Off Topic Politics Thread

[Kaito]

It's not an attempt to stop you posting what you like, that's daft. It's an attempt at discussion. I disagree with you on this one, I agree with you on a lot of the other points you raise on this thread. I just think that this one is a slightly blind attack that serves no purpose. If you don't see it as such, that's fine too.

It's my opinion, which you're free to disagree with. If somebody disagrees with what I'm saying, that's great because they may have points to their arguments that I haven't considered, so it's an opportunity to learn, and sometimes adjust behaviours. I actually think you're better than simple broadsides, which is what I see this as, and I think it weakens your more valid arguments. If you don't agree, crack on! But that very freedom of speech allows me to respond.

Badger has consistently taken the Tories to task and this time its the slimy Sunak's turn. What the **** is wrong with that? Do you expect him to cite all the other Tory greedy, selfish and out of touch imbeciles, just so Sunak has company so you feel better? Should he mention the wet paper bag Starmer just to even things up? Why should his posts be framed in such a way that doesn't offend your sensibilities?

You would do well to get your head out of your 'status quo' arse for five minutes and open your eyes to what is really going on in this country. For as long as you just suck up and repeat the mainstream media message then you are part of the problem. Telling it how it is that means highlighting that Sunak is a slick, creepy rich boy that games the system for his own benefit, then good on Badger.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Badger has consistently taken the Tories to task and this time its the slimy Sunak's turn. What the **** is wrong with that? Do you expect him to cite all the other Tory greedy, selfish and out of touch imbeciles, just so Sunak has company so you feel better? Should he mention the wet paper bag Starmer just to even things up? Why should his posts be framed in such a way that doesn't offend your sensibilities?

You would do well to get your head out of your 'status quo' arse for five minutes and open your eyes to what is really going on in this country. For as long as you just suck up and repeat the mainstream media message then you are part of the problem. Telling it how it is that means highlighting that Sunak is a slick, creepy rich boy that games the system for his own benefit, then good on Badger.

You're not reading what I'm saying, are you?

There's nothing wrong with that. I'm just pointing out that in this instance, I don't think there's anything there to get riled up about.

That's my opinion. You disagree, and that's fine. I'm not too sure what a 'status quo' arse is, mind you. Poor old Francis Rossi.

 

[Kaito]

You're not reading what I'm saying, are you?

There's nothing wrong with that. I'm just pointing out that in this instance, I don't think there's anything there to get riled up about.

That's my opinion. You disagree, and that's fine. I'm not too sure what a 'status quo' arse is, mind you. Poor old Francis Rossi.

Exactly...'in this instance' ...so you are just picking on one post in which Badger highlights that Sunak is a rich Tory tosser who has gamed the system for his own personal benefit.

What the **** is wrong with that and why do you pick on this one post to point the finger at Badger? He is consistent in berating the Tories and this time it's Sunak's turn.

I don't have a problem with you but you are part of the status quo, and therefore you are part of what is wrong with this country. If everyone just sucks up what the media says then we all end up like mushrooms and remain in the dark, which those who want to keep us there, try to convince us it's actually the light.

Is it ****....but if you are blind you wouldn't know the difference.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Exactly...'in this instance' ...so you are just picking on one post in which Badger highlights that Sunak is a rich Tory tosser who has gamed the system for his own personal benefit.

What the **** is wrong with that and why do you pick on this one post to point the finger at Badger? He is consistent in berating the Tories and this time it's Sunak's turn.

I don't have a problem with you but you are part of the status quo, and therefore you are part of what is wrong with this country. If everyone just sucks up what the media says then we all end up like mushrooms and remain in the dark, which those who want to keep us there, try to convince us it's actually the light.

Is it ****....but if you are blind you wouldn't know the difference.

This is quite an odd post. The reason I picked up on it is firstly that I don’t stray onto this thread much these days. Secondly, because unlike the rest of Badger’s posts, I thought he was wrong.

I’m absolutely all for taking politicians, and especially Tory politicians, to task. All for it. You ask “what the **** is wrong with it”, to which the answer would be that to maximise the efficacy of doing that, you need to be choosing examples where there is clearly some misdoing. Otherwise you risk weakening the rest of your arguments, because you start getting into Cry Wolf territory.

That’s all.

Somehow societally we seem to have lost the ability to have two thoughts that conflict slightly, existing in our heads at the same time. Is Sunak a Tory, and therefore probably a bit slippery and unpleasant? Yes.

In this instance has he done something slippery and unpleasant? In my opinion, no.

Both of these things can be true.

I’ll give you another example. I went to university with Conor Burns, and couldn’t stand him from day one. He’s a horrible, manipulative, unpleasant, lying little ****. I hope he fails in everything he does, and ends up destitute.

