Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)
Comments
-
sid waddell wrote: »So, Boris Johnson admitted that 74 other terror convicts are out on early release.
On his watch.
And one went around stabbing and murdering random people on London Bridge on Friday.
How on earth can this idiot be taken in any way seriously?
Not in the past 120 days, during Johnson's time in power, but more broadly over the past decade or so.
Johnson has only been in power for 120 days and, with Priti Patel leading defence, we can expect to see more robust action than we've seen with Continuity New Labour i.e. David Cameron and Theresa May. And if we're honest, those laws wouldn't have been changed by Labour either. So, there's not much point trying to make a political football out of that specific issue.
What's scandalous is that the Labour leader is openly in favour of early release of terrorists in certain circumstances. That's the real scandal. It means that, under a Labour government, nothing would change. If anything, maybe more terrorists would be released onto the streets.
Yet another reason to vote Conservative in the upcoming election.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Brexit going on forever but never actually happening is better for everyone than Brexit happening.
I agree in the sense that I think the UK would be better off in the EU, as things stand, and that the Brexit sentiment is built on hypothetical promises and deflection of blame for issues within the UK. However, UK politics is going to have an impossible time of it moving on while it has this open, weeping sore that is Brexit bitterness. The only way Brexit might be forgotten about is if something even bigger comes along like a war or major recession, and who wants that?0 -
A few posters have asked what happens if Johnson loses his seat in Uxbridge but the Conservatives win the election.
According to the Mail the plan would be to trigger an immediate by-election in a safe London seat.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7742689/HARRY-COLE-happens-Boris-Johnson-loses-seat-secret-plan-counter-scenario.html
Not sure I buy this to be honest, would seem very embarrassing (though Johnson doesn't embarrass easily)0 -
ArmaniJeanss wrote: »A few posters have asked what happens if Johnson loses his seat in Uxbridge but the Conservatives win the election.
According to the Mail the plan would be to trigger an immediate by-election in a safe London seat.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7742689/HARRY-COLE-happens-Boris-Johnson-loses-seat-secret-plan-counter-scenario.html
Not sure I buy this to be honest, would seem very embarrassing (though Johnson doesn't embarrass easily)
The law is a bit vague on this too. Some observers think Johnson would have no option but to resign as PM given that his own constituency had rejected him.0 -
The debate seems to be around de-radicalisation v sentencingsid waddell wrote: »So, Boris Johnson admitted that 74 other terror convicts are out on early release.
On his watch.
And one went around stabbing and murdering random people on London Bridge on Friday.
How on earth can this idiot be taken in any way seriously?
It appears they're doing neither0 -
Advertisement
-
The Tory party is run by people who basically don’t care about poorer people.
That is what most people in Britain have thought about the Tory party for decades. The public is basically correct. Tory MPs largely do not care about these poorer people. They don’t care about the NHS. And the public has cottoned on to that.0 -
The law is a bit vague on this too. Some observers think Johnson would have no option but to resign as PM given that his own constituency had rejected him.
Seems like common sense but not always wise to go by that! I keep an eye on betting odds and johnson is currently trading around four to one on to hold his seat so whike he's a warm favourite thats not exactly cant lose territory. Raab seems in genuine danger in his seat too, despite holding a 20,000+ majority. What a double that would be!0 -
sid waddell wrote: »The Tory party is run by people who basically don’t care about poorer people.
That is what most people in Britain have thought about the Tory party for decades. The public is basically correct. Tory MPs largely do not care about these poorer people. They don’t care about the NHS. And the public has cottoned on to that.
As long as they're not rioting , that's about the extent of it0 -
Think you'll find it's the Tory/Brexiteer side which is calling for riots, through Koch brother/s funded Brendan O'Neill, who contunues to appear frequently in the British media since calling for such.Berserker5 wrote: »As long as they're not rioting , that's about the extent of it0 -
In fairness, isn't this a clear example of the 'anti-Semitism' that exists in some countries and their view against Israel?
Unless you want us to believe that in 2018, Israel alone was responsible for 75% of the world's wrongdoing.*
* that is not so say, Israel does wrong, but 75% of it? Nah, sorry, I don't buy that.
Sure, the entire UN is antisemitic now.
Or it could be that Israel is continually abusing the human rights of people in the territories it occupies.
For example - snipers shooting children, medics, and journalists.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/28/gaza-israel-un-inquiry-killings-protest-war-crimes-armyThe independent Commission of Inquiry, set up last year by the UN’s human rights council, said Israeli forces killed 189 people and shot more than 6,100 others with live ammunition near the fence that divides the two territories.
