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

[Dooom35796821595]

The UK still had the empire during WWII, and America was isolationist until 1941, I don't know what you're on about.
And Germany was the ones who got the American handouts after the war.

i think you might be reading it backwards. the last part is post-war not during war, for example.

yes it was. But where is the Singapore and America references relevant?

[Ostroeuropa]

Incidentally, to support my point about it being the Tories that fucked everything up by being too Tory:

Eden was hosting a dinner for King Feisal II of Iraq and his Prime Minister, Nuri es-Said, when he learned the canal had been nationalised. They both unequivocally advised Eden to "hit Nasser hard, hit him soon, and hit him by yourself" – a stance shared by the vast majority of the British people in subsequent weeks. "There is a lot of humbug about Suez," Guy Millard, one of Eden's private secretaries, later recorded. "People forget that the policy at the time was extremely popular." Opposition leader Hugh Gaitskell was also at the dinner. He immediately agreed that military action might be inevitable, but warned Eden would have to keep the Americans closely informed.

TFW Labour would have retained the Empire and Tories just outright completely ignoring them led to its dissolution.

"Brarglglrgl, empire."
V
"Yes, empire, but let's use our brains for longer than the time it takes to pull a trigger."

[Souseiseki]

i think you might be reading it backwards. the last part is post-war not during war, for example.

yes it was. But where is the Singapore and America references relevant?

singapore is our current governments ideal brexit plan
america is our continuing subservience to american foreign and economic policy and our role as their evil henchman

[Ostroeuropa]

Also hilarious;

Gaitskell spoke for his party when he called the nationalisation a "high-handed and totally unjustifiable step". : When Eden made a ministerial broadcast on the nationalization, Labour declined its right to reply

#BritishSocialism.

[Dooom35796821595]

yes it was. But where is the Singapore and America references relevant?

singapore is our current governments ideal brexit plan
america is our continuing subservience to american foreign and economic policy and our role as their evil henchman

Our government dosen't have a Brexit plan, they're winging it. Badly by the looks of it.

I always think it's funny that people think our relationship with America is the same as when Blair was grovelling at the Americans feet. We have mutual intressts and enemies, and an alliance is beneficial for both sides.

[Souseiseki]

singapore is our current governments ideal brexit plan
america is our continuing subservience to american foreign and economic policy and our role as their evil henchman

Our government dosen't have a Brexit plan, they're winging it. Badly by the looks of it.

I always think it's funny that people think our relationship with America is the same as when Blair was grovelling at the Americans feet. We have mutual intressts and enemies, and an alliance is beneficial for both sides.

it's true we have no plan, we but all have our ideal outcomes. that's theirs.

WikiLeaks cables: Conservatives promised to run 'pro-American regime'

Conservative party politicians lined up before the general election to promise that they would run a "pro-American regime" and buy more arms from the US if they came to power this year, the leaked American embassy cables show.

Despite British leaders' supportive stance, the dispatches also reveal – in what some will see as humiliating detail – how US diplomats in London are amused by what they call Britain's "paranoid" fears about the so-called special relationship.

One said the anxious British attitude "would often be humorous if it were not so corrosive" and that it was tempting to take advantage of this neurosis to "make London more willing to respond favourably when pressed for assistance". The UK was said to offer "unparalleled" help in promoting America's aims.

Liam Fox, now the defence secretary, promised to buy American military equipment, while the current foreign secretary, William Hague, offered the ambassador a "pro-American" government. Hague also said the entire Conservative leadership were, like him, "staunchly Atlanticist" and "children of Thatcher".

"Hague said whoever enters 10 Downing Street as prime minister soon learns of the essential nature of the relationship with America. He went on: 'We want a pro-American regime. We need it. The world needs it.' "

He advised against taking advantage of British neuroses and said the UK remained highly useful to the US because of its "unparalleled" help in promoting America's aims.

"The UK's commitment of resources – financial, military, diplomatic – in support of US global priorities remains unparalleled; a UK public confident that the USG values those contributions and our relationship, matters to US national security."

we're the pinky to their brain - almost entirely subservient. buying a small country's worth of guns and rolling over in the hopes of a belly rub.

[Ostroeuropa]

Our government dosen't have a Brexit plan, they're winging it. Badly by the looks of it.

