Br-ex-ilection 2019

[Umster]

And you're perfectly right to call it lying, it scares me that we're seeing "fake news" style tactics creep into British politics. 

 

After the recent smearing stunts, I'm definitely keeping away from the Tories though I'm wondering who's worth my vote. 

 

More frustrating than it needs to be considering it's a FPTP system. 

[Stutopia]

On 20/11/2019 at 16:00, Umster said:

And you're perfectly right to call it lying, it scares me that we're seeing "fake news" style tactics creep into British politics. 

 

After the recent smearing stunts, I'm definitely keeping away from the Tories though I'm wondering who's worth my vote. 

 

More frustrating than it needs to be considering it's a FPTP system. 

It’s insidious, whomever starts it, it doesn’t matter, the others will all have to copy to keep up. We all watched with our own eyes the banks fu** the economy, a few years after that, the story is that EU migrants did all the damage. Demonstrable lies, but they stuck because certain people just wanted it to be true.

 

Once there are just two or three groups of people screaming at each other, with no possibility of compromise on anything, no common ground at all, anyone can say anything, because it’s become about goodies and baddies, not ideas or facts.

[coldel]

Latest polls have Boris way ahead. Sad times. An institutionalised cheat, liar and morally bankrupt person as PM vs a loony left 1970s anti-semitic nut case vs no other worthy candidate of note. An utter freak show of epic proportions coming up to vote in. 

Edited November 28, 2019 by coldel

[ATTAK Z]

I often wonder what it would be like if David Miliband had become leader. I met him once when he was something to do with education and he came across as a nice sensible guy. 

[Ekona]

He was too sensible, apparently. 

[Adrian@TORQEN]

5 hours ago, coldel said:

Latest polls have Boris way ahead. Sad times. An institutionalised cheat, liar and morally bankrupt person as PM vs a loony left 1970s anti-semitic nut case vs no other worthy candidate of note. An utter freak show of epic proportions coming up to vote in. 

I'm still waiting to read a proper documented article about what makes Corbyn anti-semite. 

Something like this, but in depth examples, things HE did, HE said etc:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/26/antisemitism-labour-everything-you-need-to-know

[coldel]

Even if you take some serious character flaws out, the fact he belives 1970s Britain is the model for a modern society in the 21st century is enough to make you shudder!

[Ekona]

I think the biggest issue is people taking such utterly polar viewpoints. Let’s be honest, there’s some great policies by all the parties, but no one will ever admit that once they’ve chosen a side. 

[Umster]

I still can't get over how many Northerners would flip to vote Tory just on the premise of Brexit. 

 

I'm sure the last time the North was so unified, it had to do with Margaret Thatcher passing away. 

 

The irony! 

[Adrian@TORQEN]

What kills me is why vote for them on a manifesto that basically only promises to hire 20000 police officers to fight the crime wave caused by cutting 22000 police officers and austerity they imposed on the country for the last 9 years... 

[Ekona]

Because if they didn’t make cuts we’d have been utterly screwed, way more than what we are. Don’t forget I work in an industry directly affected by those cuts now, and would directly benefit from the magic money tree promises that Labour are offering. 
 

Maybe they would only promise to put us back to nearly where we were officer-wise, but that’s surely a good thing regardless of historical staffing levels? 
 

Voting Tory or Labour shouldn’t ever be a regional thing, and neither should it be a “well I’ve always voted that way like my parents”. That’s the biggest issue affecting politics, more than anything else. I admire people who will vote for those that offer them what they actually need and change sides as required, that’s how it should be. 

[coldel]

11 hours ago, Ekona said:

I think the biggest issue is people taking such utterly polar viewpoints. Let’s be honest, there’s some great policies by all the parties, but no one will ever admit that once they’ve chosen a side. 

But lets be honest, the great policies are often the ones that never get implemented post election, its the easy ones that do. And rarely do the two attributes happen to be the same thing. And the world changes too fast nowadays, if we slumped into a post Brexit recession you may as well kiss goodbye to most of the manifestos promises anyway. 

[Umster]

6 hours ago, Ekona said:

Because if they didn’t make cuts we’d have been utterly screwed, way more than what we are. Don’t forget I work in an industry directly affected by those cuts now, and would directly benefit from the magic money tree promises that Labour are offering. 

I thought we were meant to be eliminating our deficit? After all the cuts, we're no better on in terms of finances and/or the ability to pay back our debts. 

