UK General Election 2017

[Beskar]

Looks like it is going to go down again. Theresa May is throwing down the gauntlet, and if it passes parliament, we are onboard for a general election. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-39628713

Let's start debating who has the best policies, the best outcome for the country and the political gains and losses foreseen.

[Greyblades]

Labour is dead, SNP corraled, UKIP irrelevant, Lib dem shackled to a lost cause.

Without a split the Conservative victory is guaranteed. With the opposition as they are; it's hard to say they shouldnt win.

[Beskar]

I think the snap election is due to current investigation where Election Expenses Fraud is looking to result in the need of 23 narrow-margin Conservative seats to be re-elected.

A new general election with the government on the offensive would give a far better result than being on the defensive in by-elections as a result of election fraud and losing their majority.

[Strike For The South]

ABSOLUTE MADMAN

[Crandar]

Voted for Corbyn, in the sense that he's slightly, slightly closer to my beliefs than the rest of the circus.
Like in the rest of W. Europe, there is no equivalent to CPG, the party I vote in Greece.

At least, Corbyn seems to like Hezbollah and Syria.

EDIT: What's up with that Paul Nuttall guy? Is he more or less charismatic than his populist predecessor?

[Beskar]

EDIT: What's up with that Paul Nuttall guy? Is he more or less charismatic than his populist predecessor?

Less charismatic and known for his Paul Nuttall facts, such as being present at the Moon Landings. He invents things about his background to try to influence the electorate and got caught up big time with Hillsborough.

UKIP as a party is pretty dead. The voters will probably move Conservative if Brexit is still their key issue.

[Fragony]

Going to be interesting. Off course UKIP is dead they were a single issue party and they succeeded gloriously at what they wanted, Theresa May might, she is a very sensible person I think, she never wanted a Brexit but listens.

[Beskar]

There are three predicted outcomes.

De facto one-party state by the Conservative party. (Overwhelming Victory)
Conservative Majority (Victory)
Conservative Minority (Pyrrhic Victory)

Significantly less likely:
Coalition Government (/w Conservatives)
Coalition Goverment (/wo Conservatives)
Labour Minority.
Labour & SNP Majority.

[Greyblades]

Personally I want a split, none of the other parties represent my interests and with the conservative whole I have to take thier good with thier bad.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm guessing their is no chance of a Sinn Fein majority?

[Beskar]

I find this to be a handy guide when it comes to deciding if you should be voting Conservative or not.

https://i.imgur.com/dfjn8oN.jpg

[Elmetiacos]

Clearly it's Erdoğan's victory in the rigged election to become Führer that's inspired this unabashed power grab.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am willing to bet against Erdogan winning a seat in England's parliament.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I find this to be a handy guide when it comes to deciding if you should be voting Conservative or not.

https://i.imgur.com/dfjn8oN.jpg

Oh that's not in-appropriate at all.

I'm torn.

Tim Farron is a Div, if Clegg was still in charge I'd go Lib Dem but he's not.

I pine for the Liberal Party.

[Furunculus]

How much has Scotland to do with it? Not much. It will certainly be handy if it ends up SNP 48 (<11), Labour 8 (>7), Lib-Dems 3 (>2), Tory 1 (NC), when brexit finalises and talk of indyref 2.0 comes aroun.

Mainly it is about securing May a mandate to negotiate brexit, not subject to the tory nutters and the remain nutters.
The biggest threat a decent brexit (soft), is the chaos in the british political system as it pulls the gov't one way or another. The eu will prefer it too, having a stable negotiating party on the other side of the table. It also gives May the political capital she'll need to spend in order to make compromises.

Does "soft" mean EEA/Efta? No, that is the Remain mistake in seeking easy answers, just as the tory nutters want a 'clean break', because it's simple. It isn't a simple problem, and it will require clear heads and good will to get it right. Soft brexit means strong an enduring links to the EU post brexit, not EEA/Efta per-se. But that doesn't mean being a rule taker (in the vernancular of the debate), under the judicial activism of the ECJ. It means sectoral jurisdiction and equivalence in regulatory regimes.

The final point is that it will persuade the numerous EU parties (commision/council/parliament/national-gov't) that brexit is happening, and so persuade them them to look for the best deal. As long as half the stakeholders think britain can be brought round with some tough talk, they have little incentive to bargain honestly. Not just chaos on the british side, but the EU side too. A 100 seat majority won on the letter she sent to tusk last month will quieten the lunatics on both sides.

The quiet threat that doing us over will lead to singapore-on-steroids, is useful. Not to be made again publicly, but clearly understood. We saw exactly how fruitful cameron's renegotiation was when he started it with a promise to campaign for in:
C - So, we'd like a new deal, what can we do?
E - Well.... you can have this.
C - That's not very good, we can do better than that, surely!
E - Why do we care? You're campaigning to stay in, why would we make it more attractive for you to stay out?
C - Oh. :(
Pretty sure that's not in trump's book: The Art of the Deal! :D
So, hardball this time. With a smile.
And the result will almost certainly be a softer brexit than might otherwise be the case.
Sadly, remainers don't really get this point; still lost in a deeply personal grief.

[Beskar]

I think the snap election is due to current investigation where Election Expenses Fraud is looking to result in the need of 23 narrow-margin Conservative seats to be re-elected.

A new general election with the government on the offensive would give a far better result than being on the defensive in by-elections as a result of election fraud and losing their majority.

Looks like I am not the only one who thought this...
https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/04/claims-may-called-an-election-to-escape-tory-expenses-scandal/#more-63131

and Independent did an article on it too
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-election-fraud-prosecutions-cps-election-campaign-result-overturn-battle-bus-a7689801.html

[Elmetiacos]

I am willing to bet against Erdogan winning a seat in England's parliament.
Me too, seeing as England doesn't have a parliament.

[Fragony]

Clearly it's Erdoğan's victory in the rigged election to become Führer that's inspired this unabashed power grab.

Odd comparison, Maymight doesn't need to rig anything, most Brits voted against somethingshe doesn't even supports herself but does anyway. I higly respect her for doing that. Erdogan is a rabid madman and a spitefull bully, Theresa May someone you can talk with.

[Elmetiacos]

...although you won't come away any better informed than when you started.

[Fragony]

...although you won't come away any better informed than when you started.

You won't be in jail either because you are thought to be a Corbyn supporter, it's all fair game (or as good as it gets of course). Agreing to disagree is a very good thing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No Gah option.

[rory_20_uk]

If Corbyn was in power, he'd have the country insolvent in under 5 years.

If a country runs a budget surplus and therefore doesn't need to go cap in hand to the markets for money then they can do what they like.

Corbyn would be requiring vast amounts of money for the number of projects he would want to kick off and unless he decides to print money he'll have to borrow money from the very system he's so against. And before long we'd be following Venezuela with a collapsing currency, industry and brain drain.

Lib Dems haven't got enough experienced candidates in-house to even fill the front bench.
SNP don't care about anything bar Scotland.

The line up is so dreadful that the only candidate who has an outside chance of managing the country is the Conservatives Oh yes they are so nasty. It reminds me of an analagy where a household of two parents and two young children where each parent runs the household on alternate 6 months. The first one goes crazy with the plastic, buys loads of toys, gets a car on credit and takes a loan for downpayment on an extension. The other parent then comes in and sees that all the money has gone and there's no way to even cover the current liabilities. So things are taken away.

The children of course love the first kind parent and hate the second mean, nasty one. Because they are unable to understand how the former has caused most of the issues.

Which is not to say the Conservatives might be "nasty" anyway, but as things stand we have the earlier spending binge to "thank"

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

The line up is so dreadful that the only candidate who has an outside chance of managing the country is the Conservatives Oh yes they are so nasty. It reminds me of an analagy where a household of two parents and two young children where each parent runs the household on alternate 6 months. The first one goes crazy with the plastic, buys loads of toys, gets a car on credit and takes a loan for downpayment on an extension. The other parent then comes in and sees that all the money has gone and there's no way to even cover the current liabilities. So things are taken away.

The children of course love the first kind parent and hate the second mean, nasty one. Because they are unable to understand how the former has caused most of the issues.

Which is not to say the Conservatives might be "nasty" anyway, but as things stand we have the earlier spending binge to "thank"

But you forget an important part in your analogy.
Parent one - over invests in the household. Put the patio on credit card, and so on. Making improvements to the house. Invests in the children with hiring tutors to help with their education and giving multi-vitamins and sports clubs so they will grow up healthy.

Unfortunately, there is a disaster in the street. All the households are affected greatly by this. Parent two said they have the solution to the problems, by cutting down on household spending to get through the hard times. Even though Parent one recognised this themselves, Parent two is far more brutal. During the first months, the family friend helped keep Parent two in check, but after accusations of an affair, family friend is no longer around and Parent two is in full control.

Parent two decides to stop everything. Pocket money is not increasing for the kids, in fact, it is cut. The tutors are stopped, the sports clubs are stopped, the multivitamins are stopped. We are all in this together, hard times. The months turn into years, the household is not recovering, in fact it is in even more debt! The car is being sold off to the local taxi service, who charges per use, instead of a cheap flat-rate. Parent two is often spending money income the pub, and giving gifts to their friends at the expense of the others in the househouse. During a local housing community meeting, Parent Two sticks their fingers up at the other households, going, "better without you lot!". Grandparents are now homeless, and 'bed-blocking' hospitals as Parent Two decided to sell their house and not replace it. Parent Two makes promises which cannot keep, constantly lying and making u-turns on policy. Parent Two is also rather abusive to the children too.

So yes, 'Parent Two' is the nasty one for taking the toys away indeed. Nothing about being selfish-toff who took away the toys for beer money to go out drinking with the 'lads' instead. I guess getting those round of pints at the pub as one of the 'lads' looks sweeter when you are not one of the 'children'.

[Beskar]

I know PFH once disliked my negative view of those choosing not to participate in voting then complain about the government we get, but this picture explains in a nice visual way:

https://i.imgur.com/aLJw3BE.jpg

[rory_20_uk]

So... Tomy and his mates didn't give his rich mates a load of money from PFI deals that have in some cases bankrupted hospitals.