I always think it's funny that people think our relationship with America is the same as when Blair was grovelling at the Americans feet. We have mutual intressts and enemies, and an alliance is beneficial for both sides.

it's true we have no plan, we but all have our ideal outcomes. that's theirs.

WikiLeaks cables: Conservatives promised to run 'pro-American regime'

Conservative party politicians lined up before the general election to promise that they would run a "pro-American regime" and buy more arms from the US if they came to power this year, the leaked American embassy cables show.

Despite British leaders' supportive stance, the dispatches also reveal – in what some will see as humiliating detail – how US diplomats in London are amused by what they call Britain's "paranoid" fears about the so-called special relationship.

One said the anxious British attitude "would often be humorous if it were not so corrosive" and that it was tempting to take advantage of this neurosis to "make London more willing to respond favourably when pressed for assistance". The UK was said to offer "unparalleled" help in promoting America's aims.

Liam Fox, now the defence secretary, promised to buy American military equipment, while the current foreign secretary, William Hague, offered the ambassador a "pro-American" government. Hague also said the entire Conservative leadership were, like him, "staunchly Atlanticist" and "children of Thatcher".

"Hague said whoever enters 10 Downing Street as prime minister soon learns of the essential nature of the relationship with America. He went on: 'We want a pro-American regime. We need it. The world needs it.' "

He advised against taking advantage of British neuroses and said the UK remained highly useful to the US because of its "unparalleled" help in promoting America's aims.

"The UK's commitment of resources – financial, military, diplomatic – in support of US global priorities remains unparalleled; a UK public confident that the USG values those contributions and our relationship, matters to US national security."

we're the pinky to their brain - almost entirely subservient. buying a small country's worth of guns and rolling over in the hopes of a belly rub.

Sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyVRAN72jbc

[Souseiseki]

people might say "oh that's because we want the same thing as them", but there's a reason obama and co didn't call cameron and promise to run a "pro-British regime"

[Vassenor]

Has there ever been a point since the war when our relationship with America hasn't been "When I say jump you say how high"?

[Souseiseki]

Has there ever been a point since the war when our relationship with America hasn't been "When I say jump you say how high"?

ostroeuropa has provided an example of where the US asked up to jump and government really really wanted to jump but couldn't get parliamentary support for it

[Dooom35796821595]

Our government dosen't have a Brexit plan, they're winging it. Badly by the looks of it.

I always think it's funny that people think our relationship with America is the same as when Blair was grovelling at the Americans feet. We have mutual intressts and enemies, and an alliance is beneficial for both sides.

it's true we have no plan, we but all have our ideal outcomes. that's theirs.

WikiLeaks cables: Conservatives promised to run 'pro-American regime'

Conservative party politicians lined up before the general election to promise that they would run a "pro-American regime" and buy more arms from the US if they came to power this year, the leaked American embassy cables show.

Despite British leaders' supportive stance, the dispatches also reveal – in what some will see as humiliating detail – how US diplomats in London are amused by what they call Britain's "paranoid" fears about the so-called special relationship.

One said the anxious British attitude "would often be humorous if it were not so corrosive" and that it was tempting to take advantage of this neurosis to "make London more willing to respond favourably when pressed for assistance". The UK was said to offer "unparalleled" help in promoting America's aims.

Liam Fox, now the defence secretary, promised to buy American military equipment, while the current foreign secretary, William Hague, offered the ambassador a "pro-American" government. Hague also said the entire Conservative leadership were, like him, "staunchly Atlanticist" and "children of Thatcher".

"Hague said whoever enters 10 Downing Street as prime minister soon learns of the essential nature of the relationship with America. He went on: 'We want a pro-American regime. We need it. The world needs it.' "

He advised against taking advantage of British neuroses and said the UK remained highly useful to the US because of its "unparalleled" help in promoting America's aims.

"The UK's commitment of resources – financial, military, diplomatic – in support of US global priorities remains unparalleled; a UK public confident that the USG values those contributions and our relationship, matters to US national security."

we're the pinky to their brain - almost entirely subservient. buying a small country's worth of guns and rolling over in the hopes of a belly rub.

A fallen empire, allied with the new one (America) and building relations with the rising potential replacement or rival (China), while trying to retain economic ties with Europe without being tied to their ideological pillars. Sounds like a sound long term strategy, even I feel it looks a bit messy. The only thing that matters are the results.

Of course, both political parties are deeply flawed, but they are filled with politicians.

And BAE is the second/third largest defense contractor on the planet, so we make our own stuff.

