UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm starting to get the impression that an awful lot of you are anti-Conservative. Now, are there specific reasons for that? Or, is it just for the sake of it. Let's be honest, you're alternative is Jeremy Corbyn so you couldn't be in much safer hands than you are right now - although we could have a better Prime Minister who isn't Theresa May.

How about human rights abuses?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 04956.html

Or fuck it, this:

Let's go over the "Tories" and their history as a political faction briefly.

Cavaliers, French Monarchists, Pro-taxing the US colonies, anti-catholic emancipation, anti-voting reform, pro-taxes on food imports leading to multiple famines and an economic slowdown, anti-home rule for ireland...

Oh, and the only time we weren't in debt was under a Tory too. The economy didn't triple in size either, it crashed so i'm sorry, but there is no magic money tree.

If you think right to buy worked, I have a question for you. Where are all the houses the free market fairy promised us? The tories have spent 30 years cheering themselves on because the square wheel they designed started on its corner.

Oh, and lest we forget, over the past 50 years they have alienated us from literally the entire planet in terms of trade deals first by entering the EU and fucking over our colonies, then by leaving it again, but think themselves the party that knows its shit about trading.

Their predictions about the terrors of socialism that will surely come about if we have a national health service gestapo have shown they understand British society.

But this time, this time, with selling out everything to foreigners, including foreign governments, you guys are sure of yourselves, despite The history of the Tories as a political faction being one of abysmal failure and clear lack of accomplishments.

Oh, and fucking Suez too, while we're at it.

But no, i'm sure it's Labour who caused the fuck up here.

"Socialism!?
what about the RUSSIANS huh!? Why are you so authoritarian and cruel!"

Was also a way to convince themselves they know what they are doing for a while.

"Democracy?
Don't you know Russia shoots journalists? Democracy is clearly an evil ideology and how dare anyone support it, what we need, is the Cavaliers back."

I'll also add, that May wants to ban encryption, which is possibly the single stupidest suggestion i've heard from a world leader. Trumps suggestions are less batshit.
And I fully expect they'll try and do it too. These people are the inheritors of a political coallition that put a ban on food imports, their political forefathers failed to accomplish anything worthwhile or of note, bolstered by the liberals silly and easily manipulated enough to fall for a hoax.

Notably, when the liberals who fell for Zinoviev left, the liberal party shifted leftwing.

Let's imagine for a moment that tommorow, there was a campaign by The Daily Mail that alleged the conservative party was in the employ of Martians to bring about white genocide, and published a letter from their space-marshal to this effect.

As a consequence, half the tories fuck off to the BNP or UKIP, and the Conservative Party, suddenly, isn't so bad at economics anymore.

What explanation for that could there be?
Hm.

[GB-NI]

I'm starting to get the impression that an awful lot of you are anti-Conservative. Now, are there specific reasons for that? Or, is it just for the sake of it. Let's be honest, you're alternative is Jeremy Corbyn so you couldn't be in much safer hands than you are right now - although we could have a better Prime Minister who isn't Theresa May.

the last time someone asked this i wrote this

Well you certainly went into a great amount of detail and that in itself is rather admirable. I would, of course, argue against some of the points you set out there but also agree with some of them. I am an admirer of Thatcher as a person, not necessarily her politics - I just thought I'd put that out there, and I think many people who didn't agree with her politically appreciated her as a person. I would love to go through each one of the points you made and go through where I agreed and disagreed, but I think for both of our sakes I'll avoid that as it'll be a rather long and tedious process.

I'm starting to get the impression that an awful lot of you are anti-Conservative. Now, are there specific reasons for that? Or, is it just for the sake of it. Let's be honest, you're alternative is Jeremy Corbyn so you couldn't be in much safer hands than you are right now - although we could have a better Prime Minister who isn't Theresa May.

What makes him "unsafe hands"?

Well he's not exactly the ideal person to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is he? The policies he wants to bring just are not realistic for 21st Century Britain. His mantra is "For the many, not the few" yet policies such as scrapping tuition fees would help the few and not the many, as has been demonstrated in Scotland. His past is also troubling, and his inability to condemn President Maduro directly, as well as attempting to have the government promise that they will never take part in military action against North Korea. Theresa May is considered the safe pair of hands, and whilst I'm not a fan of her, I have more confidence in her than Jeremy Corbyn. I'd rather neither of them be Prime Minister but right now one of them has to be and the best of a bad bunch is in Number 10 right now.