Unforseen? Hilarious! Perhaps only to Brown who after a few years on the job declares boom and bust over - so yes he didn't forsee the problem because he willfully refused to look for it.

Tutors? Os that an analogy for trying to get everyone in to Uni (which between scrapping grants and introducing fees costs a fortune)? Companies not thrilled about the extra skills, mainly howling about how the "skills" they have at the end of the degrees are almost useless.
You don't need vitamin tablets to grow up healthy. They do cost a lot though.

Bed blocking was around for some time - you remember? Back when hospitals were lumbered with loads of debt from the PFI schemes they were forced to have? Present then as well. And before.

Tony didn't sort out the lack of Council houses either. There should have been loads given he had over a decade. I guess wars abroad were more important.

Selfish toff? Oh - Blair, Milliband and most of the others were oh so poor. Are we forgetting Miliband's video where he was portrayed in the au pair's kitchen? Very much one of the people - who have million pound houses.
Whilst we're on it... Where did they all go University and school? What's that again? Oxford? PPE? Oh yes! Just like the Conservatives! And the current leader of Labour and the Conservative both went to Grammar schools.

Amazing how much of what Labour has done has been magically airbrushed out. All that seems to remain is the debt and blaming others.

~:smoking:

[Elmetiacos]

So you're attacking Labour for being too left wing and when counter points are raised you attack Labour for being too right wing?

[Beskar]

Apparently this is being shared around. A spreadsheet of "Progressive Alliance" (Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Greens, etc) recommending who to vote for if you want the Tories out. So it highlights who is in 2nd place to the Conservatives, recommending to vote in that direction in their held seats, and what seats are currently held by what party.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/19_yf4RL133fBKscvSbID4eRKwztzY9KSI_2BMaI1bU8/pubhtml

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So you're attacking Labour for being too left wing and when counter points are raised you attack Labour for being too right wing?

5-6 more elections under those conditions and you lot can generate your own Donald Trump.

[rory_20_uk]

So you're attacking Labour for being too left wing and when counter points are raised you attack Labour for being too right wing?

It might startle you to learn that the terms "left wing" and "right wing" are rather broad brush strokes.

Merely that the leaders are equally wealthy elitists from the same place means it is hard to blame the Conservatives alone for this.

I don't think anyone would deny when last in power Labour spent vast sums of money during the boom years and saved little / none for the bad years since they had "cured" it.

Perhaps it is better to say that one side is full of elitist cronies from a wealthy background who further the business interests of their friends, as are the other lot but also like to create a much larger national debt since there is the belief they will somehow get a return on the spending.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am struck by how "Yuppie" Beskar's analogy is, a new patio, multi-vitamins, tutors, sports clubs.

All things most people either can't afford or wouldn't waste money on.

[Idaho]

I know PFH once disliked my negative view of those choosing not to participate in voting then complain about the government we get, but this picture explains in a nice visual way:

https://i.imgur.com/aLJw3BE.jpg

Have you heard of the central limit theory of statistics?

[Beskar]

I am struck by how "Yuppie" Beskar's analogy is, a new patio, multi-vitamins, tutors, sports clubs.

All things most people either can't afford or wouldn't waste money on.

It was a bad analogy example, I had to work within my limits. Clearly Tutor is "Education", "Pills" being NHS, Patio being Infrastructure. etc.

As for something punny.
https://i.imgur.com/fBDlU1X.jpg

[Beskar]

Tories plan VAT tax bombshell after election - hitting struggling families with financial blow
Chancellor Philip Hammond signalled he would drop the party’s 2015 manifesto pledge not to raise VAT, income tax or national insurance contributions.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-plan-vat-tax-bombshell-10272034#



Looks like it isn't just the 'evil Lefties' planning on raising taxes. Though at least they said about raising it on the rich, and not the poor.

[Idaho]

Keynesian economics are back in favour, even with the right :

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-10/keynesian-economics-is-hot-again

[Strike For The South]

Some form of Keynesian economics were part of all centralized states since time immeroial. In the mid 70s some crazy New York bankers came up with deregulation and eventually got a hold of Reagan and now we have Sam Brownback

this is Americas fault.

[edyzmedieval]

I'm not fully knowlegdeable on the cause, so someone please do a quick info note for me - why is Labour not doing ideal in polls right now?

The Tories are running away with it at this moment.

[Pannonian]

I'm not fully knowlegdeable on the cause, so someone please do a quick info note for me - why is Labour not doing ideal in polls right now?

The Tories are running away with it at this moment.

Take yer pick. Think of all the possible reasons why a mainstream left wing party may do badly, and every one of those reasons is applicable. The Tory press haven't even begun work on the Labour leader's past yet, as the Tories want to play up the threat of a Labour win in order to get their vote out.

[Furunculus]

john curtice is saying 12 tory seats in scotland. scotland!

this is gonna be an epic smack down.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Tories plan VAT tax bombshell after election - hitting struggling families with financial blow
Chancellor Philip Hammond signalled he would drop the party’s 2015 manifesto pledge not to raise VAT, income tax or national insurance contributions.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-plan-vat-tax-bombshell-10272034#



Looks like it isn't just the 'evil Lefties' planning on raising taxes. Though at least they said about raising it on the rich, and not the poor.

Excuse me, it is generally an error of the Left to assign moral bankruptcy to their political opponents, not the Right. That is why Communists operate Gulags.

Barely anyone every says "evil Lefties".

Anyway, could you have found a less impartial article?

Refusing to raise taxes at all is a foolish commitment, one that bit Hammond on the arse earlier this year when he tried to institute a very modest increase the NI Contributions for the self-employed (who would still have paid less than other workers) to help fund the NHS.

In other news - Jeremy Corbyn shows how out of touch he is with having a normal job:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39682388

General election 2017: Labour plans four new bank holidays

"These holidays will be a chance for workers to spend time with their families, in their communities and with their friends"

Jezza - nobody gets bank holidays off any more, unless they work in the public sector.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Take yer pick. Think of all the possible reasons why a mainstream left wing party may do badly, and every one of those reasons is applicable. The Tory press haven't even begun work on the Labour leader's past yet, as the Tories want to play up the threat of a Labour win in order to get their vote out.

Yes, starting with his three wives - each younger than the last, all very pretty.

Here's something from 1999 about that second divorce and sending Corbyn's son to a Grammar: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/may/16/theobserver.uknews

Ironically, it notes he's unlikely tyo ever have any government post. More to the point, it illustrates that he's rather send his son to a failing school than a Grammar school. To my mind this is an example of principle over a clear practically choice for your nearest kin. In the end he absented himself from responsibility by separating from his wife and leaving her to make the decision alone - which smacks a little of moral cowardice.

[Montmorency]

Barely anyone every says "evil Lefties".

A popular, if not overwhelming, sentiment among the American right. I suspect you downplay its currency in the UK.


Jezza - nobody gets bank holidays off any more, unless they work in the public sector.

Jezza? He's not Australian.

[Montmorency]

In fact, have a representative right-wing comment (https://ijr.com/discuss/posts/841803/stunningly-detailed-2016-election-map-just-released-democrats-scared-scared/):


What trends led to Democrats defeat? Well let's see, they hate God, babies, the constitution, law and order, all of our traditions, the traditional family, our flag, which they frequently burn and defecate on while flying the flags of foreign nations, freedom of speech, unless they approve of it, our founding father's, our history, which they frequently rewrite to exclude all the good that led to what we are today in favor of painting everyone and everything as a long list of ism's and phobias. They hate personal responsibility, hard work, integrity, honor and would rather encourage people to call themselves a victim of one thing or another in order to take no responsibility for their own actions and live entirely off the backs of producers, who they also hate. They hate republicans, conservatives, anyone who does not grovel to their horrifying ideology. In short the party that prtends to be tolerant and compassionate has absolutely no tolerance or compassion for the millions and millions and millions they hate.

There is no limit to variations of this sentiment.

[Pannonian]

In fact, have a representative right-wing comment (https://ijr.com/discuss/posts/841803/stunningly-detailed-2016-election-map-just-released-democrats-scared-scared/):

There is no limit to variations of this sentiment.

Looking through that list, I can find examples of nearly all the non-American epithets in Corbyn's history.

they hate God
Few people in the UK care about religion

babies
See what PFH said about Corbyn's son.

the constitution
NA.

law and order
Corbyn has celebrated terrorist attacks in mainland Britain, and associated with terrorist groups.

all of our traditions
?

the traditional family
See PFH's comments about Corbyn's son.

our flag, which they frequently burn and defecate on while flying the flags of foreign nations
Few people in the UK care about the flag except during football tournaments.

freedom of speech, unless they approve of it
No hypocrisy here, although he gets antsy at any remotely difficult questions.

our founding father's
NA.

our history, which they frequently rewrite to exclude all the good that led to what we are today in favor of painting everyone and everything as a long list of ism's and phobias
See Corbyn's version of the Labour party's history, which denies that the last Labour government did any good at all (something not even the Tory party goes as far to disclaim).

They hate personal responsibility, hard work
Corbyn has next to zero experience of real life work, with his last such job being part time journalism when he was still a teenager. He's been in politics since his early 20s.

integrity, honor
Corbyn is notoriously one of the most disloyal MPs in Parliament, having voted against his party over 500 times in his career, including 250+ times during a 2 year stretch at the end of the last Labour government. His supporters have excoriated the non-Corbyn loyalist MPs as disloyal.

and would rather encourage people to call themselves a victim of one thing or another in order to take no responsibility for their own actions
AFAIK Corbyn hasn't said anything on this subject. However, his shadow Home Secretary is notorious for supporting every such cause out there.

and live entirely off the backs of producers, who they also hate
His shadow Chancellor is on record as welcoming economic recession as an opportunity for revolution, and suggesting an increased rate of tax for a top bracket that's half the level paid to Corbyn, who himself says he doesn't think he is rich.

