Off Topic The Politics Thread

[bobmid]

Any updates on how Mrs May got on in Brussels?

 

[DT’s Socks]

Fact check. We contribute 13.45% of the EU budget, France pays over 16% and Germany 19%. So we are not second biggest contributor, and with that % spending on buildings in the EU would never be with ‘largely our money’.

Of course, from your perspective the point you make would still resonate - we shouldn’t contribute to the development of infrastructure in other countries. Fair enough, and if you believe this you certainly wouldn’t want us to be in the EU. I take another view, as you know, levelling up of economies actually expands the markets for goods and services.

It’s interesting the renewed level of attacks on the idea and actuality of the EU which are bursting out all over the place. I thought the Leavers won this argument two and a half years ago, and would now be focusing on the unicorn populated sunlit uplands of an EU free future. I can only assume that they are lacking self confidence, and/or ideas about what that future really looks like, and are more comfortable on the old ground of droning on about ‘fat cat bureaucrats’, ‘EU bullies’, peddling old and discredited stories about light bulbs and bananas etc etc. Move on, tell us about what we have to look forward to in the Brave New World.

Post of the day imo
I doubt however if the Weetabrix could even understand this never mind adjust their opinions

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

It was a long rant, repeating all the posts between us. I understand you found it cathartic, but judge by the reaction of other posters (Ellers and Staines) who greeted the length of it with exclamation marks. You were trying to convince me that Honest John's reputation has been wrongly tarnished, despite the fact that he went down to the worst ever Conservative election defeat AND you rightly pointed out that the electorate did not know of his affair with Currie at that time. And you said that if they had known, he would have had to resign. So you haven't persuaded me. If you want to have another go, fine, but please, try to be concise.

You repeatedly claimed that his affair with Currie was key in how he was perceived by the electorate and media, and a key cause of his 97 defeat. And yet, when I informed you (a few times) that his affair wasn't known about until 2002, you were (and remain) unwilling to admit that his affair had nothing to do with that defeat.

You are willing to entirely dismiss anything good from his period in office as the work of others (Clarke for the economy, Mitchell for N Ireland), and yet blame everything that went wrong (the sleaze of others, divisions on Europe) on him. It's an extremely poor form of argument. To claim that Clarke was entirely responsible for the economic boom, and that Major, who appointed him, kept him in the post, and would have been heavily involved in every budget, had nothing to do with it is extremely naive and no one with an ounce of intelligence will seriously hold to that position. I doubt you even think it really.

He did indeed lose in 1997 (questionable if it was the worst ever for the Tories when compared with 1906), but to judge a PM's record entirely on one electoral defeat, without context - and in doing so to ignore a stunning victory in 1992 - is incredibly reductive, and wouldn't make the grade in a basic GSCE exam. If you stick to that argument, logic follows that you think Blair is the best PM ever (or one of) for his 1997 victory.

He wasn't perfect by any means, but I maintain that anyone judging the period of 1990-97 with any attempt to balance the evidence will judge him less harshly than many do.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

You must log in or register to see media

Great program, I miss it. I'm sure there'd be a market for it with all that's been going on since 2016

 

[DT’s Socks]

Any updates on how Mrs May got on in Brussels?

It was a dull goalless draw and set for a replay
The robotic one cannot do anything else until she has been for reprogramming

 

[Sooperhoop]

Any updates on how Mrs May got on in Brussels?

She got what she usually gets, F*ck all...

 

[DT’s Socks]

UK Contribution - Yes, Stan, correction agreed. I hadn't applied the rebate. We've been the third largest contributor over the last few years.

I suspect the levelling up by the EU has more to do with political than commercial factors - the EU doesn't want the ex Eastern Bloc countries sliding back to Russia. The commercial point is fine, but for the UK, the greatest increase in our trade is happening outside the EU. That may not be the case for Germany and France. We need our money to go where it best suits our tailored interests.

The battle for Brexit has not been won until we're out. If you want to stop Brexiteers from reacting, may be someone could tell Mr Tusk that telling UK politician to go to hell will not get a positive response. It's unseemly that such a senior politician engages in such name calling. I haven't heard similar from any UK politician - the media sure, but that's the nature of that beast. There are still those too, the bad losers, who want another referendum to see if they can get a better result. Brexiteers are always alert to them.

