I was not referring to your response to Ian specifically, which was to my mind was measured and left open to further discusión, but to other spats between people on here, which sometimes resembles a gang grouping up.on oñe individual that has often descended into belittling and insults.
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
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
-
To be honest, I think that this room is amazingly respectful and posters are generally open to hearing other people's opinions.
The comements abot Nick Clegg are spot on. I have a theory that the recent turbulence in British politics actually has a lot to do with the coalition. From 1997 onwards, I think that more "liberal" ideas had a lot of traction and there was a consensus that the "middle ground" was where politics should be fought. Consequently, there is not a lot of difference between Blair's New Labour and the "caring Conservatives" of Cameron. This suited the times just as Thatcher defined the 1980s but the failures / dishonesty regarding Blair and Iraq plus the hypocracy of Clegg really served to put a nail in "liberalism" in the 2010s. With Clegg pinning himself to the mast of austerity, the Liberals just looked irrelevent. Brexit really opened up the can of worms and seemed to give rise of a crazed and demented Right whilst Labour was presented with a cunundrum as whether to be pro or anti Brexit.
In my opinion, you can see why Corbyn had such an appeal in 2014 /2015 and the offer of a "new kind of politics" was very seductive. I just feel that the kind of liberalism offered by the spectrum between Cameron and Clegg then became marginalised.The centre ground became a place where no on wanted to be situated. Politics became more polarised.
I think that Sturgeon was probably the best politician in the UK since she took power. ( I mean "politician" in the most cynical sense.) However, she was very much of a progressive vent and far more savvy than many of her fellow women in the Labour Party. The likes of Raynor and Thornberry are amateurs in comparison and Sturgeon struck me as being a new kind of female politician who genuinely felt passionate about progressive politics and could do something about it. Regardless of how you feel about the Gender Recognition Bill, it has all of a sudden made Labour seem very old-fashioned . Had she acheived a referndum and ahceived an independent Scotlanfd, it would have afforded her the opportunity to put some really radical ideas in place. As had been said, post-independence, I think more traditional elements would have ultimately offered opposition.
You can see why Sturgeon appealed to many people in England and was seen as a politician who was different and could be trusted. Unfortunately, it appears like the absolute power issue ultimately corrupted her. As I said a few weeks back, the three female leaders of Scotland, Finland and New Zealand looked like the definitive response to their male counterparts who seemed jaded snd old-fashioned in comparison. No one in December could have envisaged all three would have gone. Talking with the daughter of a friend last summer, she felt inspired by these women and saw them as a sea-change.
It will be fascinating to see where we will be in 10 years time. I am not confident that Starmer will get elected although I feel that the age of reactionary politicians like Boris, Ree-Mogg, etc is at an end.
The comements abot Nick Clegg are spot on. I have a theory that the recent turbulence in British politics actually has a lot to do with the coalition. From 1997 onwards, I think that more "liberal" ideas had a lot of traction and there was a consensus that the "middle ground" was where politics should be fought. Consequently, there is not a lot of difference between Blair's New Labour and the "caring Conservatives" of Cameron. This suited the times just as Thatcher defined the 1980s but the failures / dishonesty regarding Blair and Iraq plus the hypocracy of Clegg really served to put a nail in "liberalism" in the 2010s. With Clegg pinning himself to the mast of austerity, the Liberals just looked irrelevent. Brexit really opened up the can of worms and seemed to give rise of a crazed and demented Right whilst Labour was presented with a cunundrum as whether to be pro or anti Brexit.
In my opinion, you can see why Corbyn had such an appeal in 2014 /2015 and the offer of a "new kind of politics" was very seductive. I just feel that the kind of liberalism offered by the spectrum between Cameron and Clegg then became marginalised.The centre ground became a place where no on wanted to be situated. Politics became more polarised.
I think that Sturgeon was probably the best politician in the UK since she took power. ( I mean "politician" in the most cynical sense.) However, she was very much of a progressive vent and far more savvy than many of her fellow women in the Labour Party. The likes of Raynor and Thornberry are amateurs in comparison and Sturgeon struck me as being a new kind of female politician who genuinely felt passionate about progressive politics and could do something about it. Regardless of how you feel about the Gender Recognition Bill, it has all of a sudden made Labour seem very old-fashioned . Had she acheived a referndum and ahceived an independent Scotlanfd, it would have afforded her the opportunity to put some really radical ideas in place. As had been said, post-independence, I think more traditional elements would have ultimately offered opposition.
You can see why Sturgeon appealed to many people in England and was seen as a politician who was different and could be trusted. Unfortunately, it appears like the absolute power issue ultimately corrupted her. As I said a few weeks back, the three female leaders of Scotland, Finland and New Zealand looked like the definitive response to their male counterparts who seemed jaded snd old-fashioned in comparison. No one in December could have envisaged all three would have gone. Talking with the daughter of a friend last summer, she felt inspired by these women and saw them as a sea-change.
