Off Topic Politics Thread

[ChilcoSaint]

That's hardly the point though. It's the principle. He's a convicted child sex offender FFS who served a small chunk of a 12 month sentence before being deported. Under no circumstances should he have been paid to leave the country. If he refuses to co-operate send him back to prison for him to serve the rest of his sentence. It may cost more money to do this but I'd much rather that than we bung him £500 to make everyone's lives easier.

His very presence was a complete embarrassment to everyone involved in the fiasco of his release from prison, during which he reportedly made 5 attempts to be readmitted. If I were Home Secretary I would have fined the governor and staff of Chelmsford Prison rather than giving £500 to Kebatu.

 

[ImpSaint]

Thanks for adding some context. I didn’t add an opinion, just showed the numbers.

2000s saw average sentences increase by around a month, whilst 2010s went up by 6 months

https://data.justice.gov.uk/cjs-statistics/cjs-sentence-types

community service has dropped significantly in the 2010s, from 12% of all sentences to 7%

Kenneth Clarke was shifted out within 2 years. Think he was 2009 > 2012? something like that. Moved out because they didn't like the soft touch and the "hard on crime" rhetoric was back in force.

Kenneth Clarke was quite vocal in saying (paraphrasing from memory) What's the point in these short term sentences. No-one can be rehabilitated in that time. Not something the right of the Tories could stomach for long back then.

 

[ImpSaint]

His very presence was a complete embarrassment to everyone involved in the fiasco of his release from prison, during which he reportedly made 5 attempts to be readmitted. If I were Home Secretary I would have fined the governor and staff of Chelmsford Prison rather than giving £500 to Kebatu.

Maybe the staff, including the governor, were only acting on paperwork that were completed somewhere else? After all, why the need for an inquiry if it was as simple as a chain of 10-20 people and one of them must be the fool?

 

[ImpSaint]

This shows the problem we have at the moment. Labour and Tories are stuck in their own version of the Truman show, performing for the bubble but unable to see that the reaction they get from the bubble is not the reaction outside the bubble. Still playing at old school politics of quis in the house and focusing on PMQs which the general public don't care at all about.

Farage and Polanski are just going direct to the public online and wherever they can while Starmer and Kemi just perform for seals.

The next election is going to be Greens vs Reform and the whole Labour backup (which they were already using a few months into power) of vote Labour or get Tories Reform has gone. If Greens get ahead of them they are done too, just like the Tories. Greens will become the "keep reform out" option and the decision to add 16 year olds will inflate the pull to the reform/Polanski effect. The "extremes" are more appealing to the kids, where the more mature are still a bit more safety conscious hence still holding onto a bit of their support but things look very dark for the big 2 and I think come an election if reform are still polling high Lib Dems will suffer too as tactical voters go for the anti reform option.

These big old style machines need a lot of money to run and they are losing donations, membership and activists! Very hard to fight on the ground campaigns with much smaller budgets and they are 10 years behind, still going on about knocking on doors.

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Ian Thumwood]

I think the parties chosen for the election debates in TV will be fascinating. Currently, i can see no reason to include the Conservatives. Their only right is based on past glories and they will be irrelevent by 2029. Reform will need to have a podium as things currently stand abd have just cause to replace the Conservatives in a sebate between the Big Three.

I could see an argument for the main debate beung between Reform , the Greens and SNP. However , i am anticipating Labour ditching Starmer before the next election. I also cannot see Reform avoiding a scandal before then. The Reform councils are performing very badly. I just feel they will be bad enough to put people off.

 

[ImpSaint]

I think the parties chosen for the election debates in TV will be fascinating. Currently, i can see no reason to include the Conservatives. Their only right is based on past glories and they will be irrelevent by 2029. Reform will need to have a podium as things currently stand abd have just cause to replace the Conservatives in a sebate between the Big Three.

I could see an argument for the main debate beung between Reform , the Greens and SNP. However , i am anticipating Labour ditching Starmer before the next election. I also cannot see Reform avoiding a scandal before then. The Reform councils are performing very badly. I just feel they will be bad enough to put people off.

The Welsh devolved government and Labour Councils performed badly since forever but they kept voting Labour! There is an easy get out when the Westminster government is a different party. Maybe if Reform were in power now you would have a point but while an obviously anti reform party is in charge in Westminster they have the same back up.

It will be more interesting to see who decides they aren't a good idea and who calls people out for not saying yes. The debates are rubbish anyway and just 5 folks with a list of slogans and pre prepped jokes they can't deliver that wait for the right moment to try and slip them in. No idea why journos go on about them as if they have always been a thing....or rather I do because the bubble loves them and the commentariat love an hour or 2 of material to snip into out of context stuff or make out their man did so well while only focusing on a 10 second victory amongst an hour+ of nothingness.