They hate republicans, conservatives, anyone who does not grovel to their horrifying ideology. In short the party that prtends to be tolerant and compassionate has absolutely no tolerance or compassion for the millions and millions and millions they hate.
Probably a bit too US-specific to be applicable.

NB. The list doesn't include trust on defence or economic competence. two key issues in UK politics (especially the latter, which is normally decisive), where he rates far, far lower than his Tory counterparts. Also, the list doesn't accuse the Democrats of supporting Communism. While the stigma in the UK is less than in the US, Corbyn's friends and staff have actually supported Communism, with his chief of staff deemed an extremist by the former leader of the British Communist Party.

[Husar]

It's funny how so many Republicans seem to love hard work and not having healthcare once your body is ruined because your hard work didn't pay well enough to afford private insurance. And it doesn't pay well because all those other Republicans offer to do it for less. :clown:

But yeah, I get it, just send more people to the coal mines and everything will be fine. :rolleyes:

[Beskar]

It's funny how so many Republicans seem to love hard work and not having healthcare once your body is ruined because your hard work didn't pay well enough to afford private insurance. And it doesn't pay well because all those other Republicans offer to do it for less. :clown: But yeah, I get it, just send more people to the coal mines and everything will be fine. :rolleyes:

Don't forget all the people who lost their jobs in the credit crunch and struggled to get meaningful paid work. They were just lazy. They should take personal responsibility and be glad to work for half-below minimum wage delivering Pizza and should appreciate not getting a tip which they need to actually afford the petrol to run the cars since the workplace doesn't cover that. How dare they demand they get a proper wage! That will mean the price of Pizza will go up, to cover the costs of the employees and we cannot be having that.

[Elmetiacos]

It might startle you to learn that the terms "left wing" and "right wing" are rather broad brush strokes.

Merely that the leaders are equally wealthy elitists from the same place means it is hard to blame the Conservatives alone for this.

I don't think anyone would deny when last in power Labour spent vast sums of money during the boom years and saved little / none for the bad years since they had "cured" it.
Corbyn is nothing like as wealthy as the Blairs, that's ridiculous - they are filthy rich with a property portfoilo estimated at between 20 and 30 million pounds. The idea that Labour's overspending caused the international banking crisis was Cameron's party line, but it's crap: the problem was that Labour ran up a debt trying to prevent the recession which Tory cuts produced anyway so we got the worst of both worlds: had the Tories been in power in 2007 to do nothing, or had Labour stayed after 2010 and avoided the recession, things wouldn't have gone down the tubes so quickly.

[Elmetiacos]

Yes, starting with his three wives - each younger than the last, all very pretty.

Here's something from 1999 about that second divorce and sending Corbyn's son to a Grammar: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/may/16/theobserver.uknews
The article actually says that he didn't send his son to a grammar school, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, eh?

[Montmorency]

The article actually says that he didn't send his son to a grammar school, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, eh?

I get to point out that this is indeed what his post is talking about.

[Beskar]

Tony Blair is telling people to vote Lib Dem, or to vote Tory where the candidate is open-minded about Brexit (ie: not hard-liner).

[Pannonian]

Tony Blair is telling people to vote Lib Dem, or to vote Tory where the candidate is open-minded about Brexit (ie: not hard-liner).

The author of Corbyn's manifesto urged people to vote Class War in the last general election. Nope, I hadn't heard of them either. But this is where the Labour party currently is, with its leaders and directors from what used to be known as the far left. Oh, and don't forget that the former leader of the British Communist Party called Corbyn's current chief of staff an extremist. It's quite something when the leader of the Communist party thinks you're too left wing.

[Sarmatian]

I'm gonna have to research Corbyn a bit more. It's fascinating (from afar) how polarizing he appears to be.

[Montmorency]

This began as a different thought, but hey, if the UK embarks on and is encouraged in a policy of deepening the Commonwealth over relations with the rest of the world, can Anglo-Americans ever get a Law of Return?

Maybe it will be introduced when the minorities take over America and enforce white genocide, hence peak decolonization.

(I really got carried away from my original thought)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The article actually says that he didn't send his son to a grammar school, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, eh?

No, HE didn't, his wife did>


By now, they had agreed to separate and that Claudia would have ultimate responsibility for the children. She sent their son to Queen Elizabeth's grammar school, nine miles away in Barnet.


So he got around it by absenting responsibility.

[Strike For The South]

I'm gonna have to research Corbyn a bit more. It's fascinating (from afar) how polarizing he appears to be.

He's a typical bourgeois leftist whom garnered popular support because Britain is only left of the USA in the west.

ho-hum.

[Elmetiacos]

I'm gonna have to research Corbyn a bit more. It's fascinating (from afar) how polarizing he appears to be.
Oh, he's a useless wanker, I freely admit, even though I'll be tactically voting Labour in the election to prevent Theresa Erdoğan's power grab.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, he's a useless wanker, I freely admit, even though I'll be tactically voting Labour in the election to prevent Theresa Erdoğan's power grab.

What happened in Turkey cannot happen in the UK until we become a Republic.

Another reason I refuse to continence Corbyn.

[Sarmatian]

You don't think a head of state can grab power unless the position isn't hereditary?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You don't think a head of state can grab power unless the position isn't hereditary?

The Prime Minister is not Head of State.

The closest we have had is Tony Blair, and his "Sofa Government" was one of the things that made him increasingly unpopular.

No British politician can compete with the Royal Family.

God save the Queen.

[Pannonian]

The Prime Minister is not Head of State.

The closest we have had is Tony Blair, and his "Sofa Government" was one of the things that made him increasingly unpopular.

No British politician can compete with the Royal Family.

God save the Queen.

The polarisation of Brexit, and especially the identification of the government with national interests, has elevated May higher than Blair ever got. Opposition to Blair has never been accused of being unpatriotic. Opposition to May has been accused of undermining Britain's position against the EU (see her stated rationale for calling the election). I don't remember what it was like during Falklands, but Major's government was certainly not identified with the country during GWI, and Blair was never in a war where the country was united behind the cause. May is unique in her position AFAICR.

[Montmorency]

The Prime Minister is not Head of State.

The closest we have had is Tony Blair, and his "Sofa Government" was one of the things that made him increasingly unpopular.

No British politician can compete with the Royal Family.

God save the Queen.

He worded it in a difficult way, but that's what he said, that you believe a non-elected head of state limits the possibility of autocracy in the UK.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He worded it in a difficult way, but that's what he said, that you believe a non-elected head of state limits the possibility of autocracy in the UK.

It is odd to think of the house of Windsor as a bulwark of British Democracy, yet I think I must agree. Just by existing, given the weight of tradition etc., they serve as an impediment to dictatorship.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He worded it in a difficult way, but that's what he said, that you believe a non-elected head of state limits the possibility of autocracy in the UK.

But the Queen has all the power. Theresa May is just a transient minister, albeit the one who (mostly) exercises the Queen's power.


It is odd to think of the house of Windsor as a bulwark of British Democracy, yet I think I must agree. Just by existing, given the weight of tradition etc., they serve as an impediment to dictatorship.

This is not only true in the UK, even the more recent and more autocratic monarchs in Europe made it harder for dictatorship to "bed in" over the long-term.

In the case of both Italy and Romania the nations switched sides during WWI after the monarch/monarchist forces ousted the Fascist government.

The British Royal Family are the best at the "monarchy as democracy" thing though, partly because of long tradition but also partly because they have - since Queen Victoria - cultivated an image as "basically decent people."

The Queen is very popular, and whilst Prince Charles is often made fun of rarely is his character attacked. When it comes his time to be King you will find that the Commonwealth Realms will all accept him, I believe, because any alternative is more uncertain.

[Beskar]

The Queen is very popular, and whilst Prince Charles is often made fun of rarely is his character attacked. When it comes his time to be King you will find that the Commonwealth Realms will all accept him, I believe, because any alternative is more uncertain.

There are calls for William to be next in-line instead, Charles has a number of opponents who would prefer to skip him.

[Gilrandir]

In the case of both Italy and Romania the nations switched sides during WWI after the monarch/monarchist forces ousted the Fascist government.


I saw pictures of a pre-war royal child giving a nazi salute. So she kinda switched sides too.



When it comes his time to be King you will find that the Commonwealth Realms will all accept him, I believe, because any alternative is more uncertain.

The alternative to Charles III might be William V.

[Pannonian]

I saw pictures of a pre-war royal child giving a nazi salute. So she kinda switched sides too.


You're attacking someone for a photo taken when they were a kid?

[Greyblades]

Doubly wrong as the gesture at the time had different connotations to what it has now. As far as many were concerned it was still the roman salute.

[Gilrandir]

You're attacking someone for a photo taken when they were a kid?

Am I attacking anyone? I referred to a universally known fact that at that time it was kinda fashion, infatuation with (at least) outward appanages of German nazism. Many people were "guilty"of this passion and the royal family was not an exception. It proves the fact that no one can deem himself superior to others and taunt their switching sides.


Doubly wrong as the gesture at the time had different connotations to what it has now.
Expound, please.

[Pannonian]

Am I attacking anyone? I referred to a universally known fact that at that time it was kinda fashion, infatuation with (at least) outward appanages of German nazism. Many people were "guilty"of this passion and the royal family was not an exception. It proves the fact that no one can deem himself superior to others and taunt their switching sides.

The British royal family, Edward VIII apart, were clearly enough opposed to Nazi Germany after 1939. Of course, not everyone in Europe were as opposed to the Nazis. Ukraine, for example, were pretty pro-Nazi after 1939.

[Beskar]

Conservatives are so desperate, they are resorting to fake news about Corbyn again. If he is so unelectable, they wouldn't need to invent things, would they?
https://i.imgur.com/dtbQXDG.png

[Pannonian]

What's that from? Ie. what's the source?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

..The Queen is very popular, and whilst Prince Charles is often made fun of rarely is his character attacked. When it comes his time to be King you will find that the Commonwealth Realms will all accept him, I believe, because any alternative is more uncertain.