I'm starting to get the impression that an awful lot of you are anti-Conservative. Now, are there specific reasons for that? Or, is it just for the sake of it. Let's be honest, you're alternative is Jeremy Corbyn so you couldn't be in much safer hands than you are right now - although we could have a better Prime Minister who isn't Theresa May.

Because the Conservative party is a malignant force for wrong, that is solely dedicated to the two goals of enriching the rich and needlessly curtailing people's freedom under the names of security and morality.

I disagree with "enriching the rich", but I do agree with the "curtailing people's freedom". You have made one big error, however, the Conservative Party as a whole is not committed to curtailing people's freedoms, it is some in this present government. You will be aware that in 2008, David Davis resigned as an MP whilst Shadow Home Secretary in protest at the curtailing of civil liberties by the Labour government.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

What makes him "unsafe hands"?

Well he's not exactly the ideal person to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is he? The policies he wants to bring just are not realistic for 21st Century Britain. His mantra is "For the many, not the few" yet policies such as scrapping tuition fees would help the few and not the many, as has been demonstrated in Scotland. His past is also troubling, and his inability to condemn President Maduro directly, as well as attempting to have the government promise that they will never take part in military action against North Korea. Theresa May is considered the safe pair of hands, and whilst I'm not a fan of her, I have more confidence in her than Jeremy Corbyn. I'd rather neither of them be Prime Minister but right now one of them has to be and the best of a bad bunch is in Number 10 right now.

Masterful use of the passive voice.

[Questers]

I'm starting to get the impression that an awful lot of you are anti-Conservative. Now, are there specific reasons for that? Or, is it just for the sake of it. Let's be honest, you're alternative is Jeremy Corbyn so you couldn't be in much safer hands than you are right now - although we could have a better Prime Minister who isn't Theresa May.

Oh boy!

I'm going to have to open another beer for this one!

I love this country very much. Under the Conservatives (and New Labour) this country has come under the thumb of foreign commercial interests. But this country belongs to us - the British people - and it does not belong to speculators and investors, foreign or domestic.

The Conservative Party is the political arm of big business. As such it is pursuing a coup d'etat by stealth - eroding British government and politics and replacing it with corporate power. Let's look at some examples:

The austerity policy was based around reducing the deficit. But by running a huge deficit for seven years the Conservatives have nearly doubled the gross public debt. Wage growth is down, and the real marker of wealth - productivity - has totally stalled. Their claim is the wealth would trickle down when they cut corporate tax. But you can look and see that all that happened is that dividend payouts increased and corporations spent more money buying their own share values and on mergers and acquisitions. The top 1-2% suck all the wealth out of the system via their ability to control corporate practice - unhindered by the Conservative party.

They have gutted the fire service and health service. They have crippled the armed forces. They have weakened the police. They have destroyed civil defence. One thing my father taught me was that a Roman judge would always ask: CUI BONO - in English: To whose benefit? Not ours. Not the peoples. Not the country's. Only the people who have received tax cuts.

By stripping public services the Conservatives produce mass wastage. British people who could be put back to work, have their mental health problems solved, or otherwise become useful citizens are left by the wayside to rot. Who benefits? The mega rich. Not us. Every time a person fails to receive the right treatment for a problem or is made unemployed or homeless they cease being a useful taxpayer and start being a net drain. Why do the Conservatives endorse this: because their political program is designed for the top 1-2% to suck the wealth from the rest of the country.

The Conservative Party carries a major disease: corruption. It pervades our politics. Conservative politicians who support big business are given fat paying jobs in private industry when they leave. Public figures who support the Conservatives are offered well paid jobs in the Party when they leave public service. The revolving door is real and well documented.

Jeremy Corbyn is not perfect. But his program presents some alternative to our rotten system.

[Tananat]

I'm starting to get the impression that an awful lot of you are anti-Conservative. Now, are there specific reasons for that?