It will be fascinating to see where we will be in 10 years time. I am not confident that Starmer will get elected although I feel that the age of reactionary politicians like Boris, Ree-Mogg, etc is at an end.
Sturgeon is a bloody long way from being the best politician in this country... The respect she gets is in my view entirely overstated and her record doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Iin fact, she has left the party in a worse state than she got given it in.
She had so much political capital in the bank, dominating Holyrood for her entire tenure, but still couldn't get majority support for her fundamental policy. All with a background of one of the most deplorable Tory goverments in Westminster and Brexit, both things widely disliked by Scots.
There are many question marks over her handling of domestic issues, Scotland has seen pretty impressive declines in education and increases in drug deaths, compared with the other home nations, both of which are devolved issues.
Also her previous insistence that the next GE would be a de facto independence referendum was piss poor poltical strategy. And finally these scandals have ****ed the parties reputation, they dined out on not being like those corrupted by Westminster, which is now well and truly out the window. Internally Labour were pretty optimistic about picking up 10 seats pre scandal, which could double to 20+ now unless they sort it out.
She had so much political capital in the bank, dominating Holyrood for her entire tenure, but still couldn't get majority support for her fundamental policy. All with a background of one of the most deplorable Tory goverments in Westminster and Brexit, both things widely disliked by Scots.
There are many question marks over her handling of domestic issues, Scotland has seen pretty impressive declines in education and increases in drug deaths, compared with the other home nations, both of which are devolved issues.
Also her previous insistence that the next GE would be a de facto independence referendum was piss poor poltical strategy. And finally these scandals have ****ed the parties reputation, they dined out on not being like those corrupted by Westminster, which is now well and truly out the window. Internally Labour were pretty optimistic about picking up 10 seats pre scandal, which could double to 20+ now unless they sort it out.
I didn’t realise how expensive it now was to learn to drive. The cost must be cutting off the route to a voter ID for many young and/or impoverished people.
THE rising costs of learning to drive are making it unaffordable.
Learners pay £2,707 on average including a provisional licence, lessons, theory and practical tests.
They are now paying 215% more for driving lessons than they did 30 years ago, a study found.
Car insurance experts at Quotezone.co.uk are calling for more regulation.
Greg Wilson, the firm’s CEO, said: “Learning to drive is a rite of passage.
“The worry is that young people aren’t getting the option to learn as rising costs are making it unaffordable.”
THE rising costs of learning to drive are making it unaffordable.
Learners pay £2,707 on average including a provisional licence, lessons, theory and practical tests.
They are now paying 215% more for driving lessons than they did 30 years ago, a study found.
Car insurance experts at Quotezone.co.uk are calling for more regulation.
Greg Wilson, the firm’s CEO, said: “Learning to drive is a rite of passage.
“The worry is that young people aren’t getting the option to learn as rising costs are making it unaffordable.”
I think the conservatives should be tried for treason for deliberately making driving lessons too expensive. Bastards.
In fact this is one of the main reasons they have driven up motoring costs through the cost of living crisis. Makes sense now, I can see their plan a mile off.
I mean, I’m defo voting Labour at the next GE anyhow, but this has rubber stamped it, and I look forward to the cost of driving lessons come tumbling down once they’re in.
In fact this is one of the main reasons they have driven up motoring costs through the cost of living crisis. Makes sense now, I can see their plan a mile off.
I mean, I’m defo voting Labour at the next GE anyhow, but this has rubber stamped it, and I look forward to the cost of driving lessons come tumbling down once they’re in.
Don’t you get a provisional driving license before you pass that you can use as ID? Or is that still paper and no photo? Genuine question.
It feels like deliberate government policy to get less cars on the road.
Combine this with taxes, ULEZ, congestion charge, increased speed cameras, decreased road access etc.
Basically the politicians hate anyone that actually wants to create a good life for themselves.
They use “climate change” as the excuse so they can pretend they are helping the country whilst simultaneously destroying it
It's mostly that the infrastructure necessary to support cars is insanely expensive, and scales up poorly based on population. And yeah, the fact that cars create massive amounts of pollution doesn't help, either. I sincerely doubt that the reason is "they want to destroy the country".
If you want to see what happens when government policies prioritize cars, take a look at the massive, sprawling freeways in North America. Particularly somewhere like the ring roads around Houston or Atlanta, where for political reasons there has not been any great rush to beef up public transport to the exurbs/surrounding communities, or the 401 in Toronto, where the city continues to sprawl outward and place a strain on existing arteries. You might have a much different idea of the good life if your daily commute involved being completely largely immobile on a highway for a couple hours a day, with no other options available, and as it turns out just adding more lanes doesn't improve things.
If you want to see what happens when government policies prioritize cars, take a look at the massive, sprawling freeways in North America. Particularly somewhere like the ring roads around Houston or Atlanta, where for political reasons there has not been any great rush to beef up public transport to the exurbs/surrounding communities, or the 401 in Toronto, where the city continues to sprawl outward and place a strain on existing arteries. You might have a much different idea of the good life if your daily commute involved being completely largely immobile on a highway for a couple hours a day, with no other options available, and as it turns out just adding more lanes doesn't improve things.
