UK Politics Thread 18-inch Mark VI: Witty Title Forthcoming

[Frank Zipper]

Baroness Helen Newlove on the BBC news saying that domestic violence is not a gender issue.

This is news to people? Men and women can both be victims of DV.

No it is not new to me. I just thought I would point out the coverage mentioned both male and female victims, and gave figures for both - 600,000 male, and 1.3m female victims - though undoubtedly those are the numbers of people reporting, so say nothing about unreported attacks.

[CoraSpia]

I fell a bit behind on this, but was there a bill introduced by the opposition to increase funding to the NHS by GBP350m, now that Brexit is happening? Was that discussed in this thread?

A group of Labour MPs tried to introduce an amendment to the general Brexit bill that would require the government to follow through on the various promises made by Vote Leave during the campaign, including the "increase NHS funding by £350mil a week" one they slapped on the Battle Bus then tried to pretend never happened.

It got voted down.

Oh no, political campaigns were found to not be eentirely honest!

In other news, scientists have concluded that their is a very real possibility that bears shit in the woods.

[Vassenor]

A group of Labour MPs tried to introduce an amendment to the general Brexit bill that would require the government to follow through on the various promises made by Vote Leave during the campaign, including the "increase NHS funding by £350mil a week" one they slapped on the Battle Bus then tried to pretend never happened.

It got voted down.

Oh no, political campaigns were found to not be eentirely honest!

In other news, scientists have concluded that their is a very real possibility that bears shit in the woods.

We've already covered the fact that the guy running VL admitted the whole thing was built on flat out lies at length.

[Questers]

Is it no longer a gender issue if it affects twice as many women as men? Who knows. There isn't an actual answer because gender studies is basically arbitrary and made up.

[Elmstead]

I have a question for all of you. Considering it is now highly likely that Labour is going to lose both Stoke Central and Copeland next week, as well as their floundering poll ratings as a party, Mr Corbyn's personal unpopularity coupled with divisions and resignations in the party, how likely is it do you think that Corbyn will resign as Labour leader in either the days or few weeks following next week's by-elections?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I have a question for all of you. Considering it is now highly likely that Labour is going to lose both Stoke Central and Copeland next week, as well as their floundering poll ratings as a party, Mr Corbyn's personal unpopularity coupled with divisions and resignations in the party, how likely is it do you think that Corbyn will resign as Labour leader in either the days or few weeks following next week's by-elections?

Unlikely, though at this point it would probably be better if he did.

[Philjia]

I have a question for all of you. Considering it is now highly likely that Labour is going to lose both Stoke Central and Copeland next week, as well as their floundering poll ratings as a party, Mr Corbyn's personal unpopularity coupled with divisions and resignations in the party, how likely is it do you think that Corbyn will resign as Labour leader in either the days or few weeks following next week's by-elections?

Corbyn won't resign. The cult of personality that put him in the position will keep him there. Only a general election defeat will cause his downfall.

[Hydesland]

This boils down mostly to religion. The UK is much more irreligious than it was a couple of decades ago, and many of the uglier legacies of old fashioned Christian society & customs, such as regarding homosexuality as sinful, dies along with it.

I think it's the other way around: people stopped believing in Christianity after being converted to favour homosexuality, because Christianity came to be seen as sinful against homosexuals. (among other issues of course)

Certainly fits the dates better. There was a 4-50 year time lag between legalisaton of male homosexuality and major drop-off of Anglican self-identification. Would expect the other way around according to your theory.

Religiosity doesn't decrease by people suddenly declaring themselves non Christian, and it also happens at different rates for different demographics. So it tends to happen by people becoming more and more moderate (and moderate Christians don't wish to criminalize homosexuality), and it tends to happen to the more well educated demographics first, who tend to include policymakers.

[Souseiseki]

I don't think it is just that this schism (or that this is a fair description of the moderates' views); it's that the moderates are substantially opposed to economic liberalism. It would be fairer to say that we are part way between market and state ownership.

then what is a fair description of the moderates views?

Has the government actually done anything to you or directly threatened you?

