UK Politics Thread IX: The Masses Against the Classes

[Vassenor]

Which somehow makes the entire EU irredeemably authoritarian.

Methinks you have very very skewed priorities.

I value online freedom very highly, nothing skewed about that.

So where are all the people being blackbagged for criticising the EU?

[Old Tyrannia]

But I'm entirely comfortable with the increased level of insults being thrown at the LibDems in this thread. People are only really nasty towards us when we're doing well.

I resent this on the grounds that I am always nasty towards the LibDems regardless of whether they are doing well or not. If it makes any difference my sister and a number of close real-life friends have voted for the LibDems in the past, and some of those friends are involved in the party as campaigners, so I don't have any personal animus towards individual LibDem supporters.

Because they are smug neoliberal cosmopolitans and the European Union is a smug neoliberal cosmopolitan project.

Come now, OT; a globalising neoliberal cosmopolitan I might be. But smug?

I would not call you personally smug, Arch. But smugness is clearly a part of the Liberal Democrat genome. Have you ever seen Vince Cable smile? The man seems incapable of not looking smug.

At least this proves the moderation team isn't nearly as much of a hive mind as some people assume we are.

The only thing less hard to imagine than a Liberal Democrat led government is the anti-moderation clique on NationStates acknowledging that, unfortunately.

Which somehow makes the entire EU irredeemably authoritarian.

Methinks you have very very skewed priorities.

I value online freedom very highly, nothing skewed about that.

We do actually have a tiny Libertarian Party in the UK that probably aligns with your views much more closely than the Liberal Democrats, but its chances of any kind of electoral success are negligible. You'd probably have quite liked pre-Farage UKIP as well.

[Hirota]

Because they are smug neoliberal cosmopolitans and the European Union is a smug neoliberal cosmopolitan project.

Come now, OT; a globalising neoliberal cosmopolitan I might be. But smug?

At least this proves the moderation team isn't nearly as much of a hive mind as some people assume we are.

One of you has been away from the collective for too long; getting all these odd original ideas and all that, you are clearly in need of reintegration into the collective.

After all, you are all puppets of Hotrodia.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

But I'm entirely comfortable with the increased level of insults being thrown at the LibDems in this thread. People are only really nasty towards us when we're doing well.

I resent this on the grounds that I am always nasty towards the LibDems regardless of whether they are doing well or not. If it makes any difference my sister and a number of close real-life friends have voted for the LibDems in the past, and some of those friends are involved in the party as campaigners, so I don't have any personal animus towards individual LibDem supporters.

Come now, OT; a globalising neoliberal cosmopolitan I might be. But smug?

I would not call you personally smug, Arch. But smugness is clearly a part of the Liberal Democrat genome. Have you ever seen Vince Cable smile? The man seems incapable of not looking smug.

At least this proves the moderation team isn't nearly as much of a hive mind as some people assume we are.

The only thing less hard to imagine than a Liberal Democrat led government is the anti-moderation clique on NationStates acknowledging that, unfortunately.

I value online freedom very highly, nothing skewed about that.

We do actually have a tiny Libertarian Party in the UK that probably aligns with your views much more closely than the Liberal Democrats, but its chances of any kind of electoral success are negligible. You'd probably have quite liked pre-Farage UKIP as well.

Maybe, but the UK libertarians are very small, and I'm economicslly to the left of most libertarians, and UKIP is now very different and basically dead.

[Ifreann]

Why is Lib Dem the most pro-EU party in the UK. It saddens me.

Because they are smug neoliberal cosmopolitans and the European Union is a smug neoliberal cosmopolitan project.

It's like asking "why do dung beetles like shit?"

Because they lay their eggs in it.

[Hirota]

Article 13.

As poorly thought out as it is, I don't see a single piece of legislation as strong evidence of an authoritarian government to me.

I personally see the EU as overly technocratic, which when properly balanced brings benefits (after all, most governments tend to have bureaucrats to keep things running), but the excessive lack of accountability that certain unelected officals in the EU enjoy is troubling to me. In that regard, authoritarian and overly technocratic governments are similar in that both harm or damage or undermine the power of the electorate to keep government accountable.