 

Labour might have a magic money tree but the Tories sure do have some roundabout policies. Think NHS nursing bursaries, police officers, Grenfell, student finance and GDP, £500m a week for the NHS, immigration targets. . . 

 

They're as bad as one another but at least Corbyn is offering us the choice that Cameron should have originally. 

[coldel]

The manifesto 'promises' are a joke though - 40 hospitals, yes that's actually something like 6 funded and 34 more they are 'having a think about' rather than 40 new hospitals. 

 

Corbyn should offer the public a choice, by resigning and giving us someone credible as opposition!

[Adrian@TORQEN]

I've only been here for 20 years, I don't know as much about British politics from my own experience, but I researched about it in numerous occasions.

 

What's actually so bad about Corbyn that he's considered a "not electable PM"? What's so "70s" about him or his beliefs?

[Umster]

4 minutes ago, Adrian@TORQEN said:

 

What's actually so bad about Corbyn that he's considered a "not electable PM"? What's so "70s" about him or his beliefs?

It's just typical British culture, he's lived the reality most in the country have and he's as principled as we want them to be but we're a fickle bunch. Never happy and always pessimistic. 

 

I have to admit I don't like him because as much as he means well, his execution of his ideas seems terrible. Had he been an option at another election then maybe he'd get my vote but for now we need common sense and someone not so polarising. 

[Maggz]

41 minutes ago, Adrian@TORQEN said:

I've only been here for 20 years, I don't know as much about British politics from my own experience, but I researched about it in numerous occasions.

 

What's actually so bad about Corbyn that he's considered a "not electable PM"? What's so "70s" about him or his beliefs?

Let me help. His socialist, communist policies don't fit the hyper capitalist world we live in. Why should people like me pay for working class or poor people, who are according to our holiness likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless, and hopeless and perhaps claiming to suffer from low self-esteem brought on by unemployment.’ It's clear they don't want or deserve the help they get.

Or why should my tax contributions be spent on council houses which just breed ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate kids. 

 

The UK doesn't need these people or policies, what we need is proper educated, well paid real Brits and not 'uppity and irresponsible women' which have a 'natural desire to have babies'

 

and anyone who supports these archaic policies should seriously reconsider their position

Let me help. His socialist, Communist policies don't fit the hyper capitalist world we live in. Why should people like me pay for working class or poor people who are according to our holiness 'likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless, and hopeless and perhaps claiming to suffer from low self-esteem brought on by unemployment.’ It's clear they don't want or deserve the help they get.

Or why should my tax contributions be spent on council houses which just breed ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate kids. 

 

The UK doesn't need these people or policies, what we need is proper educated, well paid real Brits and not 'uppity and irresponsible women' which have a 'natural desire to have babies'

and anyone who supports these archaic policies should seriously reconsider their position

Edited November 29, 2019 by Maggz
Formatting

[Maggz]

3 minutes ago, Umster said:

It's just typical British culture, he's lived the reality most in the country have and he's as principled as we want them to be but we're a fickle bunch. Never happy and always pessimistic. 

 

I have to admit I don't like him because as much as he means well, his execution of his ideas seems terrible. Had he been an option at another election then maybe he'd get my vote but for now we need common sense and someone not so polarising. 

I'm really interested who fits that description from the current list of candidates.

[coldel]

Steering clear of antisemiticism for a bit but his idea to nationalise pretty much anything he can get his hands on - I remember trains pre privatisation, and they were absolutely shocking. They arent great now, but were worse then. Anything putting power back in the hands of unions is going to bring utter drudgery to the services they strangle. He basically wants the country to fund everything from higher education to energy. It will cost hundreds of billions of pounds to even start making a dent in renationalising everything, there is no money for it, additionally there is little I see from him that shows we will service our national debt. His obsession with the tiny minority of high earners that will somehow fund everything by increasing tax rates, by radically taxing inheritance (I mean why should people be allowed to save for their childrens sake - it should be used to buy railways) so on and so forth even a ten year old can do the numbers that show it doesnt add up.

 

Thats how it was in the 70s, just as the economy failed and needed updating, yet despite history showing otherwise, lets go back there? Really?

Edited November 29, 2019 by coldel

[coldel]

Oh and his hero is Karl Marx, so I would read up on that and imagine modern Britain following a similar pattern. 

