Off Topic GENERAL ELECTION IS ON JULY 4 2024

not now as won't get passed before the election

 

Thought I heard that they have a short period to rush through laws they want before parliament is dissolved? Either way I think labour are for that one anyway so

 

I call it school ground politics; no matter the subject the opposition object whether it's actually a good idea or not. Why can't they just agree when it's the right thing to do ffs

 

Because they don't need to.

Sunak let slip in his carefully crafted speech exactly what the tories and all politicians think.

Once every 5 years the people actually matter. But just only once when the vote is required.

We should all remember that and have a policy of changing the bastards over irrespective just to keep them bribing us to pick them.

For 5 years not one voter mattered and not on cause or right thing. What matters is the numbers. The tories have them so ineffect they did whatever they pleased.

It really doesn't matter if labour voted or not as the tories have the numbers.

Next time round labour will have the numbers and the Tories can whinge and moan and bleat bit can't do a thing.

Democracy is a facade really. Its a once in a few years chance to change whi dictates to us. The only difference to Russia is its not totally faked.

The issue is there's a choice of two and anything else is a waste of time.

Same for the usa. They has a choice in primaries and the lunatics made their choice so the rest of the USA now has a choice from 2.

If they don't like either they can not vote or waste their vote on Kennedy then whine about whoever gets in

 

When I was young (insert ageist joke here) and the truth about the health hazards of smoking was coming out, I thought of exactly this method of eradicating it. It's nice to think they've finally caught up half a century later.
Half a century later I know that such a plan is doomed to failure, as it will only drive it underground and create a thriving black market and racketeering.

 

True democracy is unattainable. True democracy would require everyone to vote on all policies individually and that is not practical and the consequences would be horrific if it were.
Look what happens when you let the public vote on a single issue in a referendum when most of us simply have no real idea of the ramifications of our vote.
The idea of electing people to make policy on our behalf is a decent compromise between that and dictatorship, but it needs the elected to have a sense of responsibility to the community and expertise in their field, and that's where it breaks down. Giving ministers a portfolio on something of which they have little or no experience seems crazy to me.
Though some local politicians do their best for their community, the senior ones just seem to see it all as a competition amongst themselves to see who can claw their way to the top and hang on the longest. It's just their career they're thinking of.
Tbf, having said all that - I think it's probably impossible to run a country to the satisfaction of most.
It just grates watching them play their stupid games when so many people's wellbeing is subject to the decisions they make.

 

I’ll freely admit that politics has never really interested me - mainly because in my day to day life I’m not sure it’s had a huge impact - maybe that’s my nativity, maybe that’s because of my upbringing and I’ve never really needed to rely on public services a huge amount so any change in gov hasn’t made a difference. The main thing that’s caused any real issue I can see is the current cost of living issues and interest rates now I have a mortgage.

But I still can’t understand how we’ll have a build up to the general election and I’ll not have a clue what each party will focus on and what they’ll achieve. Now I know that have to run the whole country but surely there should be key deliverables in their manifesto that they can say we’re going to do C and this is how we’re going to do that.

Should then have set timelines and be measured on them. Failure to do them should have clear consequences and all that should be overseen by an independent group.

I think of it like a project at work or when go out to tender for a new service provider.

they tel you what can do, how can do it and costs of it. You then have SLA’s and KPI’s which are reviewed on an ongoing basis.

And just because 1 party says 1 thing, The other doesn’t immediately have to bad mouth it. How about rather than working against each other? You just work with each other for the good of the whole country.

If party A comes up with an idea and party B thinks diff way, why can’t they talk about it like adults and use the best bits of both to get a great workable idea. That’s how business work.

Rhey say they’re their to serve the people, then actually do it and don’t just sit their and bad mouth each other for 4 years

 

You only have to listen to a parliamentary "debate" to get the gist of their thinking - it's all jeering and lobbing ad hominem attacks across the divide, and it's been like it for centuries.
It's like watching two tribes of monkeys confronting each other.
Like the opening scene of 2001, before they learned to club one another.

 

Why Nigel Farage bottled it — again
Britain’s leading Brexiteer has boosted the Tories by ducking out of the general election.

please log in to view this image

 

Because he knows he'd lose. For the 7th time or something.