I didn't say monstrosity, but yes, because it is a very dumb copyright law.

Which somehow makes the entire EU irredeemably authoritarian.

Methinks you have very very skewed priorities.

Methinks you are deliberately misrepresenting through obvious lies your fellow posters.

I suppose they are similar in many ways, but the EU seems quite authoritarian to me, and I would've thought the Lib Dems wouldn't be down for that, though maybe that's me assuming the Lib Dems and I are more similar than we actually are.

There is a gulf in difference between "quite authoritarian" which is what Xeno actually said, and "irredeemably authoritarian" which is the bullshit you are trying to peddle as coming from Xeno. This long-established and continuing behaviour of warping and distorting other peoples views and opinions through the lens of your imagination is obvious, and stupid.

And I believe that if Xeno was given an opportunity to discuss with someone less inclined towards spouting falsehoods and someone more inclined in having a discussion and keeping an open mind (aka pretty much anyone other than you), I think they'd be more inclined to expand upon their answers.

[Neu Leonstein]

For all the talk of Brexit and Corbyn.. to be fair, the same patterns can be seen in lots of countries. In Germany the SPD are busily being dismantled and replaced by the Greens. The CDU has so far managed better, but how long that continues after Merkel goes, who knows?

The Brexit Party vs Lib-Dem dichotomy is looking much more like the pattern of democratic politics for the next few decades than the old model based on centre-right v centre-left divisions based more on economic policy preferences.

[The Archregimancy]

Since recent events - and one isolated eyebrow-raising poll - mean that this is perhaps no longer as niche as it was a couple of weeks ago...

Alistair Carmichael MP explains the LibDem leadership election process:

https://www.libdemvoice.org/alistair-ca ... 60993.html



Tangential, but not wholly unrelated... a quick thought on the election map based on the recent YouGov poll that had this thread briefly hot and bothered a page or two back:

One of the truly remarkable things about that map is the number of seats being won by candidates with under 30% of the vote. Rugby, for example, sees the LibDems winning with only 25.73% of the vote, while the Brexit Party wins Preseli Pembrokeshire on a projected 24.84%, and the Greens take the Isle of Wight (!) on a projected 25.59%. On that projection, across Great Britain virtually the only seats where an MP wins more than 50% of the vote are a light scatter won by LibDems (with Caroline Lucas also projected to win more than 50% of the vote in Brighton for the Greens). The usual caveats about projecting seat distributions on a uniform swing taken from a single opinion poll apply; but that doesn't strike me as a ringing endorsement of the supposed benefits of FPTP.

[Thermodolia]

Since recent events - and one isolated eyebrow-raising poll - mean that this is perhaps no longer as niche as it was a couple of weeks ago...

Alistair Carmichael MP explains the LibDem leadership election process:

https://www.libdemvoice.org/alistair-ca ... 60993.html



Tangential, but not wholly unrelated... a quick thought on the election map based on the recent YouGov poll that had this thread briefly hot and bothered a page or two back:

One of the truly remarkable things about that map is the number of seats being won by candidates with under 30% of the vote. Rugby, for example, sees the LibDems winning with only 25.73% of the vote, while the Brexit Party wins Preseli Pembrokeshire on a projected 24.84%, and the Greens take the Isle of Wight (!) on a projected 25.59%. On that projection, across Great Britain virtually the only seats where an MP wins more than 50% of the vote are a light scatter won by LibDems (with Caroline Lucas also projected to win more than 50% of the vote in Brighton for the Greens). The usual caveats about projecting seat distributions on a uniform swing taken from a single opinion poll apply; but that doesn't strike me as a ringing endorsement of the supposed benefits of FPTP.

FPTP is absolutely shit. The UK would be better off with a PR system in GB and keeping the STV elections in NI. Or just go and have STV elections entirely

[Bears Armed]

The usual caveats about projecting seat distributions on a uniform swing taken from a single opinion poll apply; but that doesn't strike me as a ringing endorsement of the supposed benefits of FPTP.

Even if the poll is correct, the unusual situation at present still might make that the only general election in which FPTP gave such an unusual result.
And at least with FPTP a governing party usually can't blame having to make a deal with coalition partners as the reason for not meeting its manifesto commitments...

[Ostroeuropa]

Jo Swinson as lib dem leader is a mixed bag on mens issues, of the patronizing, self-absorbed, and gynocentric feminism variety that views mens issues through the frame of misogyny and uplifting women.

On the plus side we'd see balanced maternal/paternal leave, but she advances this from the perspective of helping women and thinks the way to make men take more time off is to make people appreciate women more so men will adopt those traits. (Gynocentric understanding of sexism, the white womans burden.). Nonetheless she supports *legal* equality on the topic in order to enable this.

She acknowledges some issues that feminists have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into admitting exist such as high suicide rates and the boys crisis in education, but then immediately recasts them in terms of misgoyny and acts like fixing them requires eliminating misogyny.

For education, This is akin to Anderson and he book rationalizing the boys crisis in education as down to boys being misogynist, unruly, disobedient, and needing to act more like girls. I.E, women projecting their prejudice onto their victims and being unwilling to consider they are not the way women view them and that the real problem is womens view of them, because we know for a fact that when you study this matter, the problem is teachers views of boys, not the boys themselves.

In India, this misandry is documented in the "Boys must be beaten" phenomanae, where women teachers argue that boys are simply little shits who don't respect women and need to be beaten in order to make them pay attention. Feminism is merely the institutionalized version of this malicious prejudice based in womens own huge levels of in-group bias and unreasonable levels of fragility when it comes to their ego (See the women are wonderful effect), as well as using girls as a default template for boys to be measured against and then pathologizing ordinary male behavior. "The girls don't fidget, the boys do, therefore the boys are evil and disrespect me and there is something wrong with them, so I should beat them." rather than, you know, biology. (Boys fidget more because they have more physical energy.). Another explanation is the studies showing that parents do not read to boys as much as girls and focus on teaching girls, linked with studies showing that being red to helps discipline and is a predictor of being able to focus on a task. (So it's more a case of "How dare you not bring money for school meals, you need to be punished for disrespecting me personally. That's why you did this.").

Or nevermind they're both the same and the boys are acting this way because misogyny, because all differences are down to men hating women and nothing else. /s

This blank slate view of the genders that treats women as a default is just plain old misandrist prejudice common to women in all cultures who haven't confronted it, but is endemic and formalized ideologically in feminism. (In this view, feminism in its handling of boys education is akin to "Institutionalized violence" against boys, whereas the proto form of its handling of the boys crisis in education is present in India with simple interpersonal violence.). Swinson represents a continuation of this toxic trend without a hint of self-awareness, because she assumes the problem with boys is that they don't respect women. Again, I invite you to consider the women are wonderful effect. The problem is that Swinson is suffering with feminine narcissism, which presents both as an inability to consider the problem is her own inflated level of ""respect""" for herself and her gender, and in viewing deviations from that inflated positive view as evidence of hatred. "I like myself and prefer me to you by a 10, you like me and prefer me to yourself by a 1, therefore you hate me and are selfish and view yourself more positively than me." This delusion is the core of the feminist ideology, it informs both an inability to diagnose the actual problem, as well as their treatment of the issue. From their perspective, one debunked by objective measurement and analysis, the situation is "I treat genders equally, and you treat me as a -9. Therefore you hate me and are selfish and view yourself more positively than me, and need to be taught to respect me more.".

On mental health, she suggests the problem is men not expressing their feelings and not wanting to do so, and suggests more money for mental health to bring it to parity with physical health, a positive policy. However she rejects the notion that the reason men don't express their feelings is linked to anything other than men being misogynist. This is perhaps to be expected from an adherent to a movement that has spent over a hundred years telling men their feelings on the way feminists treat them are wrong and signs of the man being a bad person, which is effectively just another form of policing the acceptable expression of mens emotions.