Do I also think he was treated incredibly unfairly when he was summarily dismissed on that spurious sexual misconduct charge? Yes, absolutely.

So just because in this instance, I don’t think there’s really a case to be answered by Sunak, that doesn’t suddenly make me a Tory (god forbid) or “part of the status quo”. If anything, it just makes me an adult that can see past righteous anger. But it’s me that’s blind? Okay, no problem.

 

[Kaito]

Except Starmer only published a summary of his tax returns too.

Because it's not a story.

There are so, so many politicians, and particularly Tory politicians, out there up to no good, that to zero in on Sunak just is a classic Cry Wolf scenario, which will weaken arguments raised about the real villains when you make them, because it's just a blind attack on anything Tory. I understand why you might want to do that, but really, pick your battles. This isn't one of them.

Yes it is a story... and just to remind you that you point the finger at Badger and say he is zeroing in on Sunak and it's a blind attack on anything Tory.

You are the one who should pick your battles because all Badger did was highlight something he feels is awry with Sunak....like a lot of us do.

How the ****edy **** do you discuss, highlight, illustrate or point out something without zeroing in on it? Do you just flap your hands around aimlessly and talk around the sublect hoping that someone will get the gist of what you are trying to say, without actually saying it, so you don't cause some ****wit somewhere to accuse you of zeroing in on a subject or a person? I'm lost as to how you go about doing things without actually talking about the person, or subject, you want to talk about.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Yes it is a story... and just to remind you that you point the finger at Badger and say he is zeroing in on Sunak and it's a blind attack on anything Tory.

You are the one who should pick your battles because all Badger did was highlight something he feels is awry with Sunak....like a lot of us do.

How the ****edy **** do you discuss, highlight, illustrate or point out something without zeroing in on it? Do you just flap your hands around aimlessly and talk around the sublect hoping that someone will get the gist of what you are trying to say, without actually saying it, so you don't cause some ****wit somewhere to accuse you of zeroing in on a subject or a person? I'm lost as to how you go about doing things without actually talking about the person, or subject, you want to talk about.

You seem to still be of the misapprehension that I'm having a go at Badger?

I'm not at all. The whole point is that I usually agree with what he says, but on this instance I don't, hence why I mentioned it. That's all. He might well feel that "something is awry" with Sunak, but using a mega-reach with the Moderna example was just that, a huge reach.

Badger is entirely free to do as he wishes, of course, including zeroing in on Sunak. I'm entirely free to suggest that if we are to zero in on Sunak, it's best to use something where he's done something wrong, which I don't think he has in this case. He's zeroed in, I think it's in wrong this time, and we were discussing it? Isn't that what a discussion is, be it that we disagree?

 

[Kaito]

Except Starmer only published a summary of his tax returns too.

Because it's not a story.

There are so, so many politicians, and particularly Tory politicians, out there up to no good, that to zero in on Sunak just is a classic Cry Wolf scenario, which will weaken arguments raised about the real villains when you make them, because it's just a blind attack on anything Tory. I understand why you might want to do that, but really, pick your battles. This isn't one of them.

Really...not having a go at Badger? Sounds like it to me.

A blind attack on anything Tory? Like hell it was. It was a well worded and yes it was a criticism from someone who feels pained by the rich not paying their fair share, but then the rich never do.

For once, just once, accept that you unfairly criticised Badger for what anyone of us would do, and have done. Is that so hard for you to do?

I would have a lot more respect for someone who puts their hands up and accepts they have got it wrong and spoke unfairly, than someone who just grinds on even though they know they in the wrong. And you are in the wrong Laces.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Really...not having a go at Badger? Sounds like it to me.

A blind attack on anything Tory? Like hell it was. It was a well worded and yes it was a criticism from someone who feels pained by the rich not paying their fair share, but then the rich never do.

For once, just once, accept that you unfairly criticised Badger for what anyone of us would do, and have done. Is that so hard for you to do?

I would have a lot more respect for someone who puts their hands up and accepts they have got it wrong and spoke unfairly, than someone who just grinds on even though they know they in the wrong. And you are in the wrong Laces.

We clearly have a different idea of what "having a go at" is. As you say, "sounds like it to me". It doesn't to me. I've a lot of time for Badger, and again, I agree with the majority of what he says.

I also have a lot more respect for people who accept when they have things wrong. In this instance, I don't "know I'm in the wrong", and I genuinely don't believe I am. On that point we're going to differ. I think you're misunderstanding my point, and perhaps as it's written down rather than discussed over a beer, we're both misunderstanding intention. That's largely why I don't stray too often on to this thread, as people seem to turbocharge misunderstandings here.

Sorry that you feel like I'm being unfair. It doesn't change my positive view of you or Badger, personally.

