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!
Some of the state level politicians are absolutely whackadoodles. I expect there are probably some loons at state level in super blue states for democrats. Although none calling for civil war

It’s only ever republicans calling for civil war. And that is because they assume the army will be on their side. But picture it in the way it plays out in this guys mind - republicans lose nationally and so it apparently takes a civil war to fix. But in this scenario the democrats are in charge of the government and the military

It’s a crazy world where large numbers of Americans have a fantasy about fighting their own fellow countrymen rather than fantasising about fighting their old enemy who is on manoeuvres again in Europe. Is it because in that one it would be a risk of a nuclear conflict which a civil war won’t be? Even the most rabid and crazy pro civil war right wingers would want to nuke US cities

I’m reading a book called Nuclear War: A Scenario, which was written by Annie Jacobsen and released this year. It’s utterly terrifying (but worth reading).
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7
I can understand it in some. My dad was 18 in 1974 when it was chaos and labour came in and it got worse. What I don’t get it people who have lived almost their entire adult lives under Tory austerity and all our public services degrading who say the same thing


There’s a bit of a false narrative about the 70s though, as runaway inflation, the four day week, and power cuts all happened on Ted Heath’s watch.
 
Unfortunately I can’t really take anyone seriously who references the “note”. I encourage to look at the history of such notes. It is basically a thing that is always done and I’m pretty sure was first done by an outgoing Tory. It’s basically a bit of an inside joke that is never intended to be made public. Osbourne broke that and made sure everyone knew about it and now people still won’t shut up about it 14 years later. Even though this time the national debt is even higher, there seems to be even less money and it’s not like we have anything to show for it - like the top ranked health service in the world by patient satisfaction (which was the case in 2010)

So yeah - I’m not having that I’m afraid

As to tax rises - any government would have done them. And the Tories already did over 14 years and would have done more. You can’t campaign on “the others will raise taxes” if you have created the largest tax burden ever but with nothing to show for all that money taken. That’s the point I was trying to make on tax. What you will find is that most people don’t actually want tax cuts - they want working public services. Whether this can be done - that’s the challenge. But the last lot were making absolutely no effort to improve public services. The money was just being siphoned off in one way or another. The hope it that this stops
The note is a symbol and isn't the only point I referenced. The Labour governments of Blair and Brown normalised high levels of borrowing and debt and that's why we were in such a worrying position when the crash inevitably came. This was foreseen. Kenneth Clarke - who left Labour a wonderful economic legacy - wrote at least as early as 2005 that Labour's high levels of borrowing were a problem. And yes, the supposed "austerity" of the Cameron government did nothing to address this fundamental problem.

You're probably right that the Conservatives would have increased taxes, although in a different way. But then I have no interest in defending the Conservative party. They've essentially been a Blairite party since the mid-2000s and have adopted a similar high tax, high debt, high spend approach to government. This is part of the reason their vote collapsed at the election while Labour's barely rose at all. People will say they don't want tax cuts but people also complain about the cost of living. If you take surveys seriously (I tend not to) the NHS was also top-rated by international researchers in 2014 and 2017. It's only post-covid that it lost that position and I don't think that's about lack of spending, it's about the way the NHS is set up and the government response to covid.

This is where the comparison to the 1970s becomes relevant. That was when the post-war consensus finally failed and was swept away. In my view we're now living in a period of post-Blair consensus, I think some call the economic aspect of this Blatcherism. I don't think Starmer's government has any economic answers. It seems to me that, like the post-war consensus, the current consensus is failing. All that remains to be seen is what replaces it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7
The note is a symbol and isn't the only point I referenced. The Labour governments of Blair and Brown normalised high levels of borrowing and debt and that's why we were in such a worrying position when the crash inevitably came. This was foreseen. Kenneth Clarke - who left Labour a wonderful economic legacy - wrote at least as early as 2005 that Labour's high levels of borrowing were a problem. And yes, the supposed "austerity" of the Cameron government did nothing to address this fundamental problem.

You're probably right that the Conservatives would have increased taxes, although in a different way. But then I have no interest in defending the Conservative party. They've essentially been a Blairite party since the mid-2000s and have adopted a similar high tax, high debt, high spend approach to government. This is part of the reason their vote collapsed at the election while Labour's barely rose at all. People will say they don't want tax cuts but people also complain about the cost of living. If you take surveys seriously (I tend not to) the NHS was also top-rated by international researchers in 2014 and 2017. It's only post-covid that it lost that position and I don't think that's about lack of spending, it's about the way the NHS is set up and the government response to covid.

This is where the comparison to the 1970s becomes relevant. That was when the post-war consensus finally failed and was swept away. In my view we're now living in a period of post-Blair consensus, I think some call the economic aspect of this Blatcherism. I don't think Starmer's government has any economic answers. It seems to me that, like the post-war consensus, the current consensus is failing. All that remains to be seen is what replaces it.

It isn't complicated. Make sure taxes that are owed are paid. Invest in our society - through large-scale building schemes, re-nationalisation of sinkhole privatised industries (water being one), prioritising social care, education, the NHS and police. Deal with landlordism and the myth that we all desperately need house prices high. No, we need something to live in and for schemes like buy-to-let to be made illegal.
 