As far as I'm concerned, once we're out, I'm hoping to pay a lot less attention to anything to do with the EU. Trade talks will commence and no doubt labour on, but we can get on with trade deals ex-Europe (as long as we don't stay in the Custom's Union)

PS Has Rangercol left us? Hope not

Seems to have stepped away as his 2 year stance of tell them all to F Off doesn’t hold much weight
I expect and hope he has seen the light at last on the impacts

 

[Frome-Ranger]

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Frome-Ranger]

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

You repeatedly claimed that his affair with Currie was key in how he was perceived by the electorate and media, and a key cause of his 97 defeat. And yet, when I informed you (a few times) that his affair wasn't known about until 2002, you were (and remain) unwilling to admit that his affair had nothing to do with that defeat.

You are willing to entirely dismiss anything he good as the work of others (Clarke for the economy, Mitchell for N Ireland), and yet blame everything that went wrong (the sleaze of others, divisions on Europe) on him. It's an extremely poor form argument. To claim that Clarke was entirely responsible for the economic boom, and that Major, who appointed him, kept him in the post, and would have been heavily involved in every budget, is extremely naive and no one with an ounce of intelligence will seriously hold to that position. I doubt you even think it.

He did indeed lose in 1997 (questionable if it was the worst ever for the Tories when compared with 1906), but to judge a PM's record entirely on one electoral defeat, without context - and in doing so to ignore a stunning victory in 1992 - is incredibly reductive, and wouldn't make the grade in a basic GSCE exam. If you stick to that argument, logic follows that you think Blair is the best PM ever (or one of) for his 1997 victory.

He wasn't perfect, but I maintain that anyone judging the period of 1990-97 with any attempt to balance the evidence will judge him less harshly than many do.

I said a number of times that I "conceded" that the Currie Affair had nothing to do with his election defeat. You prompted my memory that the affair came out when Edwina wrote her memoirs later. I cannot be any clearer than that. But this fact undermined your argument because you then had to concede that had the truth been known while Major was prime minister, he would have had to resign.

I don't give Major any credit for Clarke running the economy, except I suppose, that he appointed him after making an utter pig's ear of the ERM debacle.

Sleaze - it went on under his nose, on his watch. Indeed, although the public didn't know it at the time, he was engaged in it!

I'm afraid the gloss came off the 1992 election later that year when we had to bale out of the ERM on Black Wednesday.

So the man you are championing went down to a record electoral defeat and hid an affair over which he would have had to resign from office had it been known. Most people remember Major for Black Wednesday, Sleaze, Edwina Currie and that colossal electoral defeat. He did help kickstart the NI talks but it was Mitchell's talent that saw it through. You're obviously a fan. I'd say you're easily pleased.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

She got what she usually gets, F*ck all...

Ah, well, better than F*ck nothing...

 

[bobmid]

Black Wednesday, don't tell me theres another bastard sale starting

 

[danishqp]

As you realise as Mod I do not post on this thread much, and try to stay as apolitical as I can. Although most of you know which side my bread is buttered (boy that sounds wrong)..but still. Danish's post though has hit home with me...



So has any of you seen BBC 2 program already 2/3 shown. Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil

The first was on Brexit, and how it came about, and that was eye-opening. But this weeks was a seismic level up. Basically it shows how the EU brought Greece and Italy to its knees and as Danish said, brought down two elected governments. It has really really opened my mind. Catch the whole series if you can...next week is on the immigration crisis

Haven’t seen it Beth, will check if there is a podcast or some youtube upload.
Did they at all show how Burlusconi was usurped?
Not a very known piece, a complete charlatan, but these people went way beyond their remit.
Rajoy also, was a complete puppet.

I’m not in any UK camp, I’m just for reform of the EU.
This behemoth is now way, way too far from the people it is meant to serve.

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

I said a number of times that I "conceded" that the Currie Affair had nothing to do with his election defeat. You prompted my memory that the affair came out when Edwina wrote her memoirs later. I cannot be any clearer than that. But this fact undermined your argument because you then had to concede that had the truth been known while Major was prime minister, he would have had to resign.

I don't give Major any credit for Clarke running the economy, except I suppose, that he appointed him after making an utter pig's ear of the ERM debacle.

Sleaze - it went on under his nose, on his watch. Indeed, although the public didn't know it at the time, he was engaged in it!

I'm afraid the gloss came off the 1992 election later that year when we had to bale out of the ERM on Black Wednesday.

