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!
Ian Thumwood said:
Imp

I think the next election will be fascinating and I don't see it being a whitewash for the Conservatives. I strongly believe that Brexit will ultimately prove to be a disaster and May needs to be sure that she does no align herself in any shame or form to Donald Trump as he will be far more toxic than George W Bush. She has inherited a poisoned chalice and once the economy nose-dives and incomes start to fall, she will become very unpopular.

The one party that will benefit will be the Lib Dems. They will be the big winners in the next election having previously taken their punishment for being part of the coalition. I think that they will be part of any coalition that forms in future but think that the next government will be a three party coalition with labour and the SNP. Without Scotland, Labour have no chance even if they capture the large percentage of the UKIP vote. I think that UKIP will probably be the biggest loser as they will be blamed once the economy takes a nose dive. At this point in time, it is unfortunate that the most "effective" political leader appears to be Nicola Sturgeon ( another politician who has me wanting to throw things at the TV!.)

I feel that the next government will be a three-way coalition and that this will actually be to the benefit of democracy as you will see fewer MPS being told what to vote by the party whips and the politicians actually voting to represent the people who put them in power. It is interesting to think that party politics might be redundant and whilst I am probably quite left -leaning in my views, this might be to the benefit of the country. Most people would welcome a world without the likes of blair, Mandelson, etc and the cynical world of spinning and hypocracy.

The only disappointing thing is that the likes of Farage have exploited the situation and pretend to be interested in "giving people a voice" whereas the kind of policies he would pursue would ultimately rob people of their rights. I find that channel Four news is a good programme to put MPs to task yet it frequently encounters MPs who tatae that they entered parliament to make a difference. The whole evolution of the Brisih parliamentary system was to represent the people and give them a voice - even back to the time when Simon De Montfort called the first parliament of the burgesses of towns because of the dissatisfaction with how Henry III was running the country. The UK has seen parliament evolve and change as a greater percentage of the population are given the vote so that we had arrived at a situation where the opinions of the population where heard. I think that these opinions are nowso diverse that it is ridiculous to think that a political party can capture what people want. You start to think that coalitions might actually work to the advantage of the people and if people can see that the MPS are working in their interests and not a political party, then there can be a re-connection. I wouldn't say this was popularism as we have seen with Brexit and Trump This brand of politics is playing on people's hatreds and is about forcing your own advantage to the disadvantage if your neighbour. Society does not work like this for long and this is why I feel the whole world would be better off as a kind of socialist utopia where everyone works for the advantage of each other.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I think you are misreading what "might" happen and who will be blamed. Far from May getting the blame should things go mammaries up it will be those that are trying every trick in the book to make it a mess that will be blamed as they are now. The only way May won;t get a landslide in 2020 is if she does not deliver what most leavers voted for and that is a full exit from the EU. If we are still staying in, still not able to control our borders or still being overruled in the EU she will suffer. Control.

Lib Dems will gain because they've done their usual and pinned everything on their new single issue of "rejoining the EU" which is bound to pull a few punters in.

Yes there's a long time till 2020 but so far May is ticking all the boxes for most Tory voters and pulling more in as well. She is being "seen" to be doing a good job so far.

As for the Donald I think she is being a grown up. We have no control or influence over the US and if we take the moral highground what are we going to do? put sanctions on the US? We'll then have to impose sanctions on many other countries. She has to just be sensible.
 
Ian Thumwood said:
Imp

I think the next election will be fascinating and I don't see it being a whitewash for the Conservatives. I strongly believe that Brexit will ultimately prove to be a disaster and May needs to be sure that she does no align herself in any shame or form to Donald Trump as he will be far more toxic than George W Bush. She has inherited a poisoned chalice and once the economy nose-dives and incomes start to fall, she will become very unpopular.