[Dooom35796821595]

Has there ever been a point since the war when our relationship with America hasn't been "When I say jump you say how high"?

Vietnam.

[Souseiseki]

Has there ever been a point since the war when our relationship with America hasn't been "When I say jump you say how high"?

Vietnam.

https://thevietnamwar.info/united-kingd ... etnam-war/
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-UK-no ... ry-efforts

ehhhhhhhhhh

did they ever ask us to send troops directly?

[Dooom35796821595]

Vietnam.

https://thevietnamwar.info/united-kingd ... etnam-war/
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-UK-no ... ry-efforts

ehhhhhhhhhh

did they ever ask us to send troops directly?

Publicly? Not to my knowledge. Directly? Almost certainly.

[The East Marches II]

Cultural misandry becomes explicit policy, courts have been told to refrain from sending women to prison, and this done on the following grounds:

The new guidance for judges and magistrates says real equality means favouring women and minorities to make up for the disadvantage they suffer.

So in other words, outright asserting the feminist worldview as fact, the kind that denies misandry and male disadvantage, and using that as an excuse to formalize institutional privilege for women in the justice system that already exists. In the process, providing a convenient excuse and lie for Progressives and Feminists to use in future to explain the gap rather than admit it was present before these guidelines and could not possibly be caused by their warped vision of justice being applied, but must have been due to some form prejudice which they are now seeking to cover for and excuse in order to continue denying misandry is real and their worldview isn't an inadequate and bigoted set of delusions, either misandry (Which in my view is likely) or if you're one of those types who likes to do things like call male rape victims misogynists for not coming forward, misogyny.

Most especially revealing is that this pre-existing prejudice is entirely indistinguishable from progressive and feminist views on Affirmative action for women being applied.
They are one and the same thing, one is merely asserted using egalitarian rhetoric and feminist rationalizations for that prejudice, the only difference is the presentation, and this example demonstrates it, and as a consequence, the nature of feminism and progressivism as a hate ideology. We can see here that when a pre-existing prejudice disadvantages males, the impulse is to rationalize it and entrench it further, and this is also a pattern for the feminist movement. Compare/contrast to a pre-existing prejudice disadvantaging females.

‘True equal treatment may not always mean treating everyone in the same way,’ the new version says. Fair treatment, judges are told, means that ‘steps can be taken, where appropriate, to redress any inequality arising from difference or disadvantage.’

The Bench Book adds: ‘Women remain disadvantaged in many public and private areas of their lives.

This is another fine example of how allowing Feminists into an institution corrupts it and turns it into a vehicle for bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination.

We also once again see the erasure of mens side of an issue and the erasure of male victims to assert things as a female specific problem by the feminist movement, by now a tiresome trend that this hate movement has pulled in domestic violence, rape, and practically everything else they talk about.

We've already seen the negative effects Feminist lobbying has had on due process, but we're beginning to see the rest of the justice system fall under their sway now as well. The erasure of male victimization, rationalizing away misandry or seeking to excuse it, framing circumstances that should lead to lower sentences as applying to women as a class and not men, rather than individuals those things apply to, these are all things rooted in feminist ideology and worldview being applied, the consequences of believing their mere assertions that these people are egalitarian and their worldview is the same as equality.

The guidance says women criminals often have troubled lives. ‘Women’s offending can be linked to underlying mental health needs, drug and alcohol problems, coercive relationships, financial difficulties and debt,’ it says.

As a reasoning to avoid custodial sentences goes, why does this not also apply to men as a class? And more importantly, what is the rationalization for the court viewing these things as effecting all women, rather than individuals? The rationale is the feminist worldview and frame of comprehending reality, that necessarily privileges women. By asserting individuals with these problems be treated leniently, feminists cannot advance a female victimhood narrative and push for female supremacy. So instead they erase men these things apply to, and seek to cast these things as effecting women as a class, thereby shifting from advocacy for human rights, to female supremacy, in order to satisfy their compulsive need to keep finding evidence in support of their notion that women as a class are disadvantaged and their dogmatic view of reality is based in fact and not prejudice, in the process causing devastating consequences in each area of public life that is allowed to fall under their influence. They must be purged from our institutions.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/judg ... -kczkp6pzg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... grant.html

For further evidence the feminist movement is not an equality movement, is hostile to men as a demographic, and has no intentions of confronting misandry and female privilege, watch the feminist reaction to these developments and the lack of campaigning, outrage, protesting, etc.