There is a need to regulate, to safeguard the decency of society and for the protection of women

I am sure that both Houses will share my view that such images are wholly unacceptable and that it is right to close this gap in the law

Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilized.

It is about the detrimental effects that this has on society as a whole. It is about trying to counter a climate where this sort of behaviour is condoned and seen as somehow normal. As she rightly said, exposure to this type of material leads young people to believe that that is the way to behave. There is quite clearly a societal imperative for us to take action on such material.

We are eager to work with the Government to help to ensure that we get this right and to stamp out such abhorrent images.

Just as the last Labour Government acted, we are ready to work with this Government to send a clear message that this is not acceptable.

I did not realise that there was such a genre, and I am not convinced that the Bill will capture it. Is there a way that we can incorporate it?

Clearly, this is an opportunity to fill a gap that some of us would say has existed for too long.

There will be those who say—they have already said it during the course of this Committee’s deliberations—that we have not gone far enough on the offence; others will say that we have gone too far. I do not think that there is a good argument that we have gone too far; we will certainly always consider whether there is further action that we can take.

Judge Tony Briggs told Hoque in court after his most recent conviction, "You are an intelligent man. You certainly should have been aware of the risk of indulging in accessing this material, and you acknowledge your foolishness and guilt. This is material that clearly society and the public can well do without. Its danger is that it obviously portrays, and the more it's portrayed, the more the ill-disposed may think it's acceptable."

no place in our society

We note the absence of empirical research on this subject, however, we believe that the prohibition of such material and the criminalisation of those in possession of it, is justified. Our view is predicated by the belief that any right minded member of society would find possession of such material abhorrent.

on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine or both

on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine, or both (this is not an accidental double paste)

they didn't come out and say I SMITE THEE, PERSONALLY, SOUSEISEKI but it's always been pretty clear that we are not friends and they constitute a persistent, visceral and deliberate threat

Or interacted with you in any way that suggests it knows what you're viewing or saying online?

that's the beauty of it. they don't need to actually watch everyone all the time, just cultivate an atmosphere where it's not possible to know whether or not you're being watched at any given time. people will start working under the assumption they're always being watched and will regulate themselves accordingly. we already know that mass surveillance has this kind of chilling effect.

Please show me the patent for the time machine that allows you to reverse being in jail.

death penalty advocates always bring this up and frankly it's always a bad argument no matter how they try to spin it. you can release someone from jail. you can't revive them. you can't magically take back the time they spent in jail, but it's not like you can undo the years of being dead that innocent people that were executed spent either. your preffered option is "just as bad except also slightly worse".

I understand that there are good ethical and practical arguments against the death penalty. But doesn't the Convention already provide for it in times of war anyway? So what is it, an inalienable, natural right of man not to be executed, or something we just really don't like because its ethically murky?

yes

[Souseiseki]

http://www.ledburyreporter.co.uk/news/1 ... ther__39_/

oh my god, it's amazing. it's like a crown jewel in the shit pie. sent to court for calling someone a pussy. fucking gold.

daily reminder that when i say half of what people post on the internet could be construed as a malicious or offensive communication that i am in no way being hyperbolic and the police can and will come for you if they can be arsed. enjoy your british bill of rights.

the downside is that i initially thought it was a text message but it turned out to be a voice message. people have been arrested over text messages and internet posts before but not for something as mundane as calling someone a pussy, that i know of. it's super disappointing because it makes me feel only 60% vindicated instead of 100% vindicated. i guess i'll just have to wait to see if there are police stupid enough to go for it since, well, technically they should, because it's a crime.

[CoraSpia]

I have a question for all of you. Considering it is now highly likely that Labour is going to lose both Stoke Central and Copeland next week, as well as their floundering poll ratings as a party, Mr Corbyn's personal unpopularity coupled with divisions and resignations in the party, how likely is it do you think that Corbyn will resign as Labour leader in either the days or few weeks following next week's by-elections?

Labour will not lose stoke.

[The Huskar Social Union]

RHI scandal: O'Neill learned of budget pressures as scheme closed (from the BBC)

The former minister had been criticised for promoting the initiative.