So the man you are championing went down to a record electoral defeat and hid an affair over which he would have had to resign from office had it been known. Most people remember Major for Black Wednesday, Sleaze, Edwina Currie and that colossal electoral defeat. He did help kickstart the NI talks but it was Mitchell's talent that saw it through. You're obviously a fan. I'd say you're easily pleased.

Lol, the fact you're sticking to that line on Clarke and the economy shows quite how unhinged your view is. Glad to see you moving on N Ireland too.

And resorting to a counterfactual about what might have happened if he had been found out is hardly brilliant either.

My contention in my first post was the history will judge him more kindly than his contemporaries have, not that he was brilliant.

 

[sb_73]

UK Contribution - Yes, Stan, correction agreed. I hadn't applied the rebate. We've been the third largest contributor over the last few years.

I suspect the levelling up by the EU has more to do with political than commercial factors - the EU doesn't want the ex Eastern Bloc countries sliding back to Russia. The commercial point is fine, but for the UK, the greatest increase in our trade is happening outside the EU. That may not be the case for Germany and France. We need our money to go where it best suits our tailored interests.

The battle for Brexit has not been won until we're out. If you want to stop Brexiteers from reacting, may be someone could tell Mr Tusk that telling UK politician to go to hell will not get a positive response. It's unseemly that such a senior politician engages in such name calling. I haven't heard similar from any UK politician - the media sure, but that's the nature of that beast. There are still those too, the bad losers, who want another referendum to see if they can get a better result. Brexiteers are always alert to them.

As far as I'm concerned, once we're out, I'm hoping to pay a lot less attention to anything to do with the EU. Trade talks will commence and no doubt labour on, but we can get on with trade deals ex-Europe (as long as we don't stay in the Custom's Union)

PS Has Rangercol left us? Hope not

Not aimed at you or anyone in particular, but the tiring thing for me (and I’m guilty of it) is the black and white way all of this stuff is discussed on here and in the real world. Truth is it’s all shades of grey. The EU has serious problems, but it’s not the ‘Fourth Reich’ (I cant begin to describe the despair I feel when I see that written, so please stop it Turkish). It has achieved a great deal in stunningly complicated circumstances. It needs urgent reform. I hate this ‘we are the victims of these evil people’ attitude. On the other hand there is an obvious, but complex, argument for leaving, it shouldn’t be dismissed as the plan of charlatans and cheats supported by idiots. But it’s been reduced to an us v them argument, some testosterone driven test of strength and it’s ****ing exhausting, pointless and ultimately futile. I’m ashamed of myself for getting sucked into it sometimes. But the way the leave arguments are presented has left me completely unsympathetic to the concerns of the people presenting them. I think somewhere near the beginning of this gigantic thread I posted that although I’m pro the EU concept there is something about the British (or probably English) attitude to it that means it’s probably not right for us, or for them to have us in but not really wanting to be. I’ll try to dig that post up. But the years of bitching since then have destroyed any sense of balance I had. Whatever the conclusion the wounds will take years to heal.

Col is having a little rest from here. Would that I had the strength of character to join him.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

Not aimed at you or anyone in particular, but the tiring thing for me (and I’m guilty of it) is the black and white way all of this stuff is discussed on here and in the real world. Truth is it’s all shades of grey. The EU has serious problems, but it’s not the ‘Fourth Reich’ (I cant begin to describe the despair I feel when I see that written, so please stop it Turkish). It has achieved a great deal in stunningly complicated circumstances. It needs urgent reform. I hate this ‘we are the victims of these evil people’ attitude. On the other hand there is an obvious, but complex, argument for leaving, it shouldn’t be dismissed as the plan of charlatans and cheats supported by idiots. But it’s been reduced to an us v them argument, some testosterone driven test of strength and it’s ****ing exhausting, pointless and ultimately futile. I’m ashamed of myself for getting sucked into it sometimes. But the way the leave arguments are presented has left me completely unsympathetic to the concerns of the people presenting them. I think somewhere near the beginning of this gigantic thread I posted that although I’m pro the EU concept there is something about the British (or probably English) attitude to it that means it’s probably not right for us, or for them to have us in but not really wanting to be. I’ll try to dig that post up. But the years of bitching since then have destroyed any sense of balance I had. Whatever the conclusion the wounds will take years to heal.

Col is having a little rest from here. Would that I had the strength of character to join him.