Yes you need to get your provisional before doing lessons or taking the theory test.
It costs £20 and has done for a long time. I've been driving for 13 years and it was £20 then as well.
And yes it counts as full ID for voting purposes, flying internally etc.
It's not just the young and impoverished that will be affected by this need for ID.
These people are very unlikely to have a driving licence and certainly won't have a bus pass. Why would they need a passport either when they can spend four months of the year on the Grouse moors of Scotland?
It's not always the obvious ones that need our support.
You must log in or register to see images
Thanks.
So the actual cost to pass your test of approx £2500 won't affect those needing to use a driving licence as ID as you can get it for £20 anyway, even without passing your test.
Just checked online and apparently the first driving licences in 1903 were available to anyone over th age of 17, at a cost of 5 shillings. That is approx £28 today. Really good that in 1903 they didn't need a driving licence to use as ID to vote....
But why let the facts get in the way of a bit of tory bashing
According to gov.uk the cost is £34 not £20, and what is the point of spending that amount of money for a provisional licence if you can’t afford to pay for the driving lessons?Thanks.
So the actual cost to pass your test of approx £2500 won't affect those needing to use a driving licence as ID as you can get it for £20 anyway, even without passing your test.
Just checked online and apparently the first driving licences in 1903 were available to anyone over th age of 17, at a cost of 5 shillings. That is approx £28 today. Really good that in 1903 they didn't need a driving licence to use as ID to vote....
But why let the facts get in the way of a bit of tory bashing
But why let common sense get in the way when you’re defending the indefensible?
According to gov.uk the cost is £34 not £20, and what is the point of spending that amount of money for a provisional licence if you can’t afford to pay for the driving lessons?
But why let common sense get in the way when you’re defending the indefensible?
You’re basically looking for a reason to attack the Tories here.
IDs for voting is a good thing. We want elections to be free, fair and more importantly trustworthy
According to gov.uk the cost is £34 not £20, and what is the point of spending that amount of money for a provisional licence if you can’t afford to pay for the driving lessons?
But why let common sense get in the way when you’re defending the indefensible?
Apologies you are right it is £34 for the first license and £20 thereafter. Minimum wage is now £10.50 so it's hardly bank breaking money.
Either way, £2700 to learn to drive seems outrageously high to me.
It is around £35 per hour for lessons today according to a quick google, it took me and most of my friends around 20 hours which would be £700 + about £150 for the theory, test and provisional.
Not sure how the average can be over £2k unless they're are doing 60+ hours with instructors..
According to gov.uk the cost is £34 not £20, and what is the point of spending that amount of money for a provisional licence if you can’t afford to pay for the driving lessons?
But why let common sense get in the way when you’re defending the indefensible?
You are correct in the pricing - I just googled it too.
However, that isn't the point of your original post. You were implying that the tories (in particular) have made it so expensive to drive that it is surpressing ID for voters. Whilst the voter suppression may be a thing, in this instance it isn't as the cost of a licence isn't prohibitive. It doesn't cost around £2700 to get your ID, just £34.
I agree that if you need ID to vote then there must be a 'free' way of getting it (there is), but this isn't part of the conspiracy to only allow Tories to vote IMO.
The like is for the first line.
The second line gets a ½ like from me lol. I agree 100% we want fair and trustworthy elections, but I also think that it should be easy and free to gain ID that is required.
The fact that we apparently don't have any indication of voter fraud that some people put out there is irrelevant to me as times change and it is now a lot easier to fake votes than ever before so we need some controls.
Bollocks am I.
I am implying that the cost of driving lessons is stopping people from learning to drive, which could be stopping them from applying for provisional licences, denying them access to an acceptable means of ID.
And yes the introduction of voter ID is a conspiracy by the Tories, to prevent certain people from voting as can be easily noticed when you see the type of ID they will accept from over 65s but not accept from young people.
And “just £34” may be nothing to you but to some people that is a small fortune.
I thought you were better than that.
That is just not true...
I'm a card carrying young labour member actively involved in politics. The reason young people don't vote has little to do with anything other than a complete disinterest in politics.
It will definitely be interesting to see how young voter turnout changes in the upcoming local elections in a few weeks compared to last year. To vote in these elections one would typically be quite involved politically and they always have pitiful youth turnouts.
I'm on the fence about the whole conspiracy thing. I can see it from both sides. The over 65 ID is acceptable as to get say an Oyster over 65 card you have to prove (via government issued ID) that you are over 65 and are who you say you are. I get that. Under 65s don't have to prove it (A NUS id is easy to get).
I take back the 'just' comment. I actually meant that compared to £2700, it is 'only' £34. I appreciate that that can be a lot to some, and didn't mean it to come across that way.
There are free forms of voter ID, but I agree that they should be made easy peasy to get. I can see online voting coming through in the next few years, and surprisingly this is easier to police and control than in face and paper voting. However, this may exclude the older generation of tories from voting