The only scandals associated with them in the USA are a tendency toward marital infidelity by Charles, Diana, the erstwhile Yorks. Nothing regarding policy misrepresentation or failing in ambassadorial duties is bruited about over here. The Younger set are very well thought of.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Conservatives are so desperate, they are resorting to fake news about Corbyn again. If he is so unelectable, they wouldn't need to invent things, would they?
https://i.imgur.com/dtbQXDG.png

Only Left-wing media publish fake news. Good conservative outlets are simply using alternative facts and reporting those.

[Gilrandir]

The British royal family, Edward VIII apart, were clearly enough opposed to Nazi Germany after 1939. Of course, not everyone in Europe were as opposed to the Nazis. Ukraine, for example, were pretty pro-Nazi after 1939.

If you want to flaunt the UK opposing nazis I showed why you can't do this without reservations. As for Ukraine being pro-Nazi, it is not true.

First of all there was no Ukraine as a separate state in 1939, not until 1991. It is true, though, that the USSR was allied with Germany in 1939, but can Ukraine be considered more pro-Nazi than other 15 (at that time) Soviet republics? I don't think so. The responsibility for entering into alliance with Germany lies on the authorities of the USSR, not on non-existent independent Ukraine. Moreover, shall I remind you of Chamberlain's treachery to Czechoslovakia after hobnobbing with Hitler in Munich in 1938? Can we conclude that Britan was pro-nazi?

It is also true that there were some Ukrainians who welcomed German invasion. Does it make them pro-Nazi? I think this weclome is the reaction to the Soviet regime's policies to the people of Ukraine (and other USSR nations, btw). Were Ukrainians unique in their stance? No. The British can't be said to have suffered from a similar treatment by their own governmnet, but I can remember a picture of some British grocer sporting a sign "business as usual, Mr. Hitler". Can we conclude that Britan was pro-nazi?

So: I understand that you are hurt by any innuendoes that Britain wasn't (always) a lily-white everlasting opponent of Nazis. But the facts show that your stereotype isn't totally correct. As well as another stereotype of Ukraine "being pro-Nazi" after 1939 or in any other time.

[Pannonian]

If you want to flaunt the UK opposing nazis I showed why you can't do this without reservations. As for Ukraine being pro-Nazi, it is not true.

First of all there was no Ukraine as a separate state in 1939, not until 1991. It is true, though, that the USSR was allied with Germany in 1939, but can Ukraine be considered more pro-Nazi than other 15 (at that time) Soviet republics? I don't think so. The responsibility for entering into alliance with Germany lies on the authorities of the USSR, not on non-existent independent Ukraine. Moreover, shall I remind you of Chamberlain's treachery to Czechoslovakia after hobnobbing with Hitler in Munich in 1938? Can we conclude that Britan was pro-nazi?

It is also true that there were some Ukrainians who welcomed German invasion. Does it make them pro-Nazi? I think this weclome is the reaction to the Soviet regime's policies to the people of Ukraine (and other USSR nations, btw). Were Ukrainians unique in their stance? No. The British can't be said to have suffered from a similar treatment by their own governmnet, but I can remember a picture of some British grocer sporting a sign "business as usual, Mr. Hitler". Can we conclude that Britan was pro-nazi?

So: I understand that you are hurt by any innuendoes that Britain wasn't (always) a lily-white everlasting opponent of Nazis. But the facts show that your stereotype isn't totally correct. As well as another stereotype of Ukraine "being pro-Nazi" after 1939 or in any other time.

Ukraine were more pro-Nazi than the royals as a set generally were (eg. Ukrainian concentration camp guards were noted by inmates as particularly brutal). If anything, from George V onwards, the British royals revised their image to more more British than the British, and defined their Britishness as Germanophobia. Which reflected anti-German sentiments in common British society. Pro-Nazi sentiments weren't likely to be popular in Britain, if only because Brits in general hated Germans.

[Montmorency]

Conservatives are so desperate, they are resorting to fake news about Corbyn again. If he is so unelectable, they wouldn't need to invent things, would they?
https://i.imgur.com/dtbQXDG.png

Was that news, or tabloid/Internet mockery?

[Beskar]

Was that news, or tabloid/Internet mockery?

Twitter by Suzan Walsh, Conservative Party Information Officer.

http://evolvepolitics.com/conservative-party-information-officer-caught-circulating-faked-jeremy-corbyn-images-online/
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/04/23/tory-general-election-campaign-strategy-exposed-in-the-absence-of-a-policy-platform-lie-about-the-opposition/
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/04/22/if-corbyn-has-no-chance-why-are-tories-spreading-fakenews-about-him-ge17/
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/04/24/conservative-information-officer-caught-sharing-photoshopped-corbyn-snap-facebook

[Pannonian]

Twitter.

Can you link to the twitter post so we can check it out ourselves? I got hell for citing an Orwell essay without specifically naming it (which I eventually did).

[Husar]

Doubly wrong as the gesture at the time had different connotations to what it has now. As far as many were concerned it was still the roman salute.

Well, the first Reich was the Holy Roman Empire, therefore, same difference. :clown:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Am I attacking anyone? I referred to a universally known fact that at that time it was kinda fashion, infatuation with (at least) outward appanages of German nazism. Many people were "guilty"of this passion and the royal family was not an exception. It proves the fact that no one can deem himself superior to others and taunt their switching sides.

In the period you are referring to, 1933, Hitler was essentially seen as German'y Donald Trump and the video was shot by the Duke of Windsor (boo, hiss!) and he was a bit of a Nazi appeaser because he didn't want another war, and a bit of an idiot.

HM Queen was 7.

[Strike For The South]

In the period you are referring to, 1933, Hitler was essentially seen as German'y Donald Trump and the video was shot by the Duke of Windsor (boo, hiss!) and he was a bit of a Nazi appeaser because he didn't want another war, and a bit of an idiot.

HM Queen was 7.

7 year olds are well known for their sound decision making skills.

[Sarmatian]

In the period you are referring to, 1933, Hitler was essentially seen as German'y Donald Trump and the video was shot by the Duke of Windsor (boo, hiss!) and he was a bit of a Nazi appeaser because he didn't want another war, and a bit of an idiot.

HM Queen was 7.

Don't you mean the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha?

[Pannonian]

Don't you mean the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha?

Not after George V, no. WWI was the catalyst to anglicise all the German sounding names, but George V might have done it anyway. Hating Germany was an article of faith for him, his proof of his Britishness.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Don't you mean the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha?


Not after George V, no. WWI was the catalyst to anglicise all the German sounding names, but George V might have done it anyway. Hating Germany was an article of faith for him, his proof of his Britishness.

"Duke of Windsor" was his title, though.

A supreme insult, to make him Duke of a small market town dominated by his former Royal Castle, rahter than of an historic county.

[Furunculus]

I'm gonna have to research Corbyn a bit more. It's fascinating (from afar) how polarizing he appears to be.

after GE15 the labour party had an opportunity to wake up and realise that the ascendancy of the metropolitan left must come to an end, lest it divorce the party from the people it purports to represent. the economically left wing, socially conservative, working class. commonly considered to be the founding reason for the 'labour' movement. flag faith and family, i beleive was the commonly understood ethos in the first half of 20c.

having argued for years that UKIP was really labour's problem, not the tories, i rofl'ed big time at the damage they did in labour heartlands in northern england at GE15, and said that they needed an Alan Johnston type figure to reverse the northern rot in its core vote.

instead, what we got was an metropolitian 'ultra' from london who cared more about the injustice of palestine than the problems of Pontefract. so I rofl'ed some more. then rofl'ed gain when he proved to be completely imovable despite his utter inability to address the existential questions his party faces.

for all this talk of 'progressive alliances', i warn you all to accomodate yourselves to an 80-100 seat tory majority, and the utter destruction of the notion of the 48%. lest you become totally disillusioned with british politics. ;)

[Beskar]

The problem is not left-wing politics as Theresa May is currently stealing ideas from 'red Ed' about capping energy prices. Yet, unlike her, she is not getting slammed into the dirt unlike he was. Having the Propaganda machine supporting your cause helps a lot.

[Gilrandir]

Ukraine were more pro-Nazi than the royals as a set generally were (eg. Ukrainian concentration camp guards were noted by inmates as particularly brutal).

So, Ukrainian guards at concentration camps were brutal, ergo Ukraine was pro-Nazi?
Your conclusions are of the level: the Fresno black shooter killed three white men, ergo Fresno blacks are racists and murderers. Try to avoid generalizations and untangle yourself from the cobweb of myths and stereotypes spun by your propaganda.


7 year olds are well known for their sound decision making skills.

No, it shows they were taught well.

[Pannonian]

So, Ukrainian guards at concentration camps were brutal, ergo Ukraine was pro-Nazi?
Your conclusions are of the level: the Fresno black shooter killed three white men, ergo Fresno blacks are racists and murderers. Try to avoid generalizations and untangle yourself from the cobweb of myths and stereotypes spun by your propaganda.


Here's another generalisation for you. The British Free Corps, formed from British and Commonwealth POWs, had 54 members in total, with a maximum strength of 27. It's not exactly notable for having done anything practical, but there were quite a few complaints from the Germans that they were a waste of resources. Compare with Ukrainian recruits to the SS, both in numbers and activities.

[Sarmatian]

Here's another generalisation for you. The British Free Corps, formed from British and Commonwealth POWs, had 54 members in total, with a maximum strength of 27. It's not exactly notable for having done anything practical, but there were quite a few complaints from the Germans that they were a waste of resources. Compare with Ukrainian recruits to the SS, both in numbers and activities.

Not that I don't agree with your position in general, but in this case, it would be fair to note the difference in the number of Ukrainian POWs and British POWs, and to note that Ukraine has been fully occupied by the Nazis for a very long time while Britain was not.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So, Ukrainian guards at concentration camps were brutal, ergo Ukraine was pro-Nazi?

Actually, most historians and history buffs don't think they were pro-Nazi so much as anti-Soviet(Russian). Ukraine had its share of jew-haters as well, but that was not exactly uncommon in Europe in the early 20th and Ukraine was not noted for being any worse than most of the other cultures in the region on that issue.