From the feminist thread, an independent evaluation of womens privilege in the justice system as it relates to child rape by teachers.
viewtopic.php?p=33559153#p33559153

You talked about the "scale" earlier.
How about the education and justice system for a scale?

Crucial stats from the post:

28% of all cases involved students aged 12-14. The majority are still done by women.

+

over 4 years 122 women were sentenced to an average of 4.8 years. 90 men were sentenced to an average of 8.9 years.

26 women and 11 men had multiple victims.

for victims aged 12-14 the teachers were 30 women and 19 men.

Number of victims only seemed to tie into women's sentencing. 13 women had a sentence of over 15 years and 5 of them had multiple victims.

For men only 3 of the 17 sentenced to over 15 years had multiple victims.

Other interesting stats:

26 women received nothing but probation, only 1 man received only probation.

55 women received sentences under 2 years, while only 21 men did.

These are the contexts in which UK feminists are pressuring for leniency for women, and presenting that leniency as necessary to redress womens disadvantages.

That was a pretty awful and horrifying article. I really hope that cancer doesn't cross the Atlantic. You covered the whole well but missed that bit at the end where it said they should consider decisions made by Islamic Sharia tribunals in family courts.

[Fartsniffage]

Sure, or they would agree.

It predates joining the EU. It was probably the natural result of the collapse of Empire.

do you think the empire collapsed because we surrendered it for no real reason? do you think suez would have worked had we just put a little bit mote elbow grease into it?

Britain Stronk!

[Ostroeuropa]

do you think the empire collapsed because we surrendered it for no real reason? do you think suez would have worked had we just put a little bit mote elbow grease into it?

Britain Stronk!

Brexit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUCB9EOl-4M

[Ostroeuropa]

Cultural misandry becomes explicit policy, courts have been told to refrain from sending women to prison, and this done on the following grounds:



So in other words, outright asserting the feminist worldview as fact, the kind that denies misandry and male disadvantage, and using that as an excuse to formalize institutional privilege for women in the justice system that already exists. In the process, providing a convenient excuse and lie for Progressives and Feminists to use in future to explain the gap rather than admit it was present before these guidelines and could not possibly be caused by their warped vision of justice being applied, but must have been due to some form prejudice which they are now seeking to cover for and excuse in order to continue denying misandry is real and their worldview isn't an inadequate and bigoted set of delusions, either misandry (Which in my view is likely) or if you're one of those types who likes to do things like call male rape victims misogynists for not coming forward, misogyny.

Most especially revealing is that this pre-existing prejudice is entirely indistinguishable from progressive and feminist views on Affirmative action for women being applied.
They are one and the same thing, one is merely asserted using egalitarian rhetoric and feminist rationalizations for that prejudice, the only difference is the presentation, and this example demonstrates it, and as a consequence, the nature of feminism and progressivism as a hate ideology. We can see here that when a pre-existing prejudice disadvantages males, the impulse is to rationalize it and entrench it further, and this is also a pattern for the feminist movement. Compare/contrast to a pre-existing prejudice disadvantaging females.



This is another fine example of how allowing Feminists into an institution corrupts it and turns it into a vehicle for bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination.

We also once again see the erasure of mens side of an issue and the erasure of male victims to assert things as a female specific problem by the feminist movement, by now a tiresome trend that this hate movement has pulled in domestic violence, rape, and practically everything else they talk about.

We've already seen the negative effects Feminist lobbying has had on due process, but we're beginning to see the rest of the justice system fall under their sway now as well. The erasure of male victimization, rationalizing away misandry or seeking to excuse it, framing circumstances that should lead to lower sentences as applying to women as a class and not men, rather than individuals those things apply to, these are all things rooted in feminist ideology and worldview being applied, the consequences of believing their mere assertions that these people are egalitarian and their worldview is the same as equality.