The panel said in a statement that it had found “reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli snipers shot at journalists, health workers, children and persons with disabilities, knowing they were clearly recognisable as such”.
Thirty-five of those killed were children, three were clearly identifiable paramedics and two were clearly marked journalists, the report said.0 -
Advertisement
-
sid waddell wrote: »The Tory party is run by people who basically don’t care about poorer people.
That is what most people in Britain have thought about the Tory party for decades. The public is basically correct. Tory MPs largely do not care about these poorer people. They don’t care about the NHS. And the public has cottoned on to that.
They still vote for them in large numbers0 -
sid waddell wrote: »The Tory party is run by people who basically don’t care about poorer people.
That is what most people in Britain have thought about the Tory party for decades. The public is basically correct. Tory MPs largely do not care about these poorer people. They don’t care about the NHS. And the public has cottoned on to that.
Perhaps if poor people actively and consciously chose to stop doing the things that make them part of the poorest in society, that would be a far bigger stimulus than any government could possibly hope to achieve.
This idea that the poor are always poor and "need help" to remain "modestly poor" is beyond a joke. I came from one of the poorest backgrounds, but worked my way up. It's a conscious choice. People who make bad choices must reap the consequences of those choices, rather than blaming the government - then asking said government to compensate them for said bad choices.
Do you seriously think that, by offering more "free stuff", Corbyn is encouraging more people out of poverty or, instead, is disincentivizing them from changing their life's course? If Corbyn is going to throw more money at them, why on Earth would they change their behaviour?0 -
Just watched the interview.
The lies were staggering.
This will cost him votes.0 -
Cody montana wrote: »Just watched the interview.
The lies were staggering.
This will cost him votes.
Most objective observers come to the conclusion that Marr interrupted far too much.
I'm all in favour of interruption, such as what Andrew Neil does, as long as it's done in a constructive manner. With Marr, it wasn't so much an interruption, but talking over Johnson's answer more than was necessary.
Andrew Neil strikes the right balance. I think Marr went to excess, perhaps because he's now diminished as the Neil-light of interviewers and felt as if he had something to prove. I think he came out awfully in that interview.
From the answers Johnson provided, I think it was a far more honest interview than we're used to. You all hate Johnson, so the usual accusations of mendacity will be the order of the day.
From the answers I heard, I think Johnson was far more robust in his answers compared to previous interviews.
It won't "cost him votes" because there's no striking moment. It'll be forgotten about in a few hours time.
What will cost votes is Corbyn's assessment that, in some cases, it's justified to release convicted jihadi terrorists early. That's the take-home political message of the day.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Perhaps if poor people actively and consciously chose to stop doing the things that make them part of the poorest in society, that would be a far bigger stimulus than any government could possibly hope to achieve.
This idea that the poor are always poor and "need help" to remain "modestly poor" is beyond a joke. I came from one of the poorest backgrounds, but worked my way up. It's a conscious choice. People who make bad choices must reap the consequences of those choices, rather than blaming the government and asking said government to compensate them for said bad choices.
Do you seriously think that, by offering more "free stuff", Corbyn is encouraging more people out of poverty or, instead, is disincentivizing them from changing their life's course because Corbyn is going to throw more money at them - so why on Earth would they change their behaviour?
I also came from a poor background. In Ireland, where I benefitted from a free education and a support system that meant I didn't suffer from malnutrition growing up. People from poorer backgrounds in the UK don't have that anymore.
The "poor people should just stop being poor" argument from the Tories, while systematically destroying every opportunity to do so, is frankly repugnant. Especially when the majority come from massive inherited privilege, and the few who don't have almost always benefitted from things they've taken away from the current generation, whether that's free education, availability of housing, youth centres, legal support, fixed contract work etc.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19467
Deleted User wrote: »Perhaps if poor people actively and consciously chose to stop doing the things that make them part of the poorest in society, that would be a far bigger stimulus than any government could possibly hope to achieve.
This idea that the poor are always poor and "need help" to remain "modestly poor" is beyond a joke. I came from one of the poorest backgrounds, but worked my way up. It's a conscious choice. People who make bad choices must reap the consequences of those choices, rather than blaming the government - then asking said government to compensate them for said bad choices.