 

[Kaito]

Fair enough We can agreee to disagree on this.

You are still wrong though.

The positives are:

No Schad talking **** about trivial American political crap.

Os is off somewhere else buried under a pile of Bitcoins, or not.

Saints haven't been relegated yet.

Selles looks like a manager we should all get behind.

 

[Gregm1988]

There is a legitimate question about why Sunak is in politics and wants to be PM.
Perhaps it is just for the prestige / status / ego. And it could well be just that

But it is not impossible that he wants to try and put his thumb further on the scale to benefit himself. Now, whether being a part of tax rate and regulation changes nets him more than if he had just stayed in hedge funds - I don’t really know

But I don’t see any evidence that he is in it for altruistic motives. Or even ideological ones (making money is not really a political ideology)

The question is more of a discussion point though since he’s there now and even if we knew his real motives it wouldn’t make a great deal of difference in the short term

 

[thereisonlyoneno7]

There is a legitimate question about why Sunak is in politics and wants to be PM.
Perhaps it is just for the prestige / status / ego. And it could well be just that

But it is not impossible that he wants to try and put his thumb further on the scale to benefit himself. Now, whether being a part of tax rate and regulation changes nets him more than if he had just stayed in hedge funds - I don’t really know

But I don’t see any evidence that he is in it for altruistic motives. Or even ideological ones (making money is not really a political ideology)

The question is more of a discussion point though since he’s there now and even if we knew his real motives it wouldn’t make a great deal of difference in the short term

I know very well someone who recently sold his company for $12 million dollars and now works for the company that bought the company from him for about $350,000 a year plus bonuses. He definitely doesn't need the money, as the $12 million was probably about 50% of what he was worth before he sold it. Why does he work? His answer is that he gets to hold a reasonably high position in this new corporate entity (a very, very large corporate) and he would be bored if he retired.

Sunak doesn't need to work, but let's face it holding the highest position in a country is quite appealing.

I could also argue that I would much rather have a wealthy man who comes from a strong financial background running the country than a chancer and a lying scumbag. He may turn out to be a scumbag too, but at the moment there is no evidence to suggest this to me.

His only crime seems to be that he has wealth, which isn't a crime when I last checked.

 

[San Tejón]

I know very well someone who recently sold his company for $12 million dollars and now works for the company that bought the company from him for about $350,000 a year plus bonuses. He definitely doesn't need the money, as the $12 million was probably about 50% of what he was worth before he sold it. Why does he work? His answer is that he gets to hold a reasonably high position in this new corporate entity (a very, very large corporate) and he would be bored if he retired.

Sunak doesn't need to work, but let's face it holding the highest position in a country is quite appealing.

I could also argue that I would much rather have a wealthy man who comes from a strong financial background running the country than a chancer and a lying scumbag. He may turn out to be a scumbag too, but at the moment there is no evidence to suggest this to me.

His only crime seems to be that he has wealth, which isn't a crime when I last checked.

“He may turn out to be a scumbag too, but at the moment there is no evidence to suggest this to me.”

What about the video in which he is boasting about dismantling the system, created by Labour, that funnels money into the poorest areas that really need it, so that he can give it to the wealthier areas that don’t need it, but are conservative constituencies.

That one act makes him a scumbag of the highest order.

 

[thereisonlyoneno7]

We won't agree on this ever, so I don't want to start an argument, but this is his response:

But speaking to reporters, Mr Sunak said he was making the point that "deprivation exists right across our country".

Addressing the video, he said: "Well, I was making the point that deprivation exists right across our country and needs to be addressed.

"And that's why we need to make sure our funding formulas recognise that. And people who need help and extra investment aren't just limited to big urban areas. You find them in towns across the United Kingdom and in rural areas, too.

"And that was the point I was making, that our funding formulas that fail to recognise that are out of date, and they needed changing."

He continued: "It's right that those funding formulas are accurate, that they actually look at the need in different areas, measure that properly and reflect how things have changed from the past.

"And I think that's an entirely sensible thing to be doing, because it's not just big urban areas that require that extra investment.

"It's also people in rural communities, it's also people in towns and that's what we've done, both as a government in the past, what I want to do as prime minister in the future.

"Level up across the country so that no matter where people live, they feel incredible opportunities and pride in the place that they call home."



Not exactly the same as "boasting about wthdrawing money from poor areas and giving it to the rich areas". I read that as they were ONLY going to urban areas and now they go to the poor urban AND the poor rural areas. That is levelling up. Every type of community that needs it will have a more level part of funding, not just the inner cities.

As I say we will never between us agree on this, so I will leave it there. I will rephrase my original response

He may turn out to be a scumbag that is only out to boost his finances and change the laws of the country so he pays less tax and fills his coffers with corrupt deals, but at the moment there is no evidence to suggest this to me.