They are mostly beneficial for the "also ran" parties so in reality probably Labour and Tory would actually benefit from them. The 2 all the focus is on rarely come out as the headline because everyone else is after a slice so we get the "Nick Clegg" bounce despite him saying hardly anything or Sturgeon becoming flavour of the month amongst the left because she was pretty good at delivering her short sharp pre fabbed slogan attacks.

But I daresay it would be hard for Farage or Polanski not doing it as it is their realm. They love the spotlight and have too big egos to turn it down IMO.

 

[tomw24]

So now Rachel Reeves has broken the rules by not applying for a licence when she rented out her house. It's one thing after another with this government. First it was Rayner and now Reeves. High ranking government officials should be able pay the right amount of stamp duty or apply for the appropriate licence when renting out a property. It really isn't difficult.

 

[Shandy_top_89]

So now Rachel Reeves has broken the rules by not applying for a licence when she rented out her house. It's one thing after another with this government. First it was Rayner and now Reeves. High ranking government officials should be able pay the right amount of stamp duty or apply for the appropriate licence when renting out a property. It really isn't difficult.

Just sack her.

Contrary to many opinions I do think this government is miles ahead of the previous one when it comes to governance.

But they are incredibly incompetent and naive when it comes to politics itself.

 

[ImpSaint]

So now Rachel Reeves has broken the rules by not applying for a licence when she rented out her house. It's one thing after another with this government. First it was Rayner and now Reeves. High ranking government officials should be able pay the right amount of stamp duty or apply for the appropriate licence when renting out a property. It really isn't difficult.

They are all about regulation and putting in more and more rules and taxes...........when they can't even get to grips with the current ones. lol

 

[thereisonlyoneno7]

I don’t think this one is as bad as Raynor.

Raynor actively sought to find a loophole to avoid paying out some tax. Even if it had existed, IMO it was a bit or a grey area for a deputy leader to do.

Reeves it appears, has just not been told about needing the license (it is not a usual thing). She hasn’t actively tried to avoid it. She is one of the rule makers though, so it isn’t good.

 

[tomw24]

I don’t think this one is as bad as Raynor.

Raynor actively sought to find a loophole to avoid paying out some tax. Even if it had existed, IMO it was a bit or a grey area for a deputy leader to do.

Reeves it appears, has just not been told about needing the license (it is not a usual thing). She hasn’t actively tried to avoid it. She is one of the rule makers though, so it isn’t good.

Oh it isn't but it's still careless and as the one renting out her property, it's on her and no one else to make sure she has done everything correctly. It's unfortunate if she has receieved incorrect advice but there's nothing to stop her checking.

 

[StJabbo1]

HIGNFY
Rachel Reeves is clearly hoping she can get fired on a housing technicality so she doesn't have to do a budget.

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Toss saints]

I don’t think this one is as bad as Raynor.

Raynor actively sought to find a loophole to avoid paying out some tax. Even if it had existed, IMO it was a bit or a grey area for a deputy leader to do.

Reeves it appears, has just not been told about needing the license (it is not a usual thing). She hasn’t actively tried to avoid it. She is one of the rule makers though, so it isn’t good.

It's an interesting one as a selective license costs a few hundred quid and a couple of hours of form filling, so no real financial gain. She has just be negligent. But do I want someone running the British economy who has shown to be negligent. The answer is NO

 

[Archers Road]

It's an interesting one as a selective license costs a few hundred quid and a couple of hours of form filling, so no real financial gain. She has just be negligent. But do I want someone running the British economy who has shown to be negligent. The answer is NO

I think we should immediately sack anyone who has ever made a mistake, then no one will make any more.

 

[StJabbo1]

I think we should immediately sack anyone who has ever made a mistake, then no one will make any more.

On the other hand it's often said if you don't make a mistake you don't make anything.

 

[thereisonlyoneno7]

On the other hand it's often said if you don't make a mistake you don't make anything.

Or you need to make mistakes to learn from them.

This one isn’t underhand IMO. Or by trying to be’Clever’


Edit: I reserve the right to scream for her resignation after the budget and she screws me over.

 

[tomw24]

New information about Reeves has been sent to Starmer. She's ****ed.

 

[StJabbo1]

New information about Reeves has been sent to Starmer. She's ****ed.

It's being said that her letting agent had told her it would advise her if a selective licence was needed and did not do so. Could well be a setup

 

[Archers Road]

New information about Reeves has been sent to Starmer. She's ****ed.

We're all ****ed; we've already seen Angela Rayner hounded out by the right wing press, now they're coming for the Chancellor. The oligarchs who own the media think they have the right to choose the government. Then there's social media, and look who owns that. Worrying times.

 

[Archers Road]

It's being said that her letting agent had told her it would advise her if a selective licence was needed and did not do so. Could well be a setup

I don't think it's a set up, but I do think the press are going through every Labour minister's dustbins looking for anything to hold against them.