Do you seriously think that, by offering more "free stuff", Corbyn is encouraging more people out of poverty or, instead, is disincentivizing them from changing their life's course? If Corbyn is going to throw more money at them, why on Earth would they change their behaviour?
Why are people rich? Why are people poor?
Well, most people are rich because their parents were rich. Most people who are poor had parents of very limited means.
Rich people usually have a good education, and those at the bottom of society do not generally have education beyond the lowest level allowed - compulsory leaving age.
There are exceptions, but exceptions are generally exceptional. Most of those who are in the top 5%, did not get there solely by their own efforts.
@ Eskimo So, if you want a society where the poor are thrown to the wolves, do not expect many to agree with you.0 -
I also came from a poor background. In Ireland, where I benefitted from a free education and a support system that meant I didn't suffer from malnutrition growing up. People from poorer backgrounds in the UK don't have that anymore.
The "poor people should just stop being poor" argument from the Tories, while systematically destroying every opportunity to do so, is frankly repugnant. Especially when the majority come from massive inherited privilege, and the few who don't have almost always benefitted from things they've taken away from the current generation, whether that's free education, availability of housing, youth centres, legal support, fixed contract work etc.
My answer to poverty is this:
What we need to do is encourage more middle class / upper class people to have children, who we know are less likely to drop into the poverty pit, and to remove incentives for poor people to have children. The fewer children they have, the fewer the numbers of people that grow into poverty.
We need the rate of children production from the poorest families to be lower than the death rate for the poorest in society - that way, we can gradually eliminate poverty once and for all, rather than throwing money at the poor to mass manufacture babies that a) they cannot afford and b) make the poverty situation worse.
In time, this lowers poverty figures, reduces government spending, and makes it considerably easier, therefore, to shuttle funds into education programs etc. to educate those fewer poorer people in society.
Poor people must be discouraged from making children as much as possible. It's selfish and irresponsible for poor people, by definition, to create a baby for whom they cannot afford and who, by definition, faces the same poverty that they complain of. Who would do this? It's insane!
0 -
Wealth distribution will be a large factor in this election, Corbyn might actually have a chance after the FoI NHS document (mostly redacted) hit the screens.
Also, some of the rich pay taxes, but the very/super rich don't have to.
Inheritance can be stashed away complicated trust funds or investments.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »My answer to poverty is this:
What we need to do is encourage more middle class / upper class people to have children, who we know are less likely to drop into the poverty pit, and to remove incentives for poor people to have children. The fewer children they have, the fewer the numbers of people that grow into poverty.
We need the rate of children production from the poorest families to be lower than the death rate for the poorest in society - that way, we can gradually eliminate poverty once and for all, rather than throwing money at the poor to mass manufacture babies that a) they cannot afford and b) make the poverty situation worse.
In time, this lowers poverty figures, reduces government spending, and makes it considerably easier, therefore, to shuttle funds into education programs etc. to educate those fewer poorer people in society.
Poor people must be discouraged from making children as much as possible. It's selfish and irresponsible for poor people, by definition, to create a baby for whom they cannot afford and who, by definition, faces the same poverty that they complain of. Who would do this? It's insane!
It's an all too common lazy trope to compare far right Tories / Brexiteers to Fascists / Nazis... but when you start advocating for eugenics I'm not sure what else to say.0 -
Cody montana wrote: »Just watched the interview.
The lies were staggering.
This will cost him votes.
My favourite lie is the "20 upgrades and 40 new" when it comes to hospitals. That's 60 hospitals. An upgrade implies existing hospital, ergo not a new one. Its gibberish.
But think it was an ill conceived venture by the bbc. Especially when you consider the words from the father of the victim last night, to see marr and johnson barracking, heckling, interrupting each other for the whole 20 minutes was pointless and unedifying. Should never have sanctioned it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Boris Johnson performed reasonably well in that Marr interview. No "gotcha" moments for the headlines to capture.
What has captured headlines is that Corbyn is in favour, in certain circumstances, for early release of terrorists; backing up the arguments I and others have made, that he is simply not serious about security threats to the UK.
Furthermore, polling over the past week show:
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1200886298904596480
So you’re happy with the Prime Minister lying on National TV?0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Perhaps if poor people actively and consciously chose to stop doing the things that make them part of the poorest in society, that would be a far bigger stimulus than any government could possibly hope to achieve.
This idea that the poor are always poor and "need help" to remain "modestly poor" is beyond a joke. I came from one of the poorest backgrounds, but worked my way up. It's a conscious choice. People who make bad choices must reap the consequences of those choices, rather than blaming the government - then asking said government to compensate them for said bad choices.