It isn't complicated. Make sure taxes that are owed are paid. Invest in our society - through large-scale building schemes, re-nationalisation of sinkhole privatised industries (water being one), prioritising social care, education, the NHS and police. Deal with landlordism and the myth that we all desperately need house prices high. No, we need something to live in and for schemes like buy-to-let to be made illegal.
Every government tries to make sure taxes that are owed are paid. That is VERY complicated. There is no money to invest in anything. The bit in bold is so vague it doesn't actually mean anything. If you "deal with landlordism" and property prices fall significantly the millions of people who have mortgages will be screwed and may even be bankrupted.
 
Every government tries to make sure taxes that are owed are paid. That is VERY complicated. There is no money to invest in anything. The bit in bold is so vague it doesn't actually mean anything. If you "deal with landlordism" and property prices fall significantly the millions of people who have mortgages will be screwed and may even be bankrupted.

1. I think some governments try harder than others. There are some clear routes money could be brought in. I also think we need to make internet sales companies pay tax at the point of sale and not on profit.
2. The bit in bold is not vague. We have to spend on our people if we want to empower them to make money. Investment is crucial for growth.
3. This is a total myth. House prices won't fall until you have enough houses for everyone to live in - and at that point we should just be happy everyone has a home. If you are suggesting that the minority of people in this country with a comfortable nest-egg are being propped up by a landlord culture keeping everyone else pretty much in servitude, I think you are very much mistaken. Artificially inflated house prices don't help anyone.
 
A video that contains footage of a black woman being shot dead in her own home, by the police, after calling them because she thought she had an intruder. In the USA.
It’s not a graphic video.

You must log in or register to see media
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7
I haven't seen much in the way of comments on the sentences for the Just Stop Oil protesters. Does that mean that most people on here aren't too bothered about Cressida and her chums? While I think most people do take the environmental impact seriously, they have run out of patience with the JSO mob and their methods.
 
I haven't seen much in the way of comments on the sentences for the Just Stop Oil protesters. Does that mean that most people on here aren't too bothered about Cressida and her chums? While I think most people do take the environmental impact seriously, they have run out of patience with the JSO mob and their methods.
I am torn on it. I do think we need to have a sense of urgency on this topic and I have semi-admiration for people who put their love of the planet above their careers and cosy lives. However, I feel like JSO do more to make people angry about JSO than the issues -and that kind of defeats the purpose.
 
I haven't seen much in the way of comments on the sentences for the Just Stop Oil protesters. Does that mean that most people on here aren't too bothered about Cressida and her chums? While I think most people do take the environmental impact seriously, they have run out of patience with the JSO mob and their methods.
I think the sentence was OTT, but they disrupted above and beyond getting there message out. I would make them do community service by fixing pot-holes 1 day a week for four years.
 
I haven't seen much in the way of comments on the sentences for the Just Stop Oil protesters. Does that mean that most people on here aren't too bothered about Cressida and her chums? While I think most people do take the environmental impact seriously, they have run out of patience with the JSO mob and their methods.
Didn’t someone post a comparison about the same judge giving a much more lenient sentence for more violent crimes. And a clip of James O’Brien’s thoughts on the subject. I think I didn’t comment because I heard that on the day he broadcast it
 
Didn’t someone post a comparison about the same judge giving a much more lenient sentence for more violent crimes. And a clip of James O’Brien’s thoughts on the subject. I think I didn’t comment because I heard that on the day he broadcast it

Yes, it was Badger but I expected a greater response from others on here who are usually quite vocal about environmental issues. As there wasn't it made me wonder if they were unsympathetic to JSO because of the disruption they have caused to ordinary people rather than politicians. My impression is that many of the general public feel they have got their just deserts.
 
Yes, it was Badger but I expected a greater response from others on here who are usually quite vocal about environmental issues. As there wasn't it made me wonder if they were unsympathetic to JSO because of the disruption they have caused to ordinary people rather than politicians. My impression is that many of the general public feel they have got their just deserts.
I’m genuinely torn about the JSO protestors. First, it has to be said that the sentences they received were absurd and totally disproportionate to any perceived or actual threat to society they might pose. I expect a judicial review to reduce the sentences, hopefully very soon.

What I am torn about is that as others have said, the issues they are trying to address are real and scientifically validated, and simply have to be taken seriously by every government in the world and the population generally. However, if the nature of the protests causes the majority of people to react against the protestors rather than gaining sympathy and support for the cause they espouse, then those protests have been rendered counterproductive.

I personally know some members of JSO and XR, and they are lovely, deeply caring people, but whose drive to make the deep crisis the planet faces more obvious to the wider population often blinds them to the fact that there are lines which it’s better not to cross, however bad things actually are.
 
I think the sentence was OTT, but they disrupted above and beyond getting there message out. I would make them do community service by fixing pot-holes 1 day a week for four years.
I can understand why the judge sentenced so harshly tbf. If they'd been stopping a museum from opening, the protest actually affects very few people directly but creates a news story and sentencing for something like that would be more lenient I'd imagine.
I think I've seen figures like 700,000+ cars affected, entire motorway closed for 121 hours and policing bills through the roof. People missed work that they weren't paid for, people missed hospital appointments and numerous funerals where mourners just couldn't get there.

I didn't have a lot of time for the mum trying to get sympathy because her daughter will miss a family wedding.

I absolutely respect people's right to protest, but not at the expense of 000s of ordinary people and businesses who have no recourse to claw back lost income