Swinson is still a step up from the outright liars, gaslighters, and so on, who downplay mens issues and try to marginalize them, she acknowledges there is a problem, she simply refuses to properly examine the cause. A comparison would be a transition from Kantian Empire ("Europeans should run the world because we're superior and everyone else is incapable and barely better than animals") to Millsian ("We should run the world because they don't know any better but with our guidance they hopefully will one day.".)

Both human trash positions by modern standards, but undoubtedly a positive transition from one to the other. It provides the opportunity for feminists to completely fuck up and fail to deliver in a very public manner, at which point the pressure can be increased on them to capitulate. (Arguably this failure to deliver is what led us to the modern radicalized and openly spiteful/hateful strain of feminism, doubling down on their inane worldview akin to thinking "Well if niggers are still being super criminal then we need crackdowns to fix it and teach them a lesson because they have refused to listen to our reasonable suggestion they behave more White.". Swimson represents a transition from this spite and malice back toward "The real problem is just that black people need to learn be more like whites and lean in more, fix your culture.", which is, sadly, an improvement.).

She's also a "Lean in" feminist who dislikes quotas and "Positive discrimination", which is dubious but given that she's lackluster on mens issues is probably a plus since she'd almost certainly never try and enforce positive discrimination in mens favor.

All in all she would be a failure and incompetent on this topic because her worldview is self-centered nonsense, but she wouldn't be an active irritant and worsener of the issue except in as far as she'd strengthen the meme that people interested in these issues should try a bollocks approach, and we'd get at least one law passed that needs to pass.

She's also firmly in the "Gaslight, deny, and abuse" camp when it comes to domestic violence and rape. But I suppose we can't expect them to merely be patronizing and self-absorbed across the board, some malice inevitably creeps in.

She is, by the way, my endorsement for leader of the Lib Dems. Consider what that says about the other candidates.

[The Archregimancy]

The usual caveats about projecting seat distributions on a uniform swing taken from a single opinion poll apply; but that doesn't strike me as a ringing endorsement of the supposed benefits of FPTP.

Even if the poll is correct, the unusual situation at present still might make that the only general election in which FPTP gave such an unusual result.
And at least with FPTP a governing party usually can't blame having to make a deal with coalition partners as the reason for not meeting its manifesto commitments...

It's not the first time we've been in this type of position. I'd recommend familiarising yourself with the results of the four general elections from 1918-1929, particularly the first two (1918 & 1922). FPTP simply doesn't cope well when there are multiple parties/factions.

Anyway, handwaving away the manifest problems with FPTP in the hope that the current situation is going to prove temporary offers a uniquely panglossian perspective.

[The Archregimancy]

Jo Swinson as lib dem leader is a mixed bag on mens issues, of the patronizing, self-absorbed, and gynocentric feminism variety that views mens issues through the frame of misogyny and uplifting women.

September 2018:

But it's very likely a moot point. Current deputy leader Jo Swinson (MP for East Dunbartonshire) will most likely be the next leader of the LibDems. Vince will see the party through to the summer of next year, and will be allowed to step down with honours, but once the Brexit plans have been finalised and Ms Swinson has fully returned from maternity leave, she'll be in a better position to take over than she was last year.

And if Ruth Davidson then becomes the next leader of the Tories, Ostro's worst nightmare will have come true... Much of the country will be run by Scottish women.

That said, while Ostro's reaction was predictable, the 'once the Brexit plans have been finalised' line clearly proved naive on my part.

Just one more thing...

She is, by the way, my endorsement for leader of the Lib Dems. Consider what that says about the other candidates.

There is only one other candidate.

So presumably you don't like Ed Davey very much.

[Ostroeuropa]

Jo Swinson as lib dem leader is a mixed bag on mens issues, of the patronizing, self-absorbed, and gynocentric feminism variety that views mens issues through the frame of misogyny and uplifting women.

September 2018:

But it's very likely a moot point. Current deputy leader Jo Swinson (MP for East Dunbartonshire) will most likely be the next leader of the LibDems. Vince will see the party through to the summer of next year, and will be allowed to step down with honours, but once the Brexit plans have been finalised and Ms Swinson has fully returned from maternity leave, she'll be in a better position to take over than she was last year.

And if Ruth Davidson then becomes the next leader of the Tories, Ostro's worst nightmare will have come true... Much of the country will be run by Scottish women.

That said, while Ostro's reaction was predictable, the 'once the Brexit plans have been finalised' line clearly proved naive on my part.

Just one more thing...

She is, by the way, my endorsement for leader of the Lib Dems. Consider what that says about the other candidates.

There is only one other candidate.

So presumably you don't like Ed Davey very much.

I don't. He doesn't have any record on mens issues beyond full scale ignoring of them and is a down the line gynocentrist.

As for "Predictable", do you have any actual objection to my observations and evaluation? It's like a white supremacist party saying "Oh well that's predictable" when criticized by race equality advocates routinely. It's not an actual refutation or engagement.

[Major-Tom]

It's interesting that after all of the left-wingers in Labour rejoiced over finally having a leader who had principles and put them before electoral success, they're now furious with him for doing just that. I think what you guys really want isn't a leader with principles, but a leader who holds exactly the same opinions that you do on everything.

Principled to some degree, but in the last two years, it seems his only talking point has been “X is bad, clearly we need a general election, Y is bad, clearly we need a general election.” Couple that with a worrying blind eye to anti-Semitic currents both within his party and in the people he’s happily met with, and I can now admit I made a mistake thinking Corbyn was the shit back in 2017.

Additionally, Corbyn has flipped and flopped more on what to do with Brexit so often that it makes Romney look like the world’s most consistent politician by comparison.

[Hirota]

It's interesting that after all of the left-wingers in Labour rejoiced over finally having a leader who had principles and put them before electoral success, they're now furious with him for doing just that. I think what you guys really want isn't a leader with principles, but a leader who holds exactly the same opinions that you do on everything.

Principled to some degree, but in the last two years, it seems his only talking point has been “X is bad, clearly we need a general election, Y is bad, clearly we need a general election.” Couple that with a worrying blind eye to anti-Semitic currents both within his party and in the people he’s happily met with, and I can now admit I made a mistake thinking Corbyn was the shit back in 2017.

Additionally, Corbyn has flipped and flopped more on what to do with Brexit so often that it makes Romney look like the world’s most consistent politician by comparison.

Sorry, I'm just going to regurgitate r/ukpolitics:

Well, it made me chuckle at least.

[Hirota]

Anyhoo, I know I joked about voting against Supreme leader was treated more harshly than hating on the jews, but well done to Labour for actually doing something about the anti-semitism in their party.

[Souseiseki]

having a quick google jo swinson supported internet filters and the "cover up lads mags!!!" campaigns which makes me instantly not trust her. one lid dem post i found seems to describe her as being like labour2, which is quite worrying. i would probably be writing big posts like ostro as well if information on my own pet issue wasn't so hard to find.

[Ostroeuropa]

having a quick google jo swinson supported internet filters and the "cover up lads mags!!!" campaigns which makes me instantly not trust her. one lid dem post i found seems to describe her as being like labour2, which is quite worrying. i would probably be writing big posts like ostro as well if information on my own pet issue wasn't so hard to find.

Hatred of male sexuality is another example of feminisms blank slate problem where women are treated as a default for men to be measured against. Mens sexuality being more visually stimulated in comparison to womens is ignored in favor of assuming that any differences between men and women are rooted in misogyny and men must be forced to conform to womens expectations in order to end inequality. This pet issue of yours is pretty much the same as my problem with her, and rooted in the same problems.

A comparable example of "Meninism" (parody feminism) would be to suggest that the reason men carry more stuff sometimes is that women are lazy and entitled and the way to fix it is to force women to work out until they are literally equal physically to men and if they don't there's something wrong with them, and if it doesn't work, they're just doing it wrong and need to try harder because obviously men manage it just fine. Then you treat any woman who isn't doing that as though they are subhuman filth for daring to cause men problems, start getting progressively more and more hate filled and angry about it and pushing more and more mean spirited policies and demands, and spread the idea that women purposefully and deliberately act lazy and weak because they hate men. Ban women driving cars they need to walk more, stop marketing any form of convenience to women it encourages them to be lazy shits, and so on, same as feminists behave on male sexuality issues. Act ridiculous and claim stuff like any woman who doesn't support your mandatory gym time plan wants men to die in firefighting incidents.