[Maggz]

22 minutes ago, coldel said:

Steering clear of antisemiticism for a bit but his idea to nationalise pretty much anything he can get his hands on - I remember trains pre privatisation, and they were absolutely shocking. They arent great now, but were worse then. Anything putting power back in the hands of unions is going to bring utter drudgery to the services they strangle. He basically wants the country to fund everything from higher education to energy. It will cost hundreds of billions of pounds to even start making a dent in renationalising everything, there is no money for it, additionally there is little I see from him that shows we will service our national debt. His obsession with the tiny minority of high earners that will somehow fund everything by increasing tax rates, by radically taxing inheritance (I mean why should people be allowed to save for their childrens sake - it should be used to buy railways) so on and so forth even a ten year old can do the numbers that show it doesnt add up.

 

Thats how it was in the 70s, just as the economy failed and needed updating, yet despite history showing otherwise, lets go back there? Really?

I had to read your reply 5 times as I was sure it was the best piece of sarcasm I've seen in a while, but it seems you're serious...

 

Are we talking about the amazing privatisation of railways in the UK which is taught all across EU Unis as the best case study, and the biggest reason why governments should not privatise basic services which the general population needs for normal functioning?

Privatisation in the UK has caused criminal levels of neglect when it comes to maintenance and repairs as private companies worried about profits first, and good service second, and safety third. 

 

You're literally supporting the most famous privatisation disaster in modern history in western Europe, which clearly shows why countries should not even attempt to fully privatise public transport without insanely heavy legislation which would ensure safety. 

Oh...and why additional safety legislation was implemented and after how many derailed trains and accidents? 

 

Also how much does the trains cost today? And how good are they? How on time are they? And lastly, have you traveled on train across any other countries? 

Edited November 29, 2019 by Maggz

[Maggz]

1 hour ago, coldel said:

Oh and his hero is Karl Marx, so I would read up on that and imagine modern Britain following a similar pattern. 

Yup, I've never met a single person called Marx I liked!

 

Using a concept and trying to implement it in its entirety is retarded anyway. I'm assuming you're a free market promoter, or at least think it's a good idea if you have such a strong opinion on Marxism or basic/core country services privatisation.

You should probably read about the Friedman's Chicago school of economics, and their free market ideas. They've done some great work in Panama, Chile and a few other countries which were their playground. Privatised everything, including things like water (rivers, lakes, etc). 

 

Edited November 29, 2019 by Maggz

[coldel]

1 hour ago, Maggz said:

I had to read your reply 5 times as I was sure it was the best piece of sarcasm I've seen in a while, but it seems you're serious...

 

Are we talking about the amazing privatisation of railways in the UK which is taught all across EU Unis as the best case study, and the biggest reason why governments should not privatise basic services which the general population needs for normal functioning?

Privatisation in the UK has caused criminal levels of neglect when it comes to maintenance and repairs as private companies worried about profits first, and good service second, and safety third. 

 

You're literally supporting the most famous privatisation disaster in modern history in western Europe, which clearly shows why countries should not even attempt to fully privatise public transport without insanely heavy legislation which would ensure safety. 

Oh...and why additional safety legislation was implemented and after how many derailed trains and accidents? 

 

Also how much does the trains cost today? And how good are they? How on time are they? And lastly, have you traveled on train across any other countries? 

Did you use the railways in the 80s? If so, what was your experience? I lived in Paris and used cross European and local trains.

 

...and let’s not forget part of the railway is currently nationalised, it’s the bit that fails more often than the trains.

Edited November 29, 2019 by coldel

[Maggz]

19 minutes ago, coldel said:

Did you use the railways in the 80s? If so, what was your experience? I lived in Paris and used cross European and local trains.

 

...and let’s not forget part of the railway is currently nationalised, it’s the bit that fails more often than the trains.

Everything was worse in the 80s, what kind of an argument is that?

[Umster]

33 minutes ago, coldel said:

Did you use the railways in the 80s? If so, what was your experience? 

No but I've used transport outside of London. . . Same thing no? 

 

Having lived in every major city in the UK I can easily say if you've never left London, you can't understand the Corbyn way. 

 

But it all, for me, goes back to my previous point. I agree with his end goals but how he goes about them isn't the way. Yes nationalise key infrastructure because its a shared interest to keep it going but don't stop capital markets. Bit like the NHS and private healthcare, nothing wrong with a bit of both. 

 

For the last 9 years it's been cheaper for me to run a car or two than it has been to get a season travel pass on the buses/trains. 

 

I'd also genuinely consider moving anything public sector outside London. BBC left and it didn't capitulate. Sure we can spread the opportunity outside of London and reduce the burden on the taxpayer. 

 

My 2p. . and some haha