That is the relevant part to the inspection of his taxes. Again, with respect to his tax return, it seems the only crime he has committed is having a lot of money and subsequently paying a lot of tax. This tax goes straight back into the system. He paid the tax he was due under current legislation (and his wife even paid tax that she legally didn't have to). He naturally mitigated his tax burden as much as he legally could do - everyone will do that, whether you earn £10,000/yr or £1,000,000 a year. You pay what is due. You also mitigate as much as you can through legal avenues.

I can't see what the furore about his taxes is to be honest.

 

[Schad]

Don't think Sunak has done anything too untoward with his taxes there. That said, being extremely wealthy while calling for austerity can be a bad look. Here, let my friend Emmanuel explain:

You must log in or register to see media

Apparently not an 80,000 Euro watch, but still a very expensive watch.

You must log in or register to see media

 

[thereisonlyoneno7]

Don't think Sunak has done anything too untoward with his taxes there. That said, being extremely wealthy while calling for austerity can be a bad look. Here, let my friend Emmanuel explain:

You must log in or register to see media

This exactly. The issue I have with Sunak is that he portrays the “we’re all in it together “ vibe, but having that much wealth he isn’t. Not his fault he has money, but it is difficult to ask people to do without when he obviously won’t be.

 

[It'sOnlyAGame]

Jeremy Corbyn is a millionaire for the rather absurd reason that he bought a terraced house in Islington over 30 years ago. It's not a particularly impressive looking house, and back in the day very few wealthy people wanted to live anywhere near Finsbury Park. Can we at least try for a little bit accuracy when we make these sweeping generalisations about all politicians being the same, etc.?

So it's ok being a champagne socialist if you made your millions in a rather absurd way and live in an unimpressive house. He's still a millionaire though.
For some reason Jezza being outed as a millionaire makes people uncomfortable, maybe it doesn't sit well with his man of the people image.
You ask for accuracy but then misquote me ffs. I never said all politicians are the same, I said none of them have much in common with the poor.


The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. (Even a not particularly impressive terraced house in Finsbury Park?)

Karl Marx

 

[Archers Road]

So it's ok being a champagne socialist if you made your millions in a rather absurd way and live in an unimpressive house. He's still a millionaire though.
For some reason Jezza being outed as a millionaire makes people uncomfortable, maybe it doesn't sit well with his man of the people image.
You ask for accuracy but then misquote me ffs. I never said all politicians are the same, I said none of them have much in common with the poor.


The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. (Even a not particularly impressive terraced house in Finsbury Park?)

Karl Marx

Could you have fitted any more tired old cliches in there?

 

[......loading......]

I'm assuming you are aiming that at the Tory's but pretty much all politicians are more than comfortably off, just that many Tory's are far richer than the rest. Admittedly not all have lived their whole lives in that way but Keir Starmer is estimated to be worth £7 million. Jeremy Corbin in the £3-4 million range and David Lammy earns over £200,000 a year on top of his parliamentary role, more than any other serving MP.
Ed Davey's annual income is estimated at £2.7 million and Nick Clegg has shares in Meta worth around £19.3 million.
So, my point is none of them have much in common with the poor. Their salaries alone would distance them from the vast majority of "ordinary" people. I'm not sure a Lib/Labour millionaire would have more of a connection than a Tory billionaire.

I don't know how accurate the above figures are. I googled them from many different sources without finding an official record, so take them at face value.

I was aiming it at politicians in general. Politics is an old boys club.

Being born to wealth makes you totally worthless as a representative of society as a whole.

 

[......loading......]

The class system in the uk is a total joke.

Using 2019s figures (easier for me to find):

7% of the UK population has attended private school.

29% of all MPs went to private schools. 57% of Lords went to private schools.

39% of the 2019 cabinet were privately educated. 39%!!!

44% of London journalists from the big papers came from private schools and 33% were Oxbridge educated.

59% of civil service permanent secretaries, 52% of diplomats, etc went to private schools.

We live in a time with worse social mobility than the Victorians had. Anyone asking why it matters that our MPs are rich is delusional. We live in a country built by the poor for the rich, to enrich the rich, to trap and dehumanise the poor, to alienate poor immigrants while lording wealthy and immoral foreign investors. It is a foul and depressing situation - only made worse by the minority who somehow defeated the odds to get wealthy, thereby ‘proving’ that class immobility is not a thing and reinforcing contempt for the static poor.

I have met a lot of privileged ****ers in my life and never met a single one who knew anything about real life. The same thing goes for Tory voters.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Changing the topic, this story that I'm very proud of my father-in-law for working so hard on, is the top story on the Beeb website today, and it's a pretty incredible story too -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65038587