The one party that will benefit will be the Lib Dems. They will be the big winners in the next election having previously taken their punishment for being part of the coalition. I think that they will be part of any coalition that forms in future but think that the next government will be a three party coalition with labour and the SNP. Without Scotland, Labour have no chance even if they capture the large percentage of the UKIP vote. I think that UKIP will probably be the biggest loser as they will be blamed once the economy takes a nose dive. At this point in time, it is unfortunate that the most "effective" political leader appears to be Nicola Sturgeon ( another politician who has me wanting to throw things at the TV!.)

I feel that the next government will be a three-way coalition and that this will actually be to the benefit of democracy as you will see fewer MPS being told what to vote by the party whips and the politicians actually voting to represent the people who put them in power. It is interesting to think that party politics might be redundant and whilst I am probably quite left -leaning in my views, this might be to the benefit of the country. Most people would welcome a world without the likes of blair, Mandelson, etc and the cynical world of spinning and hypocracy.

The only disappointing thing is that the likes of Farage have exploited the situation and pretend to be interested in "giving people a voice" whereas the kind of policies he would pursue would ultimately rob people of their rights. I find that channel Four news is a good programme to put MPs to task yet it frequently encounters MPs who tatae that they entered parliament to make a difference. The whole evolution of the Brisih parliamentary system was to represent the people and give them a voice - even back to the time when Simon De Montfort called the first parliament of the burgesses of towns because of the dissatisfaction with how Henry III was running the country. The UK has seen parliament evolve and change as a greater percentage of the population are given the vote so that we had arrived at a situation where the opinions of the population where heard. I think that these opinions are nowso diverse that it is ridiculous to think that a political party can capture what people want. You start to think that coalitions might actually work to the advantage of the people and if people can see that the MPS are working in their interests and not a political party, then there can be a re-connection. I wouldn't say this was popularism as we have seen with Brexit and Trump This brand of politics is playing on people's hatreds and is about forcing your own advantage to the disadvantage if your neighbour. Society does not work like this for long and this is why I feel the whole world would be better off as a kind of socialist utopia where everyone works for the advantage of each other.
Click to expand...
This broad left, but not too far left coalition might also include the Greens, 3.8% of the vote in 2015. I know there have been discussions in quite a few places around a broad left coalition, the opportunity may well be there but the trade offs and egos might just get in the way.
 
tiggermaster said:
This broad left, but not too far left coalition might also include the Greens, 3.8% of the vote in 2015. I know there have been discussions in quite a few places around a broad left coalition, the opportunity may well be there but the trade offs and egos might just get in the way.
Click to expand...

You are expecting a broad coalition of left leaning parties to talk to each other? The largest left leaning party can't hold itself together. The Greens are probably closer to Labour but are worth...........erm.........not much because that 3.8m will also include a chunk of borrowed Lib Dem votes. The SNP and Labour? It would be one of the most volatile coalitions ever seen in Europe made up of 4 parties that hate each other as much as they hate the Tories.

The problem you have here is that for the left leaning parties to beat the Tories in 2020 they will have to either merge or agree not to stand against each other which is something they are never going to do.

UKIP will pull chunks off the Northern Labour vote and the Tories will turn 2nds into firsts in many of them.
 
ImpSaint said:
Very good post (although I disagree with staying in)

The Labour problem is still there now. They believe their own spin and the media keeps repeating it. It is probably very true that 2 thirds of Labour voters voted to remain however that is itself the party's problem. A lot of those votes are newcomers and it ignores what way people who did not vote Labour this time, but used to, voted.

That is their "rock and hard place" scenario. They cannot win an election without getting those votes back. Scotland might never return so they have to get even more than those that used to vote Labour back. It isn't much to do with Corbyn although he has just been the latest nail in the preverbial. They have been shedding votes at a rate of knots since their Landslide. A very small peak for Ed Milliband mainly because of the Lib Dem crash but Labour are down and out at this point in time.