Yes, a good post Stan. It is an incredibly divisive issue, with great passion and belief on both sides. I think among the yahboo nature of the posts, facts and worthwhile opinions do come out. I find it interesting. But it's also been a place to let off steam at what's been happening out there, and that can irritate others and so it goes on. You've only got to cast your eyes on Twitter to see the same thing happening.

I agree that as Europe moves, as seems to be the case, to a more federal organisation, the UK would hold it back because we've never been committed in the same way that Germany and France are - or were. Once we've left, I'm happy to eat the popcorn and see how things develop over there. I have to say, I don't feel optimistic about the future of the EU unless it becomes more flexible, but I don't wish it ill either. I've always been pro Europe - just felt the Common Market/EU moved away from us, and not visa versa. Wounds won't take so long to heal if we're successful as a nation. Personally, I believe we will be.

I hope Col comes back soon. I miss his political instinct and, of course, perceptive match reports.

 

[Staines R's]

A great advert from British Airways about how they ‘love Britain’ and how they have pride in the country.

Of course we won’t mention the hundreds of jobs they’ve out sourced to the likes of India and Poland.

 

[Deleted.......]

Not aimed at you or anyone in particular, but the tiring thing for me (and I’m guilty of it) is the black and white way all of this stuff is discussed on here and in the real world. Truth is it’s all shades of grey. The EU has serious problems, but it’s not the ‘Fourth Reich’ (I cant begin to describe the despair I feel when I see that written, so please stop it Turkish). It has achieved a great deal in stunningly complicated circumstances. It needs urgent reform. I hate this ‘we are the victims of these evil people’ attitude. On the other hand there is an obvious, but complex, argument for leaving, it shouldn’t be dismissed as the plan of charlatans and cheats supported by idiots. But it’s been reduced to an us v them argument, some testosterone driven test of strength and it’s ****ing exhausting, pointless and ultimately futile. I’m ashamed of myself for getting sucked into it sometimes. But the way the leave arguments are presented has left me completely unsympathetic to the concerns of the people presenting them. I think somewhere near the beginning of this gigantic thread I posted that although I’m pro the EU concept there is something about the British (or probably English) attitude to it that means it’s probably not right for us, or for them to have us in but not really wanting to be. I’ll try to dig that post up. But the years of bitching since then have destroyed any sense of balance I had. Whatever the conclusion the wounds will take years to heal.

Col is having a little rest from here. Would that I had the strength of character to join him.

It's utterly exhausting and really quite depressing to see how it's divided the nation. My thoughts are similar to yours - and I do despair at the notion that the world's fifth biggest economy is being bullied by an evil empire when we voted for over 90% of its legislation and actually drafted a lot of it. But you cant change peoples minds or the way they feel. just wish they'd get on with it so we can in some way move on.

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

Very good point about rich ‘career’ politicians and how they can claim less as they can most probably afford to......something I hadn’t thought about.
I just don’t trust very many politicians as even the ones I most admire are probably at it.

In case you're interested, you can see a full breakdown of Soubry's expenses on the IPSA website here:

https://www.theipsa.org.uk/mp-costs/your-mp/anna-soubry/

I went through the most recent full year and couldn't see anything unreasonable. Couldn't see much to complain about personally. Biggest chunks, beyond travel, were London accomodation, constituency office rent and staff travel. Nothing (that I could see) that isn't justifiable for her to be able to fulfill her role as an MP.

Edit - there is an interesting discussion to be had about what the role of an MP should be but presently they are expected to take on a huge amount of casework which really should be done by local councillors. This creates the need for multiple staff members, which really drives expenses up.

 

[Staines R's]

In case you're interested, you can see a full breakdown of Soubry's expenses on the IPSA website here:

https://www.theipsa.org.uk/mp-costs/your-mp/anna-soubry/

I went through the most recent full year and couldn't see anything unreasonable. Couldn't see much to complain about personally. Biggest chunks, beyond travel, were London accomodation, constituency office rent and staff travel. Nothing (that I could see) that isn't justifiable for her to be able to fulfill her role as an MP.

Edit - there is an interesting discussion to be had about what the role of an MP should be but presently they are expected to take on a huge amount of casework which really should be done by local councillors. This creates the need for multiple staff members, which really drives expenses up.

Would be interesting to find out how many staff the £134 thousand is split by, and what they actually do.

Good website, thanks