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!
ImpSaint said:
I conflate British with accent. Or at least born British. I don't think most people are bothered at all with a sensible amount of immigration if people are also here to "integrate" and I don't mean fly union jacks whenever the King rides by, eat pie and chips and listen to Status Quo. Just not live in a parallel Britain by their own rules and insist on different treatment.

While the joke is on the stupid racist that loves his curry I think the importing of different cultures is a great thing but it should be complimentary and to be shared by all and not the "this is my culture you're not invited" kind of cultural appropriation arguments we currently get from some on the left.

Those voices of the left (not all of them by any means) seem to want to have a Britain of self segregated enclaves that are invite only rather than be additions to the existing culture for everyone to share and enjoy.
Click to expand...
My belief is almost everyone on both sides wants manageable immigration, as close to a net of zero as possible. But, the issue is the left - of which I am a part - will always fight the deliberate attempts to alienate foreign people and villanise them. So, people posting misleading charts and articles get angry when ‘leftists’ point out what is wrong with that information. I also think the left would never be okay with mass deportations or anything like that. They have been allowed in and we need to make them welcome (or they won’t have any reason to integrate). That doesn’t mean we believe immigration is at an acceptable level. But blaming the immigrant is pure nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shoot_spiderman, ImpSaint, StJabbo1 and 1 other person
saintrichie123 said:
Don’t forget No7 was also banned for a time, so in no way was Os singled out.
He wummed and baited his way to a ban, we all read the warnings on here…..he chose to ignore and continue.
Click to expand...

The warnings were about making personal insults which previously, along with others, he did. But that is not what he was banned for. The rules were changed after the event to snare Osvaldorama.

If posters didn't like what he was saying or how he said it, they could have ignored him but chose to reply often with insults. The so called wumming and baiting were described that way only because what he was saying was from a right wing perspective. Instead of ignoring him they couldn't resist trying to put him in his place. The playground boycott plan didn't work because there was always someone whose ego wouldn't let Os' comments go unchallenged. In my opinion, the mob played their part in the rows but instead of coping with a dissenting voice, they got him removed. It was always the aim, so job done.

The comment I made yesterday about banning posters was not because I want others thrown off (it's the opposite actually). It was about the inconsistencies around how it was implemented if we were going to have them. Yes there have been others who have had temporary bans but Os is the only one to have a permanent one, so yes he has been singled out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osvaldorama
It'sOnlyAGame said:
The warnings were about making personal insults which previously, along with others, he did. But that is not what he was banned for. The rules were changed after the event to snare Osvaldorama.

If posters didn't like what he was saying or how he said it, they could have ignored him but chose to reply often with insults. The so called wumming and baiting were described that way only because what he was saying was from a right wing perspective. Instead of ignoring him they couldn't resist trying to put him in his place. The playground boycott plan didn't work because there was always someone whose ego wouldn't let Os' comments go unchallenged. In my opinion, the mob played their part in the rows but instead of coping with a dissenting voice, they got him removed. It was always the aim, so job done.

The comment I made yesterday about banning posters was not because I want others thrown off (it's the opposite actually). It was about the inconsistencies around how it was implemented if we were going to have them. Yes there have been others who have had temporary bans but Os is the only one to have a permanent one, so yes he has been singled out.
Click to expand...
Again, he was not singled out in anyway, he didn’t heed the warnings of his insults and got banned (as others did) but he kept going when allowed back.
To him, anyone who didn’t agree with him was stupid and had a low IQ, and he could out bench press anyone.
And then the nonsense of saying London had fallen all the time.
Posters on here stopped engaging with him, I find it strange for you to think he was innocent, very strange.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7
IOAG

I have no issue with people espousing Right Wing opinion in here even though I vehemently disagree. Os was not willing to engage and the posts became increasingly declaratory. The data he linked to was also interrogated by other posters and found to originate from a disreputable website.

I so feel sorry for him being banned and the nonsense he posted sometimes made me smile as it was so ridiculous. However, there was no attempt to properly engage with others....it was always a case of I told you so ! In the end, it became annoying because he could not see any alternative opinion to his own.

I do think that Os was probably even younger than Tom. I understand there may be generational differences but no one else was as immature as Os.
 
If Labour's numbers do not improve very soon................will Kier Starmer, or his party pressure him to, surrender the next election early and change the electoral process while he still has a majority to railroad it through?

Bear in mind this is yougov and they currently have Reform on about 29-30% whereas all the others lates polls are in the 33-35% region. Also bear in mind that the "shy Tory" aspect of 2015 and 2019 due to Brexit toxicity is likely to equally be a factor with reform toxicity! Some people will not openly say to anyone, anonymous or not, that they intend to vote reform!

Thats a frightener! because it could mean reform are actually a few % higher than the polls which after 2015 tried to re-engineer their weighting and who they polled due to having to many Labour / left leaning respondents constantly giving them higher Labour number than the reality

They could of course gone the other way and now be over representing right wing in their polls but I'm not so sure on that one!
You must log in or register to see images
 
Last edited:
ImpSaint said:
If Labour's numbers do not improve very soon................will Kier Starmer, or his party pressure him to, surrender the next election early and change the electoral process while he still has a majority to railroad it through?

You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...

I wish, but I genuinely believe Labour would be happier to lose an election to Reform UK than forfeit the possibility of ever getting a majority again.

The Labour leadership are too stubborn and full of hubris.

FPTP is democratically forfeit now, no way in hell should a party be getting a majority on under 34% of the vote like Labour did and like Reform look likely to do, it was never built for the multi party environment we now have.

The Labour membership voted in favour of changing the electoral system last year and were ignored.

Besides by the time it dawns on them it might be a good idea, it will be too close to the next election to alter it because there would need to be a lot of work put in to reallocate seats and put the structure in place to facilitate the new system. Basically they would need to be starting the process at least a couple of years out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImpSaint
And another from him where he claims whistleblowers have given him info on McSweeny/Starmers rise to the top:
You must log in or register to see media
 
Shandy_top_89 said:
I wish, but I genuinely believe Labour would be happier to lose an election to Reform UK than forfeit the possibility of ever getting a majority again.

The Labour leadership are too stubborn and full of hubris.

FPTP is democratically forfeit now, no way in hell should a party be getting a majority on under 34% of the vote like Labour did and like Reform look likely to do, it was never built for the multi party environment we now have.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should all have listened to Farage back in the UKIP days. lol.
 
ImpSaint said:
If Labour's numbers do not improve very soon................will Kier Starmer, or his party pressure him to, surrender the next election early and change the electoral process while he still has a majority to railroad it through?

You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...
This is bases on opinión polls, right? There is no way Reform will get anything like that number under FPTP.!!
 
The Ides of March said:
This is bases on opinión polls, right? There is no way Reform will get anything like that number under FPTP.!!
Click to expand...
These are polls that don't just easy x % = n seats. They actually try to work out properly a representation of how that percentage could equate to seats. Thats why the FPTP is so different to the PR one. In theory in a 2 party system 1 party could win all the seats with only 650 votes more than the other but each seat winning by one vote!
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Ides of March
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back