1997 = 13.5m 71.3% turnout
2001 = 10.7m 59.4% turnout
2005 = 9.6m 61.4% turnout
2010 = 8.6m 65.1% turnout
2015 = 9.3m 66.4% turnout

So in that 2015 election it does look like they improved however how many of those are Lib Dem votes? Votes that I would expect a large amount to go back to Lib Dems next time (as we are seeing in by elections.) Lib Dems lost 4.4m votes in 2015 You can probably assume at least half of them went to Labour which would mean their true 2015 would be closer to 7.1m rather than the 9.3m.

Also bear in mind that the 1997 turnout was very very high @ 71.3% and it has had to recover ever since from a low of 59.4% in 2001. So it isn't just a worry that Labour is losing votes each election. It is losing votes DESPITE the turnout increasing from 2005 onward.

It isn't just about Europe and like Ian says it was the attempts to "modernise" the party that caused the problem. I don;t think Kinnock was the problem per se, just the complete redirection by Blair and the aftermath his "reign" which still lives on in the Blairites in the house who do not seem to realise that if the Lib Dems regain a fair chunk of their votes in 2020 Labour is going to be struggling to fill half the opposition benches.

On the flipside the Tories have started to recover since 2001 and will increase further with May in charge. It will be an even bluer map in 2020.
Click to expand...

Fair comment Imp!! What is missing from the political map is a Centre-right party now that the Conservatives have abandoned that position and taken up policies that are akin to UKIP's in order to prevent loss of votes to that party.
 
The Ides of March said:
Fair comment Imp!! What is missing from the political map is a Centre-right party now that the Conservatives have abandoned that position and taken up policies that are akin to UKIP's in order to prevent loss of votes to that party.
Click to expand...

The Conservatives are still centre right. You do come out with some skewed statements r.e. pandering to UKIP. The Tories are in a good place at the moment and the only party capable of fighting off the far right.
 
ImpSaint said:
The Conservatives are still centre right. You do come out with some skewed statements r.e. pandering to UKIP. The Tories are in a good place at the moment and the only party capable of fighting off the far right.
Click to expand...

Is this because they are pandering to the right? It depends on one's perspective. The Conservatives gradually became eurosceptic fearing that UKIP would capture a certain % of their vote and as a result have abandoned the ground that it previously occupied - it was a pro-EU centre-right party like the CDs in Germany. The Conservatives left that ground when Cameron took the Conservatives out of sitting with EPP (European People's Party) and had them sitting with the likes of Right-Wing of the Republic, who though they do not have an MEP, are still affiliated to the group that the Conservatives still sit with in the European Parliament.

The reality is that UKIP were never a threat to the Conservatives, but by pandering to his weak, eurosceptic MPs (Cameron should have slung the whole lot out the party like Kinnock did with the Socialist Workers who had infested the Labour party) Cameron created a situation that should never have occurred. We now have Government "by referendum." Feel free to disagree, but the UK electorate badly needs a centre-right pro EU party in order to take votes away from the Conservatives (UKIP wannabes) in order to get a much more centrist Government that will stop the nonsense of Brexit.
 
The Ides of March said:
Is this because they are pandering to the right? It depends on one's perspective. The Conservatives gradually became eurosceptic fearing that UKIP would capture a certain % of their vote and as a result have abandoned the ground that it previously occupied - it was a pro-EU centre-right party like the CDs in Germany. The Conservatives left that ground when Cameron took the Conservatives out of sitting with EPP (European People's Party) and had them sitting with the likes of Right-Wing of the Republic, who though they do not have an MEP, are still affiliated to the group that the Conservatives still sit with in the European Parliament.

The reality is that UKIP were never a threat to the Conservatives, but by pandering to his weak, eurosceptic MPs (Cameron should have slung the whole lot out the party like Kinnock did with the Socialist Workers who had infested the Labour party) Cameron created a situation that should never have occurred. We now have Government "by referendum." Feel free to disagree, but the UK electorate badly needs a centre-right pro EU party in order to take votes away from the Conservatives (UKIP wannabes) in order to get a much more centrist Government that will stop the nonsense of Brexit.
Click to expand...

