in the end it's the Pakistani men who have brought this shame onto themselves and their community. That shouldn't be suppressed because of their ethnicity.
In this case I think it would be looked at in a similar way if the men were all white and of foreign descent. If there was a gang that consisted of white Frenchmen (for eg) that committed crimes like that I'm sure their ethnicity would be mentioned in an unfavourable way. I feel that would be the same whatever country it happened in, it's probably a natural response. I've no doubt though that their colour has caught the attention of many white people in this country.

However, I don't believe that everything bad that happens to ethic minorities has racism as it's root cause. I think subjects like these should be sensibly discussed and disagreed with if felt necessary.

Osvaldorama said:

To be honest, I want the country to improve and strive to be the best it can be. This would start with having a fair and incorruptible election.

I want to live in the best place I can, for myself and my family. If it’s “elitist” to want that, then yes, consider me a massive elitist.

Is it a big problem? I have no idea. But is it a big deal to correct it? Not at all. So the risk v reward skews towards making things less corrupt.

Click to expand...

Straw manning again! Do you ever stop? I did not say that it was elitist to want what you said. Nothing of the sort. It is written in clear black and white English

I said it was elitist to scoff at the idea that people might not have a driving licence or passport and therefore struggle to get an ID. This whole bit where you are disingenuous and misrepresent what people say has to be deliberate at this point? Surely. It’s really quite ridiculous

You are never going to get an incorruptible election. Hate to burst your bubble. If you want something even close then the level of authoritarianism required would be ridiculous. And unless you are staggeringly hypocritical that is not something you would be happy with given your reaction to what you claim to be vaccine mandates. Are you for more power for the state or against it? I always assumed “against”. But you seem pro-enhanced state power in the case of allowing people to vote. And you are pro enhanced state power for dealing with migrants/refugees/asylum seekers.

In answer to your “is it a big problem” - the answer is “No”. And the cost / benefit is not as simple as you claim because you have underestimated the costs by not including disenfranchisement and the implied acceptance of more increased centralised state power. And you have overestimated the benefit by overestimating the problem. The impact on actual fraud will be minuscule

My take on voter ID, having posted about it on here about 2 weeks ago, is one of concern that it hasn’t been advertised enough and the way ID is slanted against the young and the poor.
I also now think that the council elections are a dry run for the Tories.
If a lot of people are turned away for not having ID and/or the turnout is spectacularly low, possibly because of the ID factor, I think we might see the Tories call a snap election and try to win more seats than they would from a free vote, without the need for ID.
This is the Tories greatest weapon and will help them win more seats than their policies or politicians will.
I am actually shocked that I haven’t seen adverts about the need for ID, driven by opposition parties, on social media.

San Tejón said:

My take on voter ID, having posted about it on here about 2 weeks ago, is one of concern that it hasn’t been advertised enough and the way ID is slanted against the young and the poor.
I also now think that the council elections are a dry run for the Tories.
If a lot of people are turned away for not having ID and/or the turnout is spectacularly low, possibly because of the ID factor, I think we might see the Tories call a snap election and try to win more seats than they would from a free vote, without the need for ID.
This is the Tories greatest weapon and will help them win more seats than their policies or politicians will.
I am actually shocked that I haven’t seen adverts about the need for ID, driven by opposition parties, on social media.

Click to expand...

Most political parties are terrible at social media