As a reasoning to avoid custodial sentences goes, why does this not also apply to men as a class? And more importantly, what is the rationalization for the court viewing these things as effecting all women, rather than individuals? The rationale is the feminist worldview and frame of comprehending reality, that necessarily privileges women. By asserting individuals with these problems be treated leniently, feminists cannot advance a female victimhood narrative and push for female supremacy. So instead they erase men these things apply to, and seek to cast these things as effecting women as a class, thereby shifting from advocacy for human rights, to female supremacy, in order to satisfy their compulsive need to keep finding evidence in support of their notion that women as a class are disadvantaged and their dogmatic view of reality is based in fact and not prejudice, in the process causing devastating consequences in each area of public life that is allowed to fall under their influence. They must be purged from our institutions.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/judg ... -kczkp6pzg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... grant.html

For further evidence the feminist movement is not an equality movement, is hostile to men as a demographic, and has no intentions of confronting misandry and female privilege, watch the feminist reaction to these developments and the lack of campaigning, outrage, protesting, etc.

From the feminist thread, an independent evaluation of womens privilege in the justice system as it relates to child rape by teachers.
viewtopic.php?p=33559153#p33559153

You talked about the "scale" earlier.
How about the education and justice system for a scale?

Crucial stats from the post:



+



These are the contexts in which UK feminists are pressuring for leniency for women, and presenting that leniency as necessary to redress womens disadvantages.

That was a pretty awful and horrifying article. I really hope that cancer doesn't cross the Atlantic. You covered the whole well but missed that bit at the end where it said they should consider decisions made by Islamic Sharia tribunals in family courts.

That's progressivism unfortunately.
We need to recapture the left from these racists and sexists, or the Tories will keep winning. The public is more united behind left wing economics than you would expect, the problem is racists and sexists run the show and force the BNP situation.

"BNP wants to nationalize the trains." - > 1% of the vote, because what the fuck that barely matters.
Labour is no different.

[Trumptonium]

The UK is running a budget surplus for the first time since 2002, two years earlier than planned.

Net investment excluded, a 'full' budget surplus planned for 2022.

In other words, the government has more income than expenditures to cover all 'day to day' spending. The only deficit is when you include capital and asset investment to generate returns or build public services. Around 19bn pounds.

The IMF has issued a statement praising the UK as an example of successful austerity policies in reducing debt.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... rne-right/



Financial Times says 'the case for raising public spending has never been stronger'

A deficit that grows at a slower rate than GDP growth is generally considered sustainable, depending on the existing debt size.

• The UK interest-to-GDP is 2.4% (2.4% of GDP is spent on paying back debt).
• The UK budget deficit is -2.7% (0.9% of GDP is borrowed each year.)
• The UK growth rate (annualised) is circa 1.6% in FY ending 2018 (the economy grows by 1.6% a year)

Most countries keep to around a 1.5-2% budget deficit a year, and the EU has a constitutional limit of 3%. Economists differ on when budget surpluses should be achieved, if at all. Currently 13 countries (half) in the EU have a budget surplus, including Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Czech Republic and Greece. The largest budget deficits are held by Spain (-4.5%), France (-3.4%), Romania (-3%) and the UK (-2.7%)

[Hydesland]

Many liberals (I don't know about libertarians) take freedom of religion very seriously, and remember if you say "freedom of religion ends as soon as any other rights are impacted", then 'freedom of religion' is meaningless and superfluous. I believe 'freedom of religion' is one of the ostensible values our modern society is meant to be based on too.

Freedom of religion does not include freedom to force your religion on others.

Explore this a bit more - wouldn't taking your children to Church count as this? Or all kinds of other religious upbringing practices that we tolerate?

[Souseiseki]

Freedom of religion does not include freedom to force your religion on others.

Explore this a bit more - wouldn't taking your children to Church count as this? Or all kinds of other religious upbringing practices that we tolerate?

you could argue that, some have. but i'm sure you can also see the difference between that and, uh, surgery.

[Souseiseki]

https://i.redd.it/l9vilwgnt7j01.png

huh, i've never seen this image before. covers the whole "but norway" and "but switzerland" stuff quite succinctly.

[Vassenor]

https://i.redd.it/l9vilwgnt7j01.png

huh, i've never seen this image before. covers the whole "but norway" and "but switzerland" stuff quite succinctly.

So we're back to "Y'all really didn't think this through, did ya?"

[Shamhnan Insir]

May says in "Road to Brexit" speech

Life is going to be different.

Perhaps the only piece of real clarity from that speech...

[Hydesland]

Explore this a bit more - wouldn't taking your children to Church count as this? Or all kinds of other religious upbringing practices that we tolerate?

you could argue that, some have. but i'm sure you can also see the difference between that and, uh, surgery.

Maybe, but the difference is something other than "forcing your religion on others".