There's a few, the presence of a soul being the primary one.

[Minoa]

Not a good way for Stagecoach to end their South West Trains franchise after 21 years. First/MTR takes over the railway on 20 August 2017.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'm starting to get the impression that an awful lot of you are anti-Conservative. Now, are there specific reasons for that?

There's a few, the presence of a soul being the primary one.

As a member of the soul annihilationist tendency, this offended us enough to disrupt the morning's ritual jam sacrifice - the curse sealing Diane Abbott's mouth shut will now fail in the next few days. This is all on you.

[Philjia]

Silly, yes, but magnificent

[Minoa]

Posted in this thread as it relates to a project (The National Lottery) of a government entity (The National Lottery Commission).

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40935410

Surely they should have known that social media crowdsourcing is the worst thing you could implement, especially if it is processed automatically.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Posted in this thread as it relates to a project (The National Lottery) of a government entity (The National Lottery Commission).

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40935410

Surely they should have known that social media crowdsourcing is the worst thing you could implement, especially if it is processed automatically.

Let's just be glad they didn't know and revel in the wonderful content that social media gaffes gift to us.

[Philjia]

According to my source at the embassy in Beijing, no work is really being done because they haven't been given any policy from Whitehall for weeks. Still, they're better off than the American embassy, which is in near constant disarray thanks to the president.

[Salandriagado]

What makes him "unsafe hands"?

Well he's not exactly the ideal person to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is he? The policies he wants to bring just are not realistic for 21st Century Britain. His mantra is "For the many, not the few" yet policies such as scrapping tuition fees would help the few and not the many, as has been demonstrated in Scotland. His past is also troubling, and his inability to condemn President Maduro directly, as well as attempting to have the government promise that they will never take part in military action against North Korea. Theresa May is considered the safe pair of hands, and whilst I'm not a fan of her, I have more confidence in her than Jeremy Corbyn. I'd rather neither of them be Prime Minister but right now one of them has to be and the best of a bad bunch is in Number 10 right now.

Let's go through the qualification list:

1) Never knowingly sent someone to their death to win a by-election (better than Teresa May).
2) Doesn't want to revoke the human rights act (better than Teresa May).
3) Doesn't have a track record of human rights abuses (better than Teresa May, or the Conservative party in general).
4) Doesn't spend an inordinate amount of time pursuing policies that he knows wont work, that are literally mathematically impossible to implement, or that neither he nor the relevant enforcement agencies actually understand purely in an attempt to screw me and/or millions of other people over (better than Teresa May, or the Conservative party in general).

So yeah, that's a win for Corbyn.

Because the Conservative party is a malignant force for wrong, that is solely dedicated to the two goals of enriching the rich and needlessly curtailing people's freedom under the names of security and morality.

I disagree with "enriching the rich", but I do agree with the "curtailing people's freedom". You have made one big error, however, the Conservative Party as a whole is not committed to curtailing people's freedoms, it is some in this present government. You will be aware that in 2008, David Davis resigned as an MP whilst Shadow Home Secretary in protest at the curtailing of civil liberties by the Labour government.

Yes it is. The Conservative Party has had curtailing people's freedoms in its manifesto for decades, and has spent quite nearly its entire existence dedicated to that task.

[Calladan]

I'm starting to get the impression that an awful lot of you are anti-Conservative. Now, are there specific reasons for that? Or, is it just for the sake of it. Let's be honest, you're alternative is Jeremy Corbyn so you couldn't be in much safer hands than you are right now - although we could have a better Prime Minister who isn't Theresa May.

They want to kill the NHS, the BBC, privatise everything in sight, screw the poor, screw the minorities, screw the disabled, screw the gays and (for the most part) screw anyone who isn't white and rich.

But sure, Jeremy Corbyn is probably a lot more dangerous to most of society, so lets be afraid of him.

[Souseiseki]

sarah champion of "drawing mario and luigi getting it on should be a literal crime" fame has been fired over controversial statements re: child rape and certain ethnicity.

ironic, she could protect fake children and fake adults from fake rape, but she could not protect real ones.

[Vassenor]

Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage said in a tweet: "Telling the truth about tough issues is now impossible in the modern Labour Party. Pathetic."