 

Farage knows there's no money to be made and having anything in the tories way will only get the blame for thr inevitable collapse.

He won't be called a vote thief. They just run when it suits to get things out of the tory scum.

 

Farage is an opportunist, certainly he prefers the Tories to win. He was firmly behind UK exit from Europe.

 

thats not totally accurate ts often the only ones in the chamber for many debates are the ones interested in that particular subject and their is often cross bench cooperation to try and push their particular interest to the fore .
Most of the big set piece debates though are definitely exactly as you describe .

 

Playing devil's advocate, you can't get me sick by you drinking alcohol- you can't say that about cigarettes. I don't think smoking should be banned, but it is very different to alcohol. Another difference: it's very easy to casually drink alcohol without it becoming habit forming for the vast majority of the population. Most people can be responsible drinkers- on average I think I recall reading it takes four cigarettes for addiction to start. I occasionally have 4 or 5 drinks in a week during a festive period and then not touch alcohol again for 6 months- most people can't do that with cigarettes.

Now, that said, despite not thinking drinking and smoking are equal- I do think smoking should be legal... in your own home, or in private, when not in the presence of minors who can inhale the smoke. I think everyone knows the dangers of smoking now (I actually don't know anyone in person who smokes any more, I don't think I've seen anyone with a cigarette in months). As long as education remains in place to teach people the dangers and addictiveness of cigarettes, let people smoke in private.

I'm all for- if what you're doing doesn't hurt me, society, etc, and you're aware of all risks- then do it in private and government keep out.

I also think the "Marijuana is 100% safe" argument is inaccurate - plenty of studies show otherwise (especially when smoked, as it has more carcinogens than tobacco). But again, I think, what someone does in their own home is up to them, it should be legal. Same with ecstasy, psylocibin, peyote, etc... Anything not heavily addictive . People don't die from taking ecstasy, they die because someone laced it with ketamine, heroine, or impurities because they're unregulated and sold by criminals.

Now, meth, heroine, crack... that's a different story. They're all heavily addictive, destructive, and even if legalized would completely destroy people's lives, even if prices dropped from legalization so they don't have to resort to crime to maintain their habits. This would impact family members of those whose lives were ruined and ruin their lives too. (sure alcohol can do this, but most people can be responsible with alcohol- it's harder to be responsible with crack).

 

And then ran a mile when Brexit was voted for

 

Definitely effects you, it effects all of us whether we like it or not

 

Very true, which is why in principle we should all make sure we understand what and who we're voting for. Sadly, none of the options available are very tempting.
I have always considered myself a socialist but not a Socialist. It's not a political ideology for me - I think of it as an ethical standpoint. And ultimately a practical one, a stable society is one where the majority of people feel that overall it works for them, even though there will always be complaints.
I want to see policies implemented that are of benefit to the greatest number possible, with a leaning towards those who are in greater need.

 

Government and politics, as others say above, definitely will impact you... the problem is, it's hard to tell how- and I don't believe one can always tell which party will be best in power. Sometimes it's obvious... Trump and Boris were examples where it should have been obvious to most people they would be a disaster, but other times less so.

I always found Cameron pretty reasonable (for a Tory) for example but he ended leading to UK leaving Europe, which, I think is probably the biggest disaster in decades for Britain.

One thing that has always proven true about governments and economy is that, small changes usually result in a better economy and society than large drastic changes. Also, when power is split between parties nations tend to do better than when one party has too much power. I definitely think it's time for the Conservatives to go, but I'm worried about some of the landslide predictions. When one party wins by a landslide (doesn't matter which one) and has too much power, that's when stupid things happen and more extreme policies get passed.

Not that Britain's government really impacts me directly anymore since I live overseas (and don't intend to return... even though I wouldn't mind leaving the US one day), but I do want to see my homeland do well... so I'm hoping for a slim Labour win. I think a small Labour majority would do better than Conservatives staying in power- or even a Labour landslide. There are extremist idiots in both main parties- the way to keep them quiet is to have balance so that they have to get support from ALL their members, and maybe some from the other side too.

 

ATM, if love to see anyone but Tories or Labour get in. I don't think any of the other parties would do a good job but it would give those two parties a very much needed kick up the arse