But the department has said she and her colleagues were only made aware of the budgetary pressures in February 2016.

They received the information in a letter from the then Department of Enterprise Minister Jonathan Bell.

Arlene foster claims it is dangerous to transfer votes to nationalists

[Elmstead]

I have a question for all of you. Considering it is now highly likely that Labour is going to lose both Stoke Central and Copeland next week, as well as their floundering poll ratings as a party, Mr Corbyn's personal unpopularity coupled with divisions and resignations in the party, how likely is it do you think that Corbyn will resign as Labour leader in either the days or few weeks following next week's by-elections?

Labour will not lose stoke.

It's pretty well established among most people following politics that Labour will lose that seat. Their candidate isn't helping them either.

[Souseiseki]

Labour will not lose stoke.

It's pretty well established among most people following politics that Labour will lose that seat. Their candidate isn't helping them either.

i must say i'm really enjoying president clintons relationship with the EU after we voted to stay. i hope our coalition government can handle it!

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Labour will not lose stoke.

It's pretty well established among most people following politics that Labour will lose that seat. Their candidate isn't helping them either.

No. It isn't.

[Elmstead]

It's pretty well established among most people following politics that Labour will lose that seat. Their candidate isn't helping them either.

No. It isn't.

We'll just have to wait and see, don't get me wrong out of UKIP or Labour I'd rather see Labour win the seat, but it appears as though they're purposely trying to lose. They selected a candidate that called Brexit a pile of shit (standing in a seat that voted by more than 60% for Brexit), a candidate that called for a women in a television programme to be given a "good slap", a candidate that slates who many consider a local hero (Robbie Williams) and a candidate that is publicly very sexist.

[Questers]

It's pretty well established among most people following politics that Labour will lose that seat. Their candidate isn't helping them either.

i must say i'm really enjoying president clintons relationship with the EU after we voted to stay. i hope our coalition government can handle it!

Wow.

Honestly, although the world sometimes seems to be total disarray, this post is a good reminder of the horror that could have been.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

No. It isn't.

We'll just have to wait and see, don't get me wrong out of UKIP or Labour I'd rather see Labour win the seat, but it appears as though they're purposely trying to lose. They selected a candidate that called Brexit a pile of shit (standing in a seat that voted by more than 60% for Brexit), a candidate that called for a women in a television programme to be given a "good slap", a candidate that slates who many consider a local hero (Robbie Williams) and a candidate that is publicly very sexist.

"It's well-established" --> "We'll just have to wait and see"

Why would you prefer a Labour win? What problems do you have with UKIP?

[Elmstead]

We'll just have to wait and see, don't get me wrong out of UKIP or Labour I'd rather see Labour win the seat, but it appears as though they're purposely trying to lose. They selected a candidate that called Brexit a pile of shit (standing in a seat that voted by more than 60% for Brexit), a candidate that called for a women in a television programme to be given a "good slap", a candidate that slates who many consider a local hero (Robbie Williams) and a candidate that is publicly very sexist.

"It's well-established" --> "We'll just have to wait and see"

Why would you prefer a Labour win? What problems do you have with UKIP?

UKIP's aim is complete. It has gotten Britain to vote to leave the EU and next month that process will begin. UKIP is pretty much obsolete by now.

[Souseiseki]

i must say i'm really enjoying president clintons relationship with the EU after we voted to stay. i hope our coalition government can handle it!

Wow.

Honestly, although the world sometimes seems to be total disarray, this post is a good reminder of the horror that could have been.

sorry m8, clinton would have been better than trump, remain would have been better than leave and a coalition would have been better than a nigh unrestrained tory government about to become even more unrestrained. if there's a massive decline in western influence, cooperation and living standards in the next few years it will be basically your fault.

[Questers]

death penalty advocates always bring this up and frankly it's always a bad argument no matter how they try to spin it. you can release someone from jail. you can't revive them. you can't magically take back the time they spent in jail, but it's not like you can undo the years of being dead that innocent people that were executed spent either. your preffered option is "just as bad except also slightly worse".