Did he himself not previously say that going anti-Islam would kill UKIP as a party?

[Geilinor]

Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage said in a tweet: "Telling the truth about tough issues is now impossible in the modern Labour Party. Pathetic."

Did he himself not previously say that going anti-Islam would kill UKIP as a party?

He wants Labour to become anti-Islam so it dies.

[Calladan]

Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage said in a tweet: "Telling the truth about tough issues is now impossible in the modern Labour Party. Pathetic."

Did he himself not previously say that going anti-Islam would kill UKIP as a party?

I am more curious what Nigel Farage knows about telling the truth. About anything.

[The Huskar Social Union]

sarah champion of "drawing mario and luigi getting it on should be a literal crime" fame has been fired over controversial statements re: child rape and certain ethnicity.

ironic, she could protect fake children and fake adults from fake rape, but she could not protect real ones.

wait what?

[Dumb Ideologies]

sarah champion of "drawing mario and luigi getting it on should be a literal crime" fame has been fired over controversial statements re: child rape and certain ethnicity.

ironic, she could protect fake children and fake adults from fake rape, but she could not protect real ones.

She's right on both counts. Mario/Bowser is the one true paring.

[Imperializt Russia]

sarah champion of "drawing mario and luigi getting it on should be a literal crime" fame has been fired over controversial statements re: child rape and certain ethnicity.

ironic, she could protect fake children and fake adults from fake rape, but she could not protect real ones.

She claims the Sun took her comments out of context.

Love, it's the S*n. Of course they did.
Why do you bother associating with it.

[Ifreann]

sarah champion of "drawing mario and luigi getting it on should be a literal crime" fame has been fired over controversial statements re: child rape and certain ethnicity.

ironic, she could protect fake children and fake adults from fake rape, but she could not protect real ones.

She's right on both counts. Mario/Bowser is the one true paring.

He only kidnaps the princess because he doesn't know how else to get Mario-senpai to notice him.

[Alvecia]

She's right on both counts. Mario/Bowser is the one true paring.

He only kidnaps the princess because he doesn't know how else to get Mario-senpai to notice him.

Little does he know, Mario only tries to save the Princess as an excuse to spend time with Bowser

[GB-NI]

I'm starting to get the impression that an awful lot of you are anti-Conservative. Now, are there specific reasons for that? Or, is it just for the sake of it. Let's be honest, you're alternative is Jeremy Corbyn so you couldn't be in much safer hands than you are right now - although we could have a better Prime Minister who isn't Theresa May.

They want to kill the NHS, the BBC, privatise everything in sight, screw the poor, screw the minorities, screw the disabled, screw the gays and (for the most part) screw anyone who isn't white and rich.

But sure, Jeremy Corbyn is probably a lot more dangerous to most of society, so lets be afraid of him.

Okie dokie, well. Let's start with killing the NHS. Where have they stated they want to "kill" the NHS? Has a privatisation bill been brought forward? Nope. Who started the privatisation of the NHS? Labour.

Now, killing the BBC. Again, have they said they want to "kill" the BBC? Has a privatisation bill been brought forward? Nope. I see no evidence of the BBC in any way dying. Do you?

Privatise everything in sight. Well by that logic considering that for around 55% of the time since the war the Conservatives have been in power surely everything would be privatised by now, no? And, let us not forget Labour also played their part in privatisation.

Screw the poor? Nope, look at taxes. Screw the minorities? If that were true, why do a lot of minority people vote Conservative? Screw the disabled? Again, nope - although they could do better. Screw the gays? Really? The party who introduced same-sex marriage wants to screw the gays? Okay.

Well he's not exactly the ideal person to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is he? The policies he wants to bring just are not realistic for 21st Century Britain. His mantra is "For the many, not the few" yet policies such as scrapping tuition fees would help the few and not the many, as has been demonstrated in Scotland. His past is also troubling, and his inability to condemn President Maduro directly, as well as attempting to have the government promise that they will never take part in military action against North Korea. Theresa May is considered the safe pair of hands, and whilst I'm not a fan of her, I have more confidence in her than Jeremy Corbyn. I'd rather neither of them be Prime Minister but right now one of them has to be and the best of a bad bunch is in Number 10 right now.