The Tories are economic liberals. Why would they want to be part of the EU protectionist racket?
 
ImpSaint said:
The Tories are economic liberals. Why would they want to be part of the EU protectionist racket?
Click to expand...

Why are the Conservatives sitting with right-wing groups, some of them having links to the far-right, in the EU Parliament? The pro-EU parties in the UK should be highlighting this and hammering home the message. I looked at the list of parties in the EPP, which despite all the flak being flung from the left and right, is still the largest political grouping, despite the negligence of the UK Conservative Party in abandoning its position as a centre-right party. Look at the values espoused by Angela Merkel's CDs. These are the values that the UK Conservatives should be endorsing, instead of retreating behind its bunker and finding "solace" in a "special relationship" with Donald Trump. I won't say the USA because the majority of people in the USA abhor everything that Trump stands for.
 
Courtesy a source of news.

Say a movie theater in Florida banned its patrons from carrying concealed handguns, but a mass shooter came in anyway and attacked — not unlike what happened in Aurora, Colorado, almost five years ago.

Under an NRA-backed measure proposed this week in the Florida Legislature, victims who had a permit to carry a concealed weapon could sue the theater for damages, because its weapons ban left them disarmed when they might have been able to use their gun to thwart or stop the attack.

The new proposal (SB 610) from Senate Judiciary Chairman Greg Steube — a conservative Sarasota Republican who has proposed a slew of controversial gun rights measures this year — says the “Legislature intends to find a balance” between gun owners’ rights and private property rights.

And Steube’s plan to do that means businesses would be held responsible — and put at risk of being sued — for decisions to ban guns.
 
TheSecondStain said:
2nd week. Jeez, I hope they're looking for grounds for impeachment. Answer the ****ing question.
Click to expand...

Trouble is does anyone think that if grounds to start impeachment were found that Trump would do what Nixon did and resign? Nope he'd press a big red button and stay president for life, in an underground bunker, swapping locker talk with his 'dudes' and wondering which of the many teen girls specially provided he would favour later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davecg69
Beefy said:
Courtesy a source of news.

Say a movie theater in Florida banned its patrons from carrying concealed handguns, but a mass shooter came in anyway and attacked — not unlike what happened in Aurora, Colorado, almost five years ago.

Under an NRA-backed measure proposed this week in the Florida Legislature, victims who had a permit to carry a concealed weapon could sue the theater for damages, because its weapons ban left them disarmed when they might have been able to use their gun to thwart or stop the attack.

The new proposal (SB 610) from Senate Judiciary Chairman Greg Steube — a conservative Sarasota Republican who has proposed a slew of controversial gun rights measures this year — says the “Legislature intends to find a balance” between gun owners’ rights and private property rights.

And Steube’s plan to do that means businesses would be held responsible — and put at risk of being sued — for decisions to ban guns.
Click to expand...

Bloody ridiculous.

Let me come up with the simple answer. Ban ALL guns. I know. Too simple. Americans must have their popguns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImpSaint and Beef
greensaint said:
Trouble is does anyone think that if grounds to start impeachment were found that Trump would do what Nixon did and resign? Nope he'd press a big red button and stay president for life, in an underground bunker, swapping locker talk with his 'dudes' and wondering which of the many teen girls specially provided he would favour later.
Click to expand...

That's almost believable.
 
In contrast, this already feels like a far distant memory:

You must log in or register to see media
Incidentally, I hear that the Obamas have been holidaying with Richard Branson at his home these past couple of weeks.
 
greensaint said:
Trouble is does anyone think that if grounds to start impeachment were found that Trump would do what Nixon did and resign? Nope he'd press a big red button and stay president for life, in an underground bunker, swapping locker talk with his 'dudes' and wondering which of the many teen girls specially provided he would favour later.
Click to expand...

That's the worry isn't it? This guy isn't playing by any recognisable set of rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back