Records suggest that nearly 100k Ukrainians volunteered to serve with the SS, though far fewer actually served. To be fair, the per capita recruitment for the SS was higher in the Netherlands, Belgium, and in Romania than in Ukraine.

If anything, the Nazis missed an opportunity in Ukraine. They could have formed a satellite state that would probably have supported the war against the Soviets. However, they treated Ukrainians as "lesser men" as well and never truly made the effort to set up an independent Ukraine.

[a completely inoffensive name]

after GE15 the labour party had an opportunity to wake up and realise that the ascendancy of the metropolitan left must come to an end, lest it divorce the party from the people it purports to represent. the economically left wing, socially conservative, working class. commonly considered to be the founding reason for the 'labour' movement. flag faith and family, i beleive was the commonly understood ethos in the first half of 20c.

having argued for years that UKIP was really labour's problem, not the tories, i rofl'ed big time at the damage they did in labour heartlands in northern england at GE15, and said that they needed an Alan Johnston type figure to reverse the northern rot in its core vote.

instead, what we got was an metropolitian 'ultra' from london who cared more about the injustice of palestine than the problems of Pontefract. so I rofl'ed some more. then rofl'ed gain when he proved to be completely imovable despite his utter inability to address the existential questions his party faces.

for all this talk of 'progressive alliances', i warn you all to accomodate yourselves to an 80-100 seat tory majority, and the utter destruction of the notion of the 48%. lest you become totally disillusioned with british politics. ;)

The one thing that has perplexed me about British politics in the past few years has been the process of Party Leaders. I must be blind to the inner nuances of British society because Corbyn in my eyes just seems like a dud. He seems to be alienating to a large section of the public, and as the 'Leader of the Opposition' he certainly abandoned any efforts to represent the 48% who wanted to stay. He had a vote of no confidence just last year and now his party looks like it is on the verge of complete irrelevancy after the next election. How is this man still Party Leader?

In general, I really don't care if 60% had voted to leave. As a politician who is supposed to be looking in the best interests of the State, this drive towards Brexit at the possible expense of Scotland leaving the Union seems to be insanity. And over what, a non-binding referendum? Would a politician really be chastised in UK society for saying, "I will not vote for Brexit in the interest of maintaining a beautiful Union that has stood since 1707." I just don't understand and maybe I never will.

[Pannonian]

The one thing that has perplexed me about British politics in the past few years has been the process of Party Leaders. I must be blind to the inner nuances of British society because Corbyn in my eyes just seems like a dud. He seems to be alienating to a large section of the public, and as the 'Leader of the Opposition' he certainly abandoned any efforts to represent the 48% who wanted to stay. He had a vote of no confidence just last year and now his party looks like it is on the verge of complete irrelevancy after the next election. How is this man still Party Leader?

In general, I really don't care if 60% had voted to leave. As a politician who is supposed to be looking in the best interests of the State, this drive towards Brexit at the possible expense of Scotland leaving the Union seems to be insanity. And over what, a non-binding referendum? Would a politician really be chastised in UK society for saying, "I will not vote for Brexit in the interest of maintaining a beautiful Union that has stood since 1707." I just don't understand and maybe I never will.

There are unions that are more important than the European Union or the United Kingdom. For instance, the union between the various wings of the Conservative Party, with the right wing's placation being the reason for Cameron's promise to hold the referendum. Britain will leave the EU, Scotland may leave the UK, but the Conservative Party has held together, so the objective has been successful.

In Labour's case, there are other unions too, that are more important than the EU or the UK. Such as Unite, whose leader (re-elected by a majority of 3000 on a 12.5% turnout) Len McCluskey is a personal ally and sponsor of Jeremy Corbyn, and whose union funds the political group Momentum (formerly Corbyn 4 Labour, and still registered under that name in some places). For Labour, too, as long as Jeremy Corbyn remains party leader, leaving the EU and Scotland leaving the UK is an acceptable price, as long as the core goal of keeping Corbyn leader is achieved. Corbym, of course, supports leaving the EU, as he's done throughout his career. Barring a lukewarm Remain campaign last year, but he reverted to form the day after the referendum.

[Sir Moody]

The one thing that has perplexed me about British politics in the past few years has been the process of Party Leaders. I must be blind to the inner nuances of British society because Corbyn in my eyes just seems like a dud. He seems to be alienating to a large section of the public, and as the 'Leader of the Opposition' he certainly abandoned any efforts to represent the 48% who wanted to stay. He had a vote of no confidence just last year and now his party looks like it is on the verge of complete irrelevancy after the next election. How is this man still Party Leader?.

Because the Labour party is currently torn.

"Red Ed" instituted a one member one vote system for selecting their leader (the old system saw the MP's, Unions and membership each get 33% of the vote) this gave the membership a massive "power" boost when it came to selecting a leader and massively weakened the MP's and the Unions.

On paper this shouldn't be a problem because the MP's should represent the party membership - but that hasn't been the case in the Labour party since Tony Blair "hijacked" it (id actually argue this isn't the case in most the main parties in fact but that's politics for you...). New Labour shifted the party much closer to the centre (which is why they were nicknamed "Tory Lite").

The membership has been looking for a more left leaning leader since Blair left and the only one who has currently stood forward is Corbyn so of course, with the new voting system giving all the power to the membership, he won both the original leadership contest and the attempted coup.

Corbyn himself is a dud as you say, while I like his policies and will vote for him, he just isn't leadership material and has let the Tory's run amok with no real opposition - if Labour could find someone with more Charisma while keeping Corbyns policies they would have a much better chance.

[Fragony]

It's all fair I guess as long as the black-hoodies don't show up, and even they have been pretty relaxed so far. I am kinda surprised really that there weren't any riots by RAF-types worth speaking of

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Because the Labour party is currently torn.

"Red Ed" instituted a one member one vote system for selecting their leader (the old system saw the MP's, Unions and membership each get 33% of the vote) this gave the membership a massive "power" boost when it came to selecting a leader and massively weakened the MP's and the Unions.

On paper this shouldn't be a problem because the MP's should represent the party membership - but that hasn't been the case in the Labour party since Tony Blair "hijacked" it (id actually argue this isn't the case in most the main parties in fact but that's politics for you...). New Labour shifted the party much closer to the centre (which is why they were nicknamed "Tory Lite").

The membership has been looking for a more left leaning leader since Blair left and the only one who has currently stood forward is Corbyn so of course, with the new voting system giving all the power to the membership, he won both the original leadership contest and the attempted coup.

Corbyn himself is a dud as you say, while I like his policies and will vote for him, he just isn't leadership material and has let the Tory's run amok with no real opposition - if Labour could find someone with more Charisma while keeping Corbyns policies they would have a much better chance.

It's not Charisma he lacks, it's a work ethic.

[Pannonian]

It's not Charisma he lacks, it's a work ethic.

An 8am meeting on campaign strategy is too early for him. When those requesting the meeting normally began work at 6am. Towards the end of the campaign, rather than ramp up his efforts, he went on a holiday. One wonders if he'll do the same towards the end of this general election campaign. Private Eye, a magazine well acquainted with the necessity of verifiable sources, also alleges that Corbyn customarily takes a day off if he's required to make a TV appearance during the weekend. Apparently nearly 150,000 in public moneys is insufficient compensation for the occasional weekend workday.

[Gilrandir]

Here's another generalisation for you. The British Free Corps, formed from British and Commonwealth POWs, had 54 members in total, with a maximum strength of 27. It's not exactly notable for having done anything practical, but there were quite a few complaints from the Germans that they were a waste of resources. Compare with Ukrainian recruits to the SS, both in numbers and activities.

And France had a whole collaborant government doing practical things. Does it make the French pro-nazis?

Generally, it is what Sarmatian and Seamus said. I believe what accounts for the difference in the number of collaborants (and for your misplaced pride) is the fact of being occupied/not occupied. When a country is under occupation there will always be found people ready to cooperate with the new regime - for differnt reasons, starting with a grudge against the old regime and up to desire to make a better living. Had the UK been occupied, I think we would be talking of much more than 27 or 54.



If anything, the Nazis missed an opportunity in Ukraine. They could have formed a satellite state that would probably have supported the war against the Soviets. However, they treated Ukrainians as "lesser men" as well and never truly made the effort to set up an independent Ukraine.

I read the opinions of people who lived under German occupation (and heard something about it from my grandfather and mother). All of them claimed that at first (for a year or so) Germans didn't do anything particularly distasteful (reservation: those people weren't Jewish; had it been otherwise I'm sure their accounts would have been different). Since they thought they had come to last, Germans even restored some of the ruined enterpises and certainly gave more economic freedom to petty businessmen and (contrary to the Soviets) supported Ukrainian-language theaters, press and culture. Some of the witnesses even claimed that financially they were even better off than before 1941. As they put it, "under Germans we at last could eat enough bread". When the fortunes of war have turned against the Germans they became crueller, especially when the Soviet army was approaching nearer and nearer.

My mother's family lived in the village and some German soldiers were billeted in their house. She was between 4 and 6 at that time, but she doesn't have bad memories of those soldiers. They even treated her to some chocolate (which she hadn't tasted before and was not to taste it for quite a time after) and were generally not particularly evil, certainly not in the way they were pictured in Soviet movies.

[Montmorency]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lLcUxhnA9Y

[Pannonian]

Just by chance, I'm reading "Tank Rider" by Eygeni Bessonov, and I've got to the bit where he comments on the differing attitudes to the Soviet troops from eastern and western Ukrainians. The former welcomed them as liberators and provided them with provisions, while the latter hid from them. I've only read the beginning so far, but the officers don't seem to be the horror show commissars of 40k fame; a mix of incompetence and competence, mostly well-meaning with a scattering of arse-covering. Of course, this might be because his campaign starts after Kursk, when the Soviets are in the ascendancy.

Oh hang on. His brigade gets hit by a Katyusha salvo, marmalising a couple of companies but his own is unaffected. Then his company hold the equivalent of Pavolv's House without even realising the intensity of the action, playing silly buggers with a German tank as they compete to see who can cross an open street the most times in the face of its machine gun fire. Bessonov does it once to avoid seeming a coward, while others do it multiple times.