Let's go through the qualification list:

1) Never knowingly sent someone to their death to win a by-election (better than Teresa May).
2) Doesn't want to revoke the human rights act (better than Teresa May).
3) Doesn't have a track record of human rights abuses (better than Teresa May, or the Conservative party in general).
4) Doesn't spend an inordinate amount of time pursuing policies that he knows wont work, that are literally mathematically impossible to implement, or that neither he nor the relevant enforcement agencies actually understand purely in an attempt to screw me and/or millions of other people over (better than Teresa May, or the Conservative party in general).

So yeah, that's a win for Corbyn.

I disagree with "enriching the rich", but I do agree with the "curtailing people's freedom". You have made one big error, however, the Conservative Party as a whole is not committed to curtailing people's freedoms, it is some in this present government. You will be aware that in 2008, David Davis resigned as an MP whilst Shadow Home Secretary in protest at the curtailing of civil liberties by the Labour government.

Yes it is. The Conservative Party has had curtailing people's freedoms in its manifesto for decades, and has spent quite nearly its entire existence dedicated to that task.

1) Come again?
2) Revoke and replace with a Bill of Rights so that human rights for British people are controlled and protected by British institutions.
3) After a little research, I can't find any record of Theresa May abusing human rights. Enlighten me.
4) Again, enlighten me. Please?

And, you think Labour is any better at curbing people's rights and freedoms? Well, I strongly advise you do some research.

[Lauchenoiria]

Okie dokie, well. Let's start with killing the NHS. Where have they stated they want to "kill" the NHS? Has a privatisation bill been brought forward? Nope. Who started the privatisation of the NHS? Labour.

Now, killing the BBC. Again, have they said they want to "kill" the BBC? Has a privatisation bill been brought forward? Nope. I see no evidence of the BBC in any way dying. Do you?

Privatise everything in sight. Well by that logic considering that for around 55% of the time since the war the Conservatives have been in power surely everything would be privatised by now, no? And, let us not forget Labour also played their part in privatisation.

Screw the poor? Nope, look at taxes. Screw the minorities? If that were true, why do a lot of minority people vote Conservative? Screw the disabled? Again, nope - although they could do better. Screw the gays? Really? The party who introduced same-sex marriage wants to screw the gays? Okay.

The Tory-Lib Dem coalition privatised the Royal Mail - something even Thatcher wouldn't do. So yeah, the Tories are big fans of privatisation, though I admit 'everything in sight' is an exaggeration.

Disabled people have literally been dying under Tory policies of welfare cuts and sanctions. Literally dying. So yeah the Tories hate disabled people.

Theresa May voted to keep section 28. Just because a party does one good thing for a minority group (in this case gay people) doesn't mean the party is generally in favour of their rights.

1) Come again?
2) Revoke and replace with a Bill of Rights so that human rights for British people are controlled and protected by British institutions.
3) After a little research, I can't find any record of Theresa May abusing human rights. Enlighten me.
4) Again, enlighten me. Please?

And, you think Labour is any better at curbing people's rights and freedoms? Well, I strongly advise you do some research.

1) wasn't me who said it, can't comment
2) Is this Bill of Rights going to be an exact copy of all the human rights listed in the previous act? If so, what is the point? If not, then what rights are they going to sneakily take away from us?
3) The detention of child asylum seekers, basically half the immigration related things under her remit when she was home secretary were dodgy from a human rights standpoint
4) I mean, I don't know what Salandriagado was thinking of when they said this, but May has said things about Brexit that by themselves might work, but all of them put together are a contradictory mess that can't possibly all work at the same time - for example, wanting to continue trading with the EU while also not meeting their standards on stuff like food packaging.

Also don't mix up the rights of people and the rights of corporations - Labour tends to curb the latter much more, but corporations are not people.

[Imperializt Russia]

Hasn't May, and the Home Office under her leadership and thereby extension, also her, been repeatedly found to have violated human rights in the matter of deportations, refugee agreements and criminal justice?

Pretty sure there's at least three instances within the last year, though all were resolved by basically "erm, do something about this now please".