That's the point though. The type of people that would be executed would have life - as in, actually life - jail sentences. Now obviously you can't retract a death sentence. Equally, spending your entire life in prison to find out that actually everyone now thinks you are innocent is also a massive problem. That doesn't imply they are equal problems, or that they're the same despite one being slightly worse, but the reaction is subjective.

I understand that there are good ethical and practical arguments against the death penalty. But doesn't the Convention already provide for it in times of war anyway? So what is it, an inalienable, natural right of man not to be executed, or something we just really don't like because its ethically murky?

Human rights are just things that we like or don't like then, balanced against some vague notion of clear and present danger. Great. When can owning a rifle become a human right?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

"It's well-established" --> "We'll just have to wait and see"

Why would you prefer a Labour win? What problems do you have with UKIP?

UKIP's aim is complete. It has gotten Britain to vote to leave the EU and next month that process will begin. UKIP is pretty much obsolete by now.

But given how right-wing you are, surely you have more points of agreement with UKIP than Labour? Especially Labour under Corbyn.

[Questers]

Wow.

Honestly, although the world sometimes seems to be total disarray, this post is a good reminder of the horror that could have been.

sorry m8, clinton would have been better than trump, remain would have been better than leave and a coalition would have been better than a nigh unrestrained tory government about to become even more unrestrained. if there's a massive decline in western influence, cooperation and living standards in the next few years it will be basically your fault.

Clinton was the worst possible option for President unless you are literally the type of person who thinks that a woman should be President because it's the current year, or you're a Clinton donor.

Her defeat might galvanise the Democratic Party into being more accountable to the body politic and not a gang at the DNC. If Trump is incompetent and unsuccessful, it will totally destroy the reputation of the GOP, as well as mobilise people into thinking about alternative political solutions. If he is competent and successful, then... the US had a good President. On the other hand Clinton winning would mean the next US election would be a Clinton-type character versus a Jeb-type character, i.e. the worst possible option for anyone who isn't in the top 5% or a minority with equal-rights-in-waiting.

We have discussed Brexit before. There's no need to go nito it again.

Coalition with who?
Labour - SNP: Disastrous. Britain loses its nuclear weapons, secessionists are emboldened and empowered, and the only party seriously capable of retaking Scottish constituencies for the unionist cause surrenders the initiative. SNP are incompetent morons without experience of running a country successfully.
Labour - Green: Disastrous. Britain loses its nuclear weapons and any chance of stable and clean domestic energy production. Other nutty things might happen also because the Greens are a bit nuts. Britain would follow a German refugee policy, probably. Green Party have no experience in running a country whatsoever.
Labour - Green - SNP: Literally all of the above.
Any of the above mix with Plaid Cymru: No difference.
Labour - Lib Dem: Lib Dems do whatever Labour wants. Maybe good because Lib Dems would be wiped out twice.

[Elmstead]

UKIP's aim is complete. It has gotten Britain to vote to leave the EU and next month that process will begin. UKIP is pretty much obsolete by now.

But given how right-wing you are, surely you have more points of agreement with UKIP than Labour? Especially Labour under Corbyn.

So? I may agree with some of their policies, but that doesn't mean I support them. A vote for UKIP is pretty much a wasted vote as the thing they stand for is already happening and they don't have the numbers to do anything else.

Whether Labour lose or keep the seat, it's a good thing in my eyes. If they lose the seat it should lead to Corbyn going sooner rather than later, which is good for the country. If they keep the seat, Corbyn stays which means that Labour's image will be even more damaged and will help my party in the general election. As you can see, I said I'd prefer Labour to win for I put my country before my party.

[Questers]

As a Labour Party member, I think it might be time for Corbyn to go. It was important that he won the two races because he shifted the Overton window of the Party towards state intervention, but he's too kooky and pre-1991, with some weird history and personal opinions, to win an election, and he'd probably be an example of an over-promoted Prime Minister. But him resigning would put the Party in a terrible position of having to have a third leadership campaign in two years. He's clearly not going to win 2020 though, so I don't know what should be done.