Do you seriously think that, by offering more "free stuff", Corbyn is encouraging more people out of poverty or, instead, is disincentivizing them from changing their life's course? If Corbyn is going to throw more money at them, why on Earth would they change their behaviour?
There's a reason why Jacob Rees Mogg is called "the MP for the 19th century".
It's because he has extremist and highly dangerous social Darwinian views like this, which deserve to be left where they belong - in the 19th century.0 -
It's an all too common lazy trope to compare far right Tories / Brexiteers to Fascists / Nazis... but when you start advocating for eugenics I'm not sure what else to say.
It's not eugenics in the least.
It's simply an argument that says perhaps if poor people are discouraged from having more babies than they or the State can afford, it would be better for both the parent and the State.
It's not a complicated argument.
Nor is anyone asking for some kind of mass genocide of poor people. That's not the argument. So, whilse you can disagree the potency of my argument, you cannot compare it to eugenics and then run away.
Why should poor people be encouraged to have babies they cannot afford, or anything else for that matter - cars, iPhones, or other things that simply do not make any rational sense.
It's not fair on the incoming baby, and it's not fair to the State. So yes, they should be discouraged from having more babies than they can afford. It just makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is for a parent to have 7 babies, when they cannot even afford 1 or 2. This is the type of situation I'm arguing we need to stop.
It's better for everyone - including the parent.
The lower the population of poor people, the easier it is for the State to manage, and the better outcomes for children of all concerned. I dare say it will also reduce crime levels, too.0 -
Joe_ Public wrote: »My favourite lie is the "20 upgrades and 40 new" when it comes to hospitals. That's 60 hospitals. An upgrade implies existing hospital, ergo not a new one. Its gibberish.
But think it was an ill conceived venture by the bbc. Especially when you consider the words from the father of the victim last night, to see marr and johnson barracking, heckling, interrupting each other for the whole 20 minutes was pointless and unedifying. Should never have sanctioned it.
I think the constant lying and vagueness around the number of hospitals is a totally intentional tactic, much like the 350 million on the bus.
If they'd announced 20 hospitals or whatever, fully detailed and costed, it would be out of the news cycle by now. But because they keep messing with the numbers and being dishonest, journalists keep asking about it, and every day there are new headlines reminding people that he's building some number of new hospitals, regardless of what that number is.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Most objective observers come to the conclusion that Marr interrupted far too much.
I'm all in favour of interruption, such as what Andrew Neil does, as long as it's done in a constructive manner. With Marr, it wasn't so much an interruption, but talking over Johnson's answer more than was necessary.
I would consider myself an objective observer, given that I don't live in either Britain or Ireland, have no vote in the UK and rarely see any British people in real life from one month to the next.
But intrigued by some of the references on this thread to that interview, I've just found it and watched it, and the only reason Marr was interrupting (or "talking over Johnson's answer" as you put it) is that Johnson was (a) not ever answering the question he was asked; and (b) pouring forth a stream of polysyllabic nonsense - an obviously unstoppable stream, seeing as even he seemed incapable of shutting his mouth long enough for Marr to complete a full sentence.
I don't think, however, that it'll make any difference to the electorate's voting intention: people like eskimo are so enthralled by Johnson that they will forgive him all the lies, rudeness, half-truths and lack of personal and political integrity because ... well, because Corbyn!0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19467
Deleted User wrote: »It's not eugenics in the least.
It's simply an argument that says perhaps if poor people are discouraged from having more babies than they or the State can afford, it would be better for both the parent and the State.
It's not a complicated argument.
Nor is anyone asking for some kind of mass genocide of poor people. That's not the argument. So, whilse you can disagree the potency of my argument, you cannot compare it to eugenics and then run away.
Why should poor people be encouraged to have babies they cannot afford, or anything else for that matter - cars, iPhones, or other things that simply do not make any rational sense.
It's not fair on the incoming baby, and it's not fair to the State. So yes, they should be discouraged from having more babies than they can afford. It just makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is for a parent to have 7 babies, when they cannot even afford 1 or 2. This is the type of situation I'm arguing we need to stop.
It's better for everyone - including the parent.
The lower the population of poor people, the easier it is for the State to manage, and the better outcomes for children of all concerned. I dare say it will also reduce crime levels, too.
The Chinese tried this with their one child policy. It did not work well for them, and the policy has been discontinued. Doing this tends to distort society to its detriment.