The feminist hostility to male sexuality is borne in a refusal to accept that men and women being different isn't due to some patriarchal conspiracy against women. This treatment of people with differences is basically exactly the same problem disabled people face.

[Chan Island]

Anyhoo, I know I joked about voting against Supreme leader was treated more harshly than hating on the jews, but well done to Labour for actually doing something about the anti-semitism in their party.

That went from standard far left line to tin foil hat town on the drop of a dime, my goodness. Glad he's going to have a bit of time to rethink now.

[Fartsniffage]

Anyhoo, I know I joked about voting against Supreme leader was treated more harshly than hating on the jews, but well done to Labour for actually doing something about the anti-semitism in their party.

That went from standard far left line to tin foil hat town on the drop of a dime, my goodness. Glad he's going to have a bit of time to rethink now.

Labour for the many, not the Jew.

[Thermodolia]

That went from standard far left line to tin foil hat town on the drop of a dime, my goodness. Glad he's going to have a bit of time to rethink now.

Labour for the many, not the Jew.

I laughed

[Fartsniffage]

Labour for the many, not the Jew.

I laughed

People protesting anti-semetism in the labour party actually had that on their pre-printed signage. Talk about not thinking through a slogan...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48472977

[The Archregimancy]

I don't. He doesn't have any record on mens issues beyond full scale ignoring of them and is a down the line gynocentrist.

As for "Predictable", do you have any actual objection to my observations and evaluation? It's like a white supremacist party saying "Oh well that's predictable" when criticized by race equality advocates routinely. It's not an actual refutation or engagement.

I wasn't attempting to engage with your argument for or against; I merely noted it was possible to predict your reaction to Jo Swinson back in September.

If you choose to be defensive about that, then be my guest.

[Ostroeuropa]

People are criticizing Labours plan to nationalize energy on the basis our energy companies are actually doing a pretty good job all things considered on every front, except the one that nationalization is designed to fix, cost.

Theres an argument it will be mismanaged, lower innovation and so on, and while i'd typically be dismissive of such concerns, environmental policy is important enough that i'm hesitant to.

I'm wondering if a single payer system might be a compromise on that front. We can keep the companies private, keep people choosing their own energy provider at their own free will and so on, and then instead of them paying the bills, the government pays the companies based on how many customers have elected to use their service. This would alleviate the fear of the lights going out during periods of financial stress, because now there is a collective pot rather than an individual one, a similar principle to the NHS.

A single payer system with a set rationing limit before the customer has to begin paying out of pocket will also allow us to prevent some degree of free riding, as well as perhaps make people more conscious of their energy usage. (The difference between "you pay nothing" and "You start to pay something" is going to be more on peoples minds than the esoteric difference between 277 and 288 pounds.).

Further, the government could leverage the position to begin mandating emissions targets in order for companies to remain eligible for the scheme. Moreover, it will allow citizens to see clearly the costs associated with their choice. "Do you want the government to pay this company 10 pounds so they can build more wind farms, or this one 8 pounds so they can do nuclear, or this one 6 pounds so they can burn coal? This will effect your taxes, though you will not pay the bill personally.".

This has the potential to actually kickstart a boom in the more environmentally friendly companies as working class and poor people edge toward the green ones, not their money after all, while the middle classes are more inclined toward environmentalism as a matter of course. It may provoke a mass switchover to greener companies.

This also prevents, as critics have noted about Corbyns plan, "The byzantine political bureaucracy" his plan would seem to suggest as an alternative, with councils and so on being made to run the show, which does indeed seem like a bit of nightmare, with the lurching between one plan and another in marginal seats, sometimes councils just straight up not giving a shit, and so on.

While admirable in its localism, i'm not convinced environmental policy is one that localism is suited for. I do not particularly want a town of NIMBY's to be able to up and decide to dig for oil and coal because it will make their bills cheaper.

Collective security rather than outright hostility to capitalism should be the watchword here.