[Elmetiacos]

In general, I really don't care if 60% had voted to leave. As a politician who is supposed to be looking in the best interests of the State, this drive towards Brexit at the possible expense of Scotland leaving the Union seems to be insanity. And over what, a non-binding referendum? Would a politician really be chastised in UK society for saying, "I will not vote for Brexit in the interest of maintaining a beautiful Union that has stood since 1707." I just don't understand and maybe I never will.
They don't know what they're doing. Nobody thought the Leave side was going to win. When it did, people were totally in shock, including the politicians and a lot of the people who'd voted to leave. They have this feeling now that there's a howling mob with pitchforks and torches on the horizon coming to get them if they don't cave in to the extreme Brexiters, or that they must stand by the result or horrible things will happen. Or possibly it's not that. I don't even understand how British politicians think any more and I live the UK.

[Pannonian]

They don't know what they're doing. Nobody thought the Leave side was going to win. When it did, people were totally in shock, including the politicians and a lot of the people who'd voted to leave. They have this feeling now that there's a howling mob with pitchforks and torches on the horizon coming to get them if they don't cave in to the extreme Brexiters, or that they must stand by the result or horrible things will happen. Or possibly it's not that. I don't even understand how British politicians think any more and I live the UK.

I especially like how people who are pro-EU are labelled Remoaners, when for most of my life the Tory party has been divided between Europhiles and Eurosceptics. It's as though Eurosceptics are allowed to make a career of railing against the EU, but Europhiles must shut up and "respect the will of the people".

[Beskar]

The issue with Brexshit was that the Boris Johnson and friends were meant to lose and use the next election as a platform to become elected Prime Minister with the populist support of Murdoch's Media Empire and steal the wind from Nigel Farage's sails. What then happened was they won and everyone scampered off as fast as they could, head behind their rear cheeks, as they realised the mess they made out of everything. Theresa May who was a 'remoaner' and voted to stay in the EU became Prime Minister then used the opportunity of Brexshit to boost her support by posing as a hardliner.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The issue with Brexshit was that the Boris Johnson and friends were meant to lose and use the next election as a platform to become elected Prime Minister with the populist support of Murdoch's Media Empire and steal the wind from Nigel Farage's sails. What then happened was they won and everyone scampered off as fast as they could, head behind their rear cheeks, as they realised the mess they made out of everything. Theresa May who was a 'remoaner' and voted to stay in the EU became Prime Minister then used the opportunity of Brexshit to boost her support by posing as a hardliner.

How dare you malign her thus. Obviously she is 'acceding to the expressed wishes of her majesty's subjects' and not merely "posing." Mo doubt this new stance represents as deep and as heart-felt a sense of change as any other position change she has made during her political career....~D

[Furunculus]

The one thing that has perplexed me about British politics in the past few years has been the process of Party Leaders. I must be blind to the inner nuances of British society because Corbyn in my eyes just seems like a dud. He seems to be alienating to a large section of the public, and as the 'Leader of the Opposition' he certainly abandoned any efforts to represent the 48% who wanted to stay. He had a vote of no confidence just last year and now his party looks like it is on the verge of complete irrelevancy after the next election. How is this man still Party Leader?

In general, I really don't care if 60% had voted to leave. As a politician who is supposed to be looking in the best interests of the State, this drive towards Brexit at the possible expense of Scotland leaving the Union seems to be insanity. And over what, a non-binding referendum? Would a politician really be chastised in UK society for saying, "I will not vote for Brexit in the interest of maintaining a beautiful Union that has stood since 1707." I just don't understand and maybe I never will.

What you may have missed is the effect of an adversarial political system, operating in an adversarial political society, and the demands that makes upon parties that seek to [win] with our fptp electoral system.
Looking around europe you'd be used to seeing nations that either have consensual political systems, using a proportional electoral system, or, even where an adversarial system exists there are mechanisms in place that function to allow protest.

What happens in this situation is that the political spectrum fractures, and the political parties multiply to occupy that fragments as narrow ideologies. Moreover, those parties are legitimised in their narrow ideology because there is someone else to deal with other peoples problems. And everyone knows that a coalition of those narrow ideologies will be necessary to form a governing coalition.

That isn't the way it works in Britain, fptp demands that a successful party seeks a 'majority' of the electorate from across the geographic and ideological divide. They must appeal not only to their core vote, but beyond their core vote with a platform that is wide enough to suck away people who might be tempted to vote otherwise. The Liberals and Tories did this, until the Liberals ideology became insufficient to the great questions of the age with socialist revolution and worker emancipation. The Labour movement better represented the left wing end of the spectrum, and they supplanted the Liberals. The Tories evolved and adapted, and so they marched on. A century later, the world has changed again and union membership is a good barometer to reveal how well the labour movement addresses the great questions of the 21st century.

It is struggling. But Labour still knows in its bones that success is built on winning across the geographic and ideological divide, that is why it cannot seek solace in the 48%. It is not a winning proposition in an adversarial political society, rather it is a loser's niche from which the party will grow only more insular - and thus irrelevant - to the wider electorate. Corbyn's problem is that he is not mentally flexible enough to reinvent his ideology to face a world that is totally different from the environment that [needed] socialism a century earlier.

This is why people despise him; they see he is only interested in addressing the requirement of his own doctrinaire worldview, and that is a losers game to an electorate accustomed to the perpetual adaptation a fptp system requires. This would be fine if he led a niche party that has no intention of winning, but he doesn't.

[Gilrandir]

Just by chance, I'm reading "Tank Rider" by Eygeni Bessonov, and I've got to the bit where he comments on the differing attitudes to the Soviet troops from eastern and western Ukrainians. The former welcomed them as liberators and provided them with provisions, while the latter hid from them.

In 1939 Western Ukrainians mostly welcomed the Soviet army liberating them from the Polish yoke (as they thought). In less than 2 years (September 1939 - June 1941) the Soviets earned the attitude the author reports about.

[Greyblades]

I especially like how people who are pro-EU are labelled Remoaners, when for most of my life the Tory party has been divided between Europhiles and Eurosceptics. It's as though Eurosceptics are allowed to make a career of railing against the EU, but Europhiles must shut up and "respect the will of the people".

Europhiles made careers out of licking the boots of the EU at the same time the eurosceptics were making thier career, typically while serving as British MP's.

Now they need to shut up and respect the will of the people because the battle both careers were leading up to is passed and they lost.

Before you say it, the need isnt an order: it's advice. They're pissing off both the winners and the good losers for no possible gain beyond sating the desire for cheap catharsis.

[Pannonian]

What you may have missed is the effect of an adversarial political system, operating in an adversarial political society, and the demands that makes upon parties that seek to [win] with our fptp electoral system.
Looking around europe you'd be used to seeing nations that either have consensual political systems, using a proportional electoral system, or, even where an adversarial system exists there are mechanisms in place that function to allow protest.

What happens in this situation is that the political spectrum fractures, and the political parties multiply to occupy that fragments as narrow ideologies. Moreover, those parties are legitimised in their narrow ideology because there is someone else to deal with other peoples problems. And everyone knows that a coalition of those narrow ideologies will be necessary to form a governing coalition.

That isn't the way it works in Britain, fptp demands that a successful party seeks a 'majority' of the electorate from across the geographic and ideological divide. They must appeal not only to their core vote, but beyond their core vote with a platform that is wide enough to suck away people who might be tempted to vote otherwise. The Liberals and Tories did this, until the Liberals ideology became insufficient to the great questions of the age with socialist revolution and worker emancipation. The Labour movement better represented the left wing end of the spectrum, and they supplanted the Liberals. The Tories evolved and adapted, and so they marched on. A century later, the world has changed again and union membership is a good barometer to reveal how well the labour movement addresses the great questions of the 21st century.

It is struggling. But Labour still knows in its bones that success is built on winning across the geographic and ideological divide, that is why it cannot seek solace in the 48%. It is not a winning proposition in an adversarial political society, rather it is a loser's niche from which the party will grow only more insular - and thus irrelevant - to the wider electorate. Corbyn's problem is that he is not mentally flexible enough to reinvent his ideology to face a world that is totally different from the environment that [needed] socialism a century earlier.

This is why people despise him; they see he is only interested in addressing the requirement of his own doctrinaire worldview, and that is a losers game to an electorate accustomed to the perpetual adaptation a fptp system requires. This would be fine if he led a niche party that has no intention of winning, but he doesn't.

Actually, 40% is usually enough to get one of the two main parties a majority in the UK's FPTP system, although sometimes the figure is lower (eg. Cameron's 2015 success). This is acceptable because customarily a British government does not seek to revolutionise society, but will seek a degree of consensus with the other 60%. This is what is meant by winning the centre, which the majority of the UK's population deem themselves to be. However, a combination of the polarising effects of Brexit, the Lib Dems making themselves toxic from their partnership with the Tories, and Corbyn's ineptness, has left the political landscape with no centre to speak of. In most elections, 48% would win a main party a massive majority, as that many votes would also imply another 20% or so who aren't that opposed to them, but will give them a chance to see what they make of it. In this case though, the Brexit side has told the 48% to just lump it as they've lost. This is as far from the UK's norm as it's possible to get; not even Thatcher broke with the past as decisively as May is threatening to.

Edit: See GB's post above for an example of what I'm talking about.

[Greyblades]

Your claim of 48% being told to lump it is erronious as the 48% you are citing is split between the good losers who were and are willing to accept the result, thus joining the winning 51%, the bad losers who are living up to the moniker of remoaner, and the people who do not care anymore.

At this point it's closer to 20%, at best, of the population being told to lump it. Business as usual in british politics.

[Furunculus]

Actually, 40% is usually enough to get one of the two main parties a majority in the UK's FPTP system, although sometimes the figure is lower (eg. Cameron's 2015 success). This is acceptable because customarily a British government does not seek to revolutionise society, but will seek a degree of consensus with the other 60%. This is what is meant by winning the centre, which the majority of the UK's population deem themselves to be. However, a combination of the polarising effects of Brexit, the Lib Dems making themselves toxic from their partnership with the Tories, and Corbyn's ineptness, has left the political landscape with no centre to speak of. In most elections, 48% would win a main party a massive majority, as that many votes would also imply another 20% or so who aren't that opposed to them, but will give them a chance to see what they make of it. In this case though, the Brexit side has told the 48% to just lump it as they've lost. This is as far from the UK's norm as it's possible to get; not even Thatcher broke with the past as decisively as May is threatening to.

Edit: See GB's post above for an example of what I'm talking about.

Your missing the point. I put "majority" in inverted commas for a reason. It doesn't matter that a 40% win is less than the 48% lose of Remain:
You only win in fptp by extending your appeal beyond the faithful.
Remain lost.
Parties that seek to win (Labour, despite Corbyn, and the Tories), can only achieve what they seek to achieve by taking majoritarian posiions even when it is outside their own sectarian interest. Blair is a classic example in wooing the middle class.
Thatcher is another in pulling in the southern working class.

The body is willing, but the mind is not. This is the Labour/Corbyn problem in a nutshell.
Even when Corbyn accepts the 52/48 result, it is because it fits with his worldview.
But he continues to talk about Palestine, and (virtual) pacifism, when these positions are thoroughly irrelevant to a useful 'majority' of the electorate.

[Pannonian]

Your missing the point. I put "majority" in inverted commas for a reason. It doesn't matter that a 40% win is less than the 48% lose of Remain:
You only win in fptp by extending your appeal beyond the faithful.
Remain lost.
Parties that seek to win (Labour, despite Corbyn, and the Tories), can only achieve what they seek to achieve by taking majoritarian posiions even when it is outside their own sectarian interest. Blair is a classic example in wooing the middle class.
Thatcher is another in pulling in the southern working class.

The body is willing, but the mind is not. This is the Labour/Corbyn problem in a nutshell.
Even when Corbyn accepts the 52/48 result, it is because it fits with his worldview.
But he continues to talk about Palestine, and (virtual) pacifism, when these positions are thoroughly irrelevant to a useful 'majority' of the electorate.

Er, that's my point. When a main party gets 40% in an election, that's 40% voting for them, plus an implied 20% who didn't vote for them but who aren't especially opposed to them (the other part of the centre). Corbyn has solidified his core, but anyone outside his core aren't just not voting for him, but are actively opposed to him. There is zero attempt to conciliate with the voters outside his core, such as is necessary for any electoral victory, but instead he actively seeks to turn Labour into an irrelevance (the Labour party does not exist to gain power, but to be a movement, etc.) When the other main party sidelines itself into irrelevance, it renders the centre moot, as there is no longer a constituency vote that didn't vote your way, but doesn't really oppose you. That leaves the ruling party as the only party capable of gaining power. In most cases in the past, the ruling party is moderate enough to bear the other voters in mind whilst in government. But May sees no practical reason to, and neither do the Brexit side. Victor gains all.

In US terms, imagine if a single party has just enough power to pass constitutional amendments, due to the other party being utterly inept. Then, when they gain power, they rip up the constitution to solidify their hold on power.

[Furunculus]

Ah, i see. Does that mean you largely agree with my thesis above?




In US terms, imagine if a single party has just enough power to pass constitutional amendments, due to the other party being utterly inept. Then, when they gain power, they rip up the constitution to solidify their hold on power.

i accept all you say except this. i don't think it is any way a demonstrably useful parallel to british politics right now.

[Pannonian]

Ah, i see. Does that mean you largely agree with my thesis above?

i accept all you say except this. i don't think it is any way a demonstrably useful parallel to british politics right now.

Note that I don't blame May for doing what she does, except I'd rather she didn't. I blame Corbyn's faction for making it so that the centre has nowhere to go if they don't want to vote Tory. It's not the Tories' fault that they rule in a one party state. It didn't used to be so, and they're not the ones making it so.

[Elmetiacos]

Europhiles made careers out of licking the boots of the EU at the same time the eurosceptics were making thier career, typically while serving as British MP's.

Now they need to shut up and respect the will of the people because the battle both careers were leading up to is passed and they lost.

Before you say it, the need isnt an order: it's advice. They're pissing off both the winners and the good losers for no possible gain beyond sating the desire for cheap catharsis.
Yes, just as the anti-Europeans all shut up and respected the will of the people in 1975.

[Pannonian]

Yes, just as the anti-Europeans all shut up and respected the will of the people in 1975.

There's a rare constitutional point that the 52%ers who tell the 48% to shut up miss. Both HM Government and HM Opposition are Loyal. The British political system expects and allows for dissent.

[Greyblades]

Yes, just as the anti-Europeans all shut up and respected the will of the people in 1975.

So you're admitting to being no better than the anti EU then?

I do not refer to personal bitching, though it is annoying, I refer to the calls for disregarding the referendum and sabotaging the negociation process, street marches, protests, the fringe lunatics courting treason are especially counterproductive.

Anti EU people are many things but seing the abuse of them over the last few decades has made a lot of us very touchy over the sanctity of referendums.

[Idaho]

The one thing that has perplexed me about British politics in the past few years has been the process of Party Leaders. I must be blind to the inner nuances of British society because Corbyn in my eyes just seems like a dud. He seems to be alienating to a large section of the public, and as the 'Leader of the Opposition' he certainly abandoned any efforts to represent the 48% who wanted to stay. He had a vote of no confidence just last year and now his party looks like it is on the verge of complete irrelevancy after the next election. How is this man still Party Leader?

The labour party has spent the last 30 years marginalising and ostracising the traditional left. They had a leadership election based on the new one-member-one-vote system (aimed to reduce the influence of the unions to placate the right)... But then for lols decided to stick an old left winger on the ticket - for appearances. They were sure that one of the 4 Tony Blair clone no marks would be voted in - but instead someone who appeared to have some personal integrity and gave straight answers seemed to attract votes.

The fact that he turns out to be a bit of a grade C candidate is by the by.

[Beskar]

The Mirror posted an article about the top 30 worse policies that the Conservatives have introduced.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/should-not-vote-conservative-29-10303180

Obviously, the blue electorate will completely forget about them when it comes to voting in search of 'strong and stable leadership'.

[Beskar]

How is this man still Party Leader?
You can replace the question with "How is this man still President?". That is what the world thinks about Trump.

[Pannonian]

The labour party has spent the last 30 years marginalising and ostracising the traditional left. They had a leadership election based on the new one-member-one-vote system (aimed to reduce the influence of the unions to placate the right)... But then for lols decided to stick an old left winger on the ticket - for appearances. They were sure that one of the 4 Tony Blair clone no marks would be voted in - but instead someone who appeared to have some personal integrity and gave straight answers seemed to attract votes.

The fact that he turns out to be a bit of a grade C candidate is by the by.

It would be hard of them to top the level of ineptitude that Corbyn has shown. And it was predictable, as Corbyn has never held any kind of office or management role in his life (prior to his election, I had more experience in this regard than him). Compare with the other candidates in 2015, at least some of him had solid achievements to their name (eg. Cooper, who was one of the architects of Sure Start). What was Corbyn's CV?

[a completely inoffensive name]

You can replace the question with "How is this man still President?". That is what the world thinks about Trump.
Lol, not taking the bait.

Impeachment under the US Constitution is a whole different ball game than internal UK party leadership struggles. The party leadership can remove Corbyn at any time with minimal political capital lost, if they desire.

[Beskar]

The party leadership can remove Corbyn at any time with minimal political capital lost, if they desire.

I am sure that is what Paul Ryan said before the United States Presidential Nominating Convention too.

If the suggestion is as simple as you sound, then why did the Blairites lose their coup and Corbyn got re-elected as party leader with an even larger majority? I know the media likes to make out Hiliary is the shoe-in character, such as they are supporting Theresa May, but that doesn't stop the fact there is a large number of people support the other candidate.

Not bait. Simply it is the Will of the People.

[Beskar]

https://i.imgur.com/I8NKFEX.jpg

[Furunculus]

The Mirror posted an article about the top 30 worse policies that the Conservatives have introduced.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/should-not-vote-conservative-29-10303180

Obviously, the blue electorate will completely forget about them when it comes to voting in search of 'strong and stable leadership'.

Wrong. It turns out that we actively support many of those policies, or, at least that we tolerate them because they permit other action that we value more.

That fact that you do not understand the value constructs that lead 'us' to these positions should be a spur to a more open minded learning, and not a prompt for lazy assumptions that writes off as invalid that which is beyond your grasp.

If you haven't yet read Haidt's; The Righteous Mind then you need to do so. Soon.

[Pannonian]

I am sure that is what Paul Ryan said before the United States Presidential Nominating Convention too.

If the suggestion is as simple as you sound, then why did the Blairites lose their coup and Corbyn got re-elected as party leader with an even larger majority? I know the media likes to make out Hiliary is the shoe-in character, such as they are supporting Theresa May, but that doesn't stop the fact there is a large number of people support the other candidate.

Not bait. Simply it is the Will of the People.

"Blairites"? You do realise, don't you, that those who voted no confidence in Corbyn included some of his former shadow cabinet ministers, who had no confidence in him because they tried to give him a chance, only to discover close up that he was utterly incompetent. Were they good Corbyn loyalists while they were in the shadow cabinet and sucking it up, only to transform instantly into Blairites when they resigned their positions?

Edit: Your poster above misses out the assistant director, Jeremy Corbyn. He was one of the first to want article 50 to be activated (before the other five names).

[Husar]

Wrong. It turns out that we actively support many of those policies, or, at least that we tolerate them because they permit other action that we value more.

That fact that you do not understand the value constructs that lead 'us' to these positions should be a spur to a more open minded learning, and not a prompt for lazy assumptions that writes off as invalid that which is beyond your grasp.

If you haven't yet read Haidt's; The Righteous Mind then you need to. Soon.


By the summer of 2015 the nationalist side was already at the boiling point, shouting “enough is enough, close the tap,” when the globalists proclaimed, “let us open the floodgates, it’s the compassionate thing to do, and if you oppose us you are a racist.” Might that not provoke even fairly reasonable people to rage?
[...]
But that is not all we need to know. On closer inspection, racism usually turns out to be deeply bound up with moral concerns. (I use the term “moral” here in a purely descriptive sense to mean concerns that seem—for the people we are discussing—to be matters of good and evil; I am not saying that racism is in fact morally good or morally correct.) People don’t hate others just because they have darker skin or differently shaped noses; they hate people whom they perceive as having values that are incompatible with their own, or who (they believe) engage in behaviors they find abhorrent, or whom they perceive to be a threat to something they hold dear. These moral concerns may be out of touch with reality, and they are routinely amplified by demagogues. But if we want to understand the recent rise of right-wing populist movements, then “racism” can’t be the stopping point; it must be the beginning of the inquiry.

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/10/when-and-why-nationalism-beats-globalism/

Hmm, yes, it's not bad, but in the end he doesn't really seem to say much. First the right wingers might be fairly reasonable people, then their ideas are based on exaggerations and false fears. How is that a big improvement for the right winger? Would a fairly reasonable person not at least notice the false nature of their fears and the exaggeration of demagogue influence?

[Gilrandir]

You can replace the question with "How is this man still President?". That is what the world thinks about Trump.

You are hinting that you want to blend these two threads as well?

[Furunculus]

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/10/when-and-why-nationalism-beats-globalism/

Hmm, yes, it's not bad, but in the end he doesn't really seem to say much. First the right wingers might be fairly reasonable people, then their ideas are based on exaggerations and false fears. How is that a big improvement for the right winger? Would a fairly reasonable person not at least notice the false nature of their fears and the exaggeration of demagogue influence?

that is a good and interesting article in its own right - i read it shortly after it was published last July - but it does not address the same issues covered in The Righteous Mind, and therefore has little relevance as a response to Beskar's post.

[Beskar]

Wrong. It turns out that we actively support many of those policies, or, at least that we tolerate them because they permit other action that we value more.

That fact that you do not understand the value constructs that lead 'us' to these positions should be a spur to a more open minded learning, and not a prompt for lazy assumptions that writes off as invalid that which is beyond your grasp.

If you haven't yet read Haidt's; The Righteous Mind then you need to. Soon.

There is a difference between understanding something and agreeing or supporting something. Just because I can understand authoritarian tendencies does not make me think they are suddenly right opposed to the situation that people are more often or not misguided and shooting themselves in the foot. Because knowing Fox News and Daily Fail like to whip up a frenzy to trigger people more than Milo Yiannopoulos at a SJW seminar because it sells them more newspapers doesn't stop the fact people cannot sift through these ploys and vote in directions which are counterintuitive to their interests. Pannonnian regular makes reference to people being massive beneficiaries for EU funding in Cornwall and how they are crying because they are losing that grant money due to voting leave in Brexit topics.

Rant Below:
But nevertheless my tolerance for politics gets worse every year. No one actually bothers with values, they are too concerned with petty politics about how to swindle a few more votes and stroke their egos with populism.

On the other hand, my value set is actually about caring about human beings, tackling the root causes of societies ills such as deprivation. Did you know based on what your post code is, your life expectancy can be 33 years lower than the highest. 33 years! Maybe living in one of the most deprived areas in the UK and working in healthcare I get to see all this first hand. I see issues facing people, I see how we can help change them and I proactively volunteer my time to help address them for free. I see first hand how benefits impact the sick, I see first hand the slash in funding for social care, I see first hand the impact of policies.

Maybe just maybe, I am sick of tired of people thinking they know best when they have not got a single clue how they are proactively destroying people's lives and they fail to spare a single shit for the lives they ruin. They sit at their dinner tables, serving lobster for lunch, comparing about the trifle increase of business rents, moaning about polish workers bringing down wages, whilst they are only paying minimum wage and oddly enough have a polish workforce because of it. They continue planning their luxury cruise with their wife with £900 designer handbag from self-fridges, suggesting we should continue to pay millions for bombs to plant more holes in Syria, suggesting they should just glass the Middle East and get it over and done with. Whilst I am from a working class household myself with single mother who worked two jobs just to ensure food was on table and my needs are met, partially being raises by family friends and my grandmother who chipped in. I have family who are 'rich' who sit at their tables in their world and constantly say they know best when they vote blue.

So saying I should have be open minded? You haven't got a clue. What are you are really suggesting is that I should be more narrow minded and selfish,and instead of humanely caring for others, I should be a good boy and slap their 'greedy' hands away and tell them to get a proper job. Because these are the people you are saying I should be understanding of, the thing is, I do. I really do understand how selfish and wrapped up in their own little worlds. There are also those people who vote Blue as some kind of status symbol, they are obviously better than the rest and want to la-de-da associated with the richer sections because they vote Blue, and not with the plebs who vote Red despite actually being one of the 'plebs'.

And this is why I end up with such extreme scores in those political compass tests, because giving half a shit about people turns out means you are some kind of radical extremist lefty.

I also keep a lid on these things too, because no one likes to hear the nitty-gritty truth about realty, thus resulting in me posting little tidbits or half-humorous photoshops allows me to express enough without getting really into it and upsetting peoples sensibilities.

Want me to start sharing stories about the situations people get into? I will start with one.
There was a client of mine, a woman who experiences periods of severe depression and some physical disabilities lived in a council house with her son. After an incident with a boss who was inventing excuses to fire employees so he doesn't have to provide redundancy payment, the son unfortunately killed himself due to a rather horrible incident in his work place done by his boss and unfairly losing his job. It was a rather messy affair and it ended up being investigated by police due to the foul play involved. For the mother who is now grieving for her son and dealing with criminal aspects of that case, had to contend with the local council trying to kick her out of her house because she now had a spare bedroom and hit by the bedroom tax.
We had to desperately attempt to find her new accommodation which was on ground floor which met her needs without her going homeless (luckily, we eventually did), whilst trying to support her and prevent her from 'joining her son' due to the stress of a criminal investigation, losing him, and getting chased by the council demanding to pay bedroom tax which she could not afford with the benefits she was on.
Expenses were a huge thing, and you get to witness how unhelpful society can be. Energy companies refuse to allow her pay by any other method than pre-paid cards because she was on benefits. So she had to pay £10 to get a taxi to the supermarket, because she struggles to walk, to pick up a £20 pre-paid card which is on the highest tariff, resulting in her paying 4-times the price for electricity than I would for myself via direct debit and somehow we feel this is fair? There were trumped up charges due to situations like this where the vulnerable are being charged more with the less money they have.
This is just one example of hundreds I have personally seen about how unjust society can be. Even the chain-reactions and knock-on effects these can have for the most desperate in our society.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So...

Labour is, at the moment, led by someone who is a true communard (thus appealing to the party's emotional 'heart' and unionists-to-the-barricades roots) but who cannot seem to function well as an executive, while the other leadership contenders are probably more competent at the affairs of governance but seem "tainted" by right-wing attitudes or alliances and thus unappealing to a large portion of the labour voting base. All of which is confounded by being supported by a minority of the voters at large and with few prospects for establishing a coalition government with one of the other parties.

Is that an accurate summary of the current state of things?

[Husar]

that is a good and interesting article in its own right - i read it shortly after it was published last July - but it does not address the same issues covered in The Righteous Mind, and therefore has little relevance as a response to Beskar's post.

Well, it is linked here: http://righteousmind.com

So for some strange reason I assumed it was related, but I'm gonna have to let you down about buying the book. If I buy everyobdy's favourite book just to argue with them, my own life will be ruined faster than I can read the books...it's only self-preservation. ~;)

You could like, try to summarize it or so.

[Furunculus]

Well, it is linked here: http://righteousmind.com

So for some strange reason I assumed it was related, but I'm gonna have to let you down about buying the book. If I buy everyobdy's favourite book just to argue with them, my own life will be ruined faster than I can read the books...it's only self-preservation. ~;)

You could like, try to summarize it or so.

Hmmm, his blog has the same title as the book i refer to.
Fair enough, the guardian and telegraph co-reviewed the book back in the day:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2016/nov/14/the-moral-matrix-that-influences-the-way-people-vote

http://www.edwest.co.uk/telegraph-blogs/why-liberals-cant-understand-conservatives/

not quite the exact links, but close enough to expand on the premise.

[Furunculus]

There is a difference between understanding something and agreeing or supporting something. Just because I can understand authoritarian tendencies does not make me think they are suddenly right opposed to the situation that people are more often or not misguided and shooting themselves in the foot. Because knowing Fox News and Daily Fail like to whip up a frenzy to trigger people more than Milo Yiannopoulos at a SJW seminar because it sells them more newspapers doesn't stop the fact people cannot sift through these ploys and vote in directions which are counterintuitive to their interests. Pannonnian regular makes reference to people being massive beneficiaries for EU funding in Cornwall and how they are crying because they are losing that grant money due to voting leave in Brexit topics.

Rant Below:
But nevertheless my tolerance for politics gets worse every year. No one actually bothers with values, they are too concerned with petty politics about how to swindle a few more votes and stroke their egos with populism.

On the other hand, my value set is actually about caring about human beings, tackling the root causes of societies ills such as deprivation. Did you know based on what your post code is, your life expectancy can be 33 years lower than the highest. 33 years! Maybe living in one of the most deprived areas in the UK and working in healthcare I get to see all this first hand. I see issues facing people, I see how we can help change them and I proactively volunteer my time to help address them for free. I see first hand how benefits impact the sick, I see first hand the slash in funding for social care, I see first hand the impact of policies.

Maybe just maybe, I am sick of tired of people thinking they know best when they have not got a single clue how they are proactively destroying people's lives and they fail to spare a single shit for the lives they ruin. They sit at their dinner tables, serving lobster for lunch, comparing about the trifle increase of business rents, moaning about polish workers bringing down wages, whilst they are only paying minimum wage and oddly enough have a polish workforce because of it. They continue planning their luxury cruise with their wife with £900