Political Discussions And Ranting Thread

[Ulitzer95 12,967]

5 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

Not really, just adds to his list of crimes, ha!

 

Remember this is the man and the party that criticises Scotland for the number of drug deaths, while retaining all of the powers that would tackle the numbers - and refuses to anything about it.

 

Yeah, times have changed. Years ago folk would have welcomed the deaths of drug users, and many still do - get the scum off our streets they would have cried. Now, it's a legitimate health issue, now weaponised by the Tories - led by a drug snorting serial adulterer, yad yada yada.

 

But you miss the point. My point wasn't about that - it's a fact which folk would have jeered years ago. Any answers on the actual policies this bunch are following? Any praise in response to my actual point?

I have no interest in debating someone on the internet about social policy. I'm not going to change your opinion on that as you've made it clear time and again that your loyalties lie with the Scottish nationalists. You are however being disingenuous by saying WM retains "all of the powers" to tackle drug death numbers. News to me that healthcare and policing are reserved matters?

My point is you're starting to sound like a Daily Mail journo when you use recreational drug use during uni/early professional career, or indeed "adultery" in ones personal life to critique the credibility of someone you don't agree with. Let's be honest, if anyone wants to criticise Johnson/Starmer/Sturgeon, there's plenty of juicy material to indulge in without resorting to ridiculing their private lives.

 

[Ulitzer95 12,967]

3 minutes ago, msc said:

 

Actually, I would say its a mark against him because its shows he's a hypocrite. Him, Gove, all those types. They enjoyed their time with substances, so they know its a useless policy as you note, yet they continue to enforce it on others, mostly poorer folk. 

 

Overdoing the booze and fags is far more dangerous to most people than several of the drugs banned. And the painkillers that are the real big killer are all legal! You could legalise weed for example, tax it heavily, and people would still get it cheaper and safer quality than they do at the moment. 

 

But at this point, this is a footnote to a footnote! 

Potentially, depending on how you look at it, because the decriminalisation or even reclassification of illicit substances has barely been discussed in Parliament in recent times. It's something that needs to be addressed. If it was, and in said discussion they took a hardline stance supporting criminalisation, I'd agree that would be pure hypocrisy.

[YoungWillz 21,318]

4 minutes ago, Ulitzer95 said:

I have no interest in debating someone on the internet about social policy. I'm not going to change your opinion on that as you've made it clear time and again that your loyalties lie with the Scottish nationalists. You are however being disingenuous by saying WM retains "all of the powers" to tackle drug death numbers. News to me that healthcare and policing are reserved matters?

My point is you're starting to sound like a Daily Mail journo when you use recreational drug use during uni/early professional career, or indeed "adultery" in ones personal life to critique the credibility of someone you don't agree with. Let's be honest, if anyone wants to criticise Johnson/Starmer/Sturgeon, there's plenty of juicy material to indulge in without resorting to ridiculing their private lives.

 

So no answer? 

 

Again, you concentrate on my exact point about changed times - on which we are agreed I'd say. No point in trying to start a fight with someone who agrees with you.

 

I'm not about debate - I welcome opposing points of view, it may help me understand why people vote for this man and his party. Possibly the shite they were up against in 2019 helped of course. But anyone who actually thinks he's a PM in control, across the detail of issues, a statesman, a leader, yada yada yada - I'd love to hear it.

 

Kermit? Ancient Greek? The use of the word "hecatomb" on Andrew Marr's show? I don't understand.

 

 

[YoungWillz 21,318]

49 minutes ago, msc said:

 

Actually, I would say its a mark against him because its shows he's a hypocrite. Him, Gove, all those types. They enjoyed their time with substances, so they know its a useless policy as you note, yet they continue to enforce it on others, mostly poorer folk.  

Drugs Act is seriously out of date.

 

But it continues to be enforced heavily against users. Now I don't know enough about the "county lines" issues they are experiencing down South, but it's still a lock 'em up or treat them from time to time policy. So they are hypocrites. Healthcare isn't being given the priority here (although the Drugs Courts up here help a little).

 

You can't occasionally treat overdoses and send them out onto the street again. And you can't lock them up anymore as the drugs problem within the prison sytem actually ends up with more users coming out.

 

And yet they sit on their hands...

[En Passant 3,761]

Two things I've never really got my head around. Perhaps partly because finding unbiased information is somewhat difficult.

 

Given that drugs seem to be responsible in one way or another for a huge percentage of crime figures. Why hasn't anywhere really tried legalising and taxing them and spending the tax treating addicts that can't cope. It's been suggested numerous times, but nowhere major ever tried it. Must be a reason.

Got more of an idea with this one, but why do first world countries always have to be at war with someone? America in particular wonders why everyone hates them, but can't keep their fingers out of other peoples business. Just never go to war in the gulf, never go to Afghanistan. If you don't mess in these places, there won't be the terror to wage war on. The humanitarian thing just doesn't wash, there are plenty of other places they just let them get on with it. We, first world, may not like the 'abuses' in Afghanistan (I certainly don't) but it's not 'our' country, it's theirs.

 

Simplistic I know, and too lazy to nuance it up properly. Would also be pages long. But in general, I really think 'mankind' in general could do better. 

[Ulitzer95 12,967]

1 hour ago, YoungWillz said:

So no answer? 

 

Again, you concentrate on my exact point about changed times - on which we are agreed I'd say. No point in trying to start a fight with someone who agrees with you.

 

I'm not about debate - I welcome opposing points of view, it may help me understand why people vote for this man and his party. Possibly the shite they were up against in 2019 helped of course. But anyone who actually thinks he's a PM in control, across the detail of issues, a statesman, a leader, yada yada yada - I'd love to hear it.

 

Kermit? Ancient Greek? The use of the word "hecatomb" on Andrew Marr's show? I don't understand.

 

 

You’ll never come to understand that, nor will you succeed in getting anyone to speak openly about it when your first point of interaction on a forum whenever politics is concerned is to slag off said party, it’s leaders, it’s policies and it’s supporters.

As I said, I’m not indulging in this. Likewise, if I’m chapping on doors, I don’t waste my time trying to encourage ppl to vote one way if they’re dogmatically endorsed in hating your brand. You move on and talk to the floating voters and soft Lab/Libs next door.
 

The next GE is in May 2023 (not official yet but briefed behind closed doors). The Conservatives, despite not doing the best job under Johnson, are on course for a 5th consecutive victory. Labour are unelectable. Still too busy with their civil war, whilst the only soundbites of theirs that are getting coverage are when they’re telling the population how to think, how to act, how to feel. Particularly when it concerns issues surrounding race and gender identity – which hardly any cunt outside of the M25 gives two fucks about. 

Normally I’d tell you the Conservatives are the stronger choice because they’re libertarian, low tax, entrepreneurial, more economically sound, believe in self responsibility etc etc but I don’t think any of these labels apply now. The Tory Party of 2021 is barely recognisable to what it was in 2015, and I personally don’t believe it’s as strong – be that it’s leader or policies. The only reason they are going to continue to win is because of how bad the alternatives are. Likewise in Wales and Scotland, Welsh Lab and the SNP will continue to win as the respective oppositions are failing to pierce through.

 

We are in a period of maintaining the status quo for a while to come yet, so there will be loads more for you to rant about YW

[msc 18,599]

4 minutes ago, En Passant said:

Two things I've never really got my head around. Perhaps partly because finding unbiased information is somewhat difficult.

 

Given that drugs seem to be responsible in one way or another for a huge percentage of crime figures. Why hasn't anywhere really tried legalising and taxing them and spending the tax treating addicts that can't cope. It's been suggested numerous times, but nowhere major ever tried it. Must be a reason.

Got more of an idea with this one, but why do first world countries always have to be at war with someone? America in particular wonders why everyone hates them, but can't keep their fingers out of other peoples business. Just never go to war in the gulf, never go to Afghanistan. If you don't mess in these places, there won't be the terror to wage war on. The humanitarian thing just doesn't wash, there are plenty of other places they just let them get on with it. We, first world, may not like the 'abuses' in Afghanistan (I certainly don't) but it's not 'our' country, it's theirs.

 

Simplistic I know, and too lazy to nuance it up properly. Would also be pages long. But in general, I really think 'mankind' in general could do better. 

 

Well tbh if I could answer why world leaders seem addicted to permanent war I'd be in a far more lucrative job...

 

As for drugs, however, I suspect the reason they were banned in the first place is still relevant. (No, not because they were harmful, but because a bunch of influential rich tobacco and booze manufacturers bribed the government about a century ago to change the law to outlaw some competition!) It makes sense to legalise them on crime, social, medical, and economic grounds.

 

Also, while I'm making a rare political post, feel free to quote this mockingly in 2023, but as it stands, I think the Tories are in more danger than they think they are for the next election. If they are down 10 points in seats won in 2019 (latest YouGov, plus some of the locals in May - which were made up as it was still an increase on 2016-17 local Tory vote) and haemorrhaging voters in the Southern seats which have a Liberal in 2nd place (local elections again in those regions saw some surprising Lib gains off the Tories, the Chesham and Amersham byelection) then they are already in a spot where it could be a very small majority or hung parliament as it stands WITHOUT Labour having made much recovery from 2019 yet. 18 months is a long time to go, 2 Winters in between, and my gut feeling is we're currently at the best news is going to be for some time now. (Alas, as believe it or not, I'd like the government to improve the economy and do great - their failure is our problem after all.)

[YoungWillz 21,318]

1 minute ago, Ulitzer95 said:

You’ll never come to understand that, nor will you succeed in getting anyone to speak openly about it when your first point of interaction on a forum whenever politics is concerned is to slag off said party, it’s leaders, it’s policies and it’s supporters.

As I said, I’m not indulging in this. Likewise, if I’m chapping on doors, I don’t waste my time trying to encourage ppl to vote one way if they’re dogmatically endorsed in hating your brand. You move on and talk to the floating voters and soft Lab/Libs next door.
 

The next GE is in May 2023 (not official yet but briefed behind closed doors). The Conservatives, despite not doing the best job under Johnson, are on course for a 5th consecutive victory. Labour are unelectable. Still too busy with their civil war, whilst the only soundbites of theirs that are getting coverage are when they’re telling the population how to think, how to act, how to feel. Particularly when it concerns issues surrounding race and gender identity – which hardly any cunt outside of the M25 gives two fucks about. 

Normally I’d tell you the Conservatives are the stronger choice because they’re libertarian, low tax, entrepreneurial, more economically sound, believe in self responsibility etc etc but I don’t think any of these labels apply now. The Tory Party of 2021 is barely recognisable to what it was in 2015, and I personally don’t believe it’s as strong – be that it’s leader or policies. The only reason they are going to continue to win is because of how bad the alternatives are. Likewise in Wales and Scotland, Welsh Lab and the SNP will continue to win as the respective oppositions are failing to pierce through.

 

We are in a period of maintaining the status quo for a while to come yet, so there will be loads more for you to rant about YW

Well

 

a) I'd have thought it nonsense not to try and change folks' minds - isn't that politics? I slag everyone off - you've not been paying attention, lol.

 

b) In the words of Mr Mackey, all politicians are bad, mkay? 

 

c) Yeah, both main parties seem to have abandoned what they would traditionally be seen as. I'd say Labour abandoned their stance a long time ago - difficult to see what they actually do stand for, imo.  It will be interesting if folk stick with the Tories, despite them being shafted on food, petrol, free trade, Christmas, tax hikes, jobs etc etc.

 

d) Do I rant? Rarely these days, I stick up a post of a feeling at the time when occasion allows. And that is open to opposition. Yet, sometimes that is continually dismissed as Nationalism - again, you've not been listening. Dismissing points and deflecting onto the character of a politician and talking about anything else seems to be de rigeur. But I do listen, and I can see a vague reason why folk would vote if they vote at all for the Tories - but I'm still baffled why folk would have a definite positive vote for anyone these days. 

 

e) see b) 

[Ulitzer95 12,967]

2 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

d) Do I rant? Rarely these days, I stick up a post of a feeling at the time when occasion allows. And that is open to opposition. Yet, sometimes that is continually dismissed as Nationalism - again, you've not been listening. Dismissing points and deflecting onto the character of a politician and talking about anything else seems to be de rigeur. But I do listen, and I can see a vague reason why folk would vote if they vote at all for the Tories - but I'm still baffled why folk would have a definite positive vote for anyone these days. 

 

They don’t, and that’s something we can both agree on!

 

Now say something mean about Nicola 

[En Passant 3,761]

1 hour ago, msc said:

Well tbh if I could answer why world leaders seem addicted to permanent war I'd be in a far more lucrative job...

 

As for drugs, however, I suspect the reason they were banned in the first place is still relevant. (No, not because they were harmful, but because a bunch of influential rich tobacco and booze manufacturers bribed the government about a century ago to change the law to outlaw some competition!) It makes sense to legalise them on crime, social, medical, and economic grounds.

 

I suspect the reason for the wars is the same as you suspect for drugs. Arms manufacturers, money, political contributions and the revolving door (of political office and company directorships).

I suppose neither will change whilst the populace isn't given the truth. Hence my opening statement that finding the facts is actually quite tricky, they don't want us to have the facts it'll hurt their bottom line.

No major news organisation tries to mount a concerted attack on any of this either, they do the occasional sniping from the side-lines to maintain the fiction of editorial freedom but never really go at it. Owned by rich people. 

The BBC though....hm. Too tied up with the politicians in a different fight I guess.

 

Simplistic, and maybe I'm just too stupid. Ah well.

[YoungWillz 21,318]

Just now, Ulitzer95 said:

They don’t, and that’s something we can both agree on!

 

Now say something mean about Nicola 

Lost their way in my opinion.

 

They are spending a lot of time exhorting the benefits of Scotland while not actually seeming to be on the arc of improvement in people's lives. Yes, they are spending a lot of money fending off Westminster shite, but I see little in the way of taking control of what they do have, and making things much better all round. Think they have done all they can, ideas seem scarce except for the big one of Independence (shock horror, imagine them standing for that!). I'm still of the opinion a federal UK would be much better, allowing the countries to govern themselves - why not aim for that at the very least as a first step? They should push for that, especially as it looks like the more autonomous regions of England are doing better on the deal.

 

There's been some real shockers (on education and the Glesca hospital, Ferrier's trip north). But it's difficult to criticise Sturgeon as a person or an international figure.

 

They will remain in power, however. Have you seen Douglas "three jobs" Ross?  Or the millionaire Labour leader Sarwar? 

[msc 18,599]

55 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

I suspect the reason for the wars is the same as you suspect for drugs. Arms manufacturers, money, political contributions and the revolving door (of political office and company directorships).

I suppose neither will change whilst the populace isn't given the truth. Hence my opening statement that finding the facts is actually quite tricky, they don't want us to have the facts it'll hurt their bottom line.

No major news organisation tries to mount a concerted attack on any of this either, they do the occasional sniping from the side-lines to maintain the fiction of editorial freedom but never really go at it. Owned by rich people. 

The BBC though....hm. Too tied up with the politicians in a different fight I guess.

 

Simplistic, and maybe I'm just to stupid. Ah well.

 

Nah I think you're on to something there. Bill Hicks died far too young and a fair bunch of his comedy is dated due to that fact he never got to age - but his summary of US foreign policy being like the bad guy in Shane was funny and quite apt. "Pick up the gun.... you all saw him, he had a gun!"

 

Jimmy Carter was once asked what he thought his finest achievement as President was and he said it was not sending American troops into a war., btw.

 

The BBC is a fantastic TV making company but its been buggered at the top by Blair and then the current lot for political gain time and time again, and its been more and more evident in their news output as the years go on. 

 

55 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

Lost their way in my opinion.

 

They are spending a lot of time exhorting the benefits of Scotland while not actually seeming to be on the arc of improvement in people's lives. Yes, they are spending a lot of money fending off Westminster shite, but I see little in the way of taking control of what they do have, and making things much better all round. Think they have done all they can, ideas seem scarce except for the big one of Independence (shock horror, imagine them standing for that!). I'm still of the opinion a federal UK would be much better, allowing the countries to govern themselves - why not aim for that at the very least as a first step? They should push for that, especially as it looks like the more autonomous regions of England are doing better on the deal.

 

There's been some real shockers (on education and the Glesca hospital, Ferrier's trip north). But it's difficult to criticise Sturgeon as a person or an international figure.

 

They will remain in power, however. Have you seen Douglas "three jobs" Ross?  Or the millionaire Labour leader Sarwar? 

 

Actually, round here Nicola is equivalent to a living God in some quarters, but I've never recalled the Nats being this unpopular round here before. A lot of the stickers have come down, and people are fucked off (rightly) by the poor council services like the bin pick ups and so on. Independence is grand and all that, but maybe show you can run the country first? (SNP, not you specifically, Willz!)

 

Any local could have told them the Southern was a shite hospital and no gloss over could sort that out. The Western was a far better hospital and it got demolished for a quick saving. And aye, I was on the Devo Max train in 2014 and think if David Cameron had actually listened to Gordon Brown (ever?) things would be in a much better position now. 

 

Anyhow, it's no all bad. The Wings over Scotland chap has fucked off. 

[En Passant 3,761]

9 minutes ago, msc said:

his summary of US foreign policy being like the bad guy in Shane was funny and quite apt. "Pick up the gun.... you all saw him, he had a gun!"

 

Ah yes, a vague recollection of this, Jack Palance. Pretty sure there was something in the same set about gingham dresses..."I don't even know what 'gingham' is" and so on.  

I also recall without looking it up that it was colon cancer and he was I think 32, started performing aged 16.

Never been a fair world. :S

[TQR 14,481]

Raab once again proves he’s as sharp as a marble on BBC Breakfast.

 

I hope I’m not being misogynistic by saying what a stupid bastard the man is.

[TQR 14,481]

So, the Covid Report finds that the UK’s response to the pandemic was the worst public heath failure ever. It’s utterly damning conclusions should mean that Johnson and his government are fucked from arsehole to breakfast, via condemnation to decades in opposition. 
 

Where’s Sir Keith, Leader of the Opposition? Piss balling about in a lorry.
 

 

[YoungWillz 21,318]

Proposals for the redrawing of the electoral map means

 

Scotland to lose 2 MPs

Wales to lose 8 MPs

England to gain 10 MPs.

 

What a surprise.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-58899463

[msc 18,599]

1 hour ago, YoungWillz said:

Proposals for the redrawing of the electoral map means

 

Scotland to lose 2 MPs

Wales to lose 8 MPs

England to gain 10 MPs.

 

What a surprise.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-58899463

 

Hello, Willz, its your old pal Captain Boring here.

 

I'm afraid it's not a surprise as we've known about the electoral register for a few years now. Also, constituency numbers are based around population (roughly 70, 000 potential voters per seat iirc but it goes up and down in some places) and the English have bred far faster than us (and both of our lot more than the Welsh!). London in particular is gaining MPs because the population down there increases at a swift rate. 

 

So its actually nowt to do with shafting the north, and all to do with shagging. Or not enough of it, apparently!

 

 

[YoungWillz 21,318]

7 minutes ago, msc said:

 

Hello, Willz, its your old pal Captain Boring here.

 

I'm afraid it's not a surprise as we've known about the electoral register for a few years now. Also, constituency numbers are based around population (roughly 70, 000 potential voters per seat iirc but it goes up and down in some places) and the English have bred far faster than us (and both of our lot more than the Welsh!). London in particular is gaining MPs because the population down there increases at a swift rate. 

 

So its actually nowt to do with shafting the north, and all to do with shagging. Or not enough of it, apparently!

 

 

Geographically though, it is a disadvantage. Some MPs up here have to travel miles to see constituents. But I just threw the bomb on the thread as usual. 

 

But hey, people are stupid, something our beloved Westminster rulers have been exploiting for years. And any diminishing of Scotland's voice will just be added to grievance and exploited by the SNP, regardless of any good reason.

 

Of course, it may have to do with birth rate, but also the sucking of investment and opportunity to the south east for decades - more people live there as a result. Maybe it will allow a few more St George Cross flags to be added to Boris' bunting next time he throws it over Downing Street. 

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,906]

Both cunts but still funny none the less

[Bibliogryphon 9,666]

3 hours ago, DCI Frank Burnside said:

Both cunts but still funny none the less

The enemy of my enemy are both twats

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,391]

6 hours ago, msc said:

 

Hello, Willz, its your old pal Captain Boring here.

 

I'm afraid it's not a surprise as we've known about the electoral register for a few years now. Also, constituency numbers are based around population (roughly 70, 000 potential voters per seat iirc but it goes up and down in some places) and the English have bred far faster than us (and both of our lot more than the Welsh!). London in particular is gaining MPs because the population down there increases at a swift rate. 

 

So its actually nowt to do with shafting the north, and all to do with shagging. Or not enough of it, apparently!

 

 

Did you do that deliberately? You know shagging is my favourite  word!

[Windsor 2,243]

On 14/10/2021 at 17:04, YoungWillz said:

Proposals for the redrawing of the electoral map means

 

Scotland to lose 2 MPs

Wales to lose 8 MPs

England to gain 10 MPs.

 

What a surprise.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-58899463

 

Awww poor Scotland. We are so hard done by with all that per head of population representation at Westminster and our own 'Parliament' in Edinburgh. We are just so oppressed with all this representation and free shit to bribe us in the short term.

 

Its about time Westminster showed the nationalist scum what real oppression is. 

[Ulitzer95 12,967]

Sturgeon was on the telly this morning claiming that 97% of electricity in Scotland is directly sourced from renewables?! Honestly, if I had a quid for every time a lie dropped out her mouth…

 

[Ulitzer95 12,967]

Several special elections held in the States whilst we slept here in Blighty last night.

The Republicans have gained the office of Governor in Virginia (as predicted), and New Jersey still isn't declared but it's neck and neck! New Jersey!? 

Likely the Dems will still hold on. 88% of the count is in, and the remaining votes are likely inner city areas(?), but the fact that it has come so close surely spells some real trouble for Biden–Harris looking ahead to 2024?

[Death Impends 8,088]

I live in NJ and am pretty gobsmacked, the gov is a reasonably competent incumbent and those guys usually don't struggle to hold on, especially if the state is already heavily leaning in their political favor. Does seem he will eke it out but it takes me back to the various House specials of the Trump era where R candidates in safe R seats ultimately won, but far more closely than there was any right to be.

 

Even though we already knew it, fully cements 2022 is going to be a bloodbath for the Dems. And even though I hate the Repubs even more, I don't have any real pity for the Dems. "Trump bad!" messaging when the guy's no longer in office just won't distract from the fact Dems have done sod all since taking power.