Besides, it is quite simple to reduce the number of poor people - pay them more. Poor people are not generally poor by being profligate with their resources - they generally do not have any resources.
The minimum wage is not sufficient for someone in full time work to be able to fund a reasonable life beyond poverty, and it should be raised to a level that it can. Currently, many people are in poverty and getting benefits (UK term for social welfare) despite being in full time work. Also, food banks are not funded by the Gov but by charities.
Stopping the poor having babies is just stupid far right Tory nonsense. I'm surprised you did not suggest that they join the army and become cannon fodder.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »The Chinese tried this with their one child policy. It did not work well for them, and the policy has been discontinued. Doing this tends to distort society to its detriment.
Besides, it is quite simple to reduce the number of poor people - pay them more. Poor people are not generally poor by being profligate with their resources - they generally do not have any resources.
The minimum wage is not sufficient for someone in full time work to be able to fund a reasonable life beyond poverty, and it should be raised to a level that it can. Currently, many people are in poverty and getting benefits (UK term for social welfare) despite being in full time work. Also, food banks are not funded by the Gov but by charities.
Stopping the poor having babies is just stupid far right Tory nonsense. I'm surprised you did not suggest that they join the army and become cannon fodder.
In every other aspect of life, we argue that people should be financially responsible and to "live within their means".
If it applies to cars, iPhones, cigarettes and what else, then the principle must also apply to babies - who, if we are honest, are very expensive.
To compare it to the One Child Policy of China is what's silly, as I'm not advocating a country-wide reduction in birth rates. This is a specific recommendation to the poorest in society; a financially prudent and responsible decision.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Most objective observers come to the conclusion that Marr interrupted far too much.
I'm all in favour of interruption, such as what Andrew Neil does, as long as it's done in a constructive manner. With Marr, it wasn't so much an interruption, but talking over Johnson's answer more than was necessary.
Andrew Neil strikes the right balance. I think Marr went to excess, perhaps because he's now diminished as the Neil-light of interviewers and felt as if he had something to prove. I think he came out awfully in that interview.
From the answers Johnson provided, I think it was a far more honest interview than we're used to. You all hate Johnson, so the usual accusations of mendacity will be the order of the day.
From the answers I heard, I think Johnson was far more robust in his answers compared to previous interviews.
It won't "cost him votes" because there's no striking moment. It'll be forgotten about in a few hours time.
What will cost votes is Corbyn's assessment that, in some cases, it's justified to release convicted jihadi terrorists early. That's the take-home political message of the day.
Boris was lying, blaming labour or wouldn’t answer the questions.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Besides, it is quite simple to reduce the number of poor people - pay them more. Poor people are not generally poor by being profligate with their resources - they generally do not have any resources.
The minimum wage is not sufficient for someone in full time work to be able to fund a reasonable life beyond poverty, and should be raised to a level that it can.
At the risk of going way off-topic here, I disagree with the two statements above. In many cases, the cost of going to work - even for a "high" minimum wage - negates the financial reward by introducing additional direct costs and subjecting the worker to (or locking them into) a variety of other detrimental situations.
This argument has its foundation in what's good for the economy, not the individual, the idea being that if you can drag the minimum earned income up to a higher level, it will stimulate economic growth and (ssshhhh) generate higher profits for corporate and national shareholders.
It is entirely possible for someone to live comfortably below the "poverty line" if they largely opt out of the consumerist-capitalist way of modern life - and that then would pose a problem for eskimo: how do you define the "poor people" that shouldn't be allowed have children?
Chances are I'd be one of them - but if someone dropped a dozen orphans on my doorstep tomorrow morning, I'd be able to feed, clothe, house and educate them at virtually no cost to the wider community. Of course, I'd have the local mayor begging me to send them to the village school, because then he could justify keeping it open for another five years - is that a cost or a benefit?0 -
Advertisement
-
I think the constant lying and vagueness around the number of hospitals is a totally intentional tactic, much like the 350 million on the bus.
If they'd announced 20 hospitals or whatever, fully detailed and costed, it would be out of the news cycle by now. But because they keep messing with the numbers and being dishonest, journalists keep asking about it, and every day there are new headlines reminding people that he's building some number of new hospitals, regardless of what that number is.
Unquestionably. Have everybody focus on the fact he's a liar than on the growing lists of people awaiting surgery and general stasis of the whole nhs operation. People know he's a liar but still fool themselves into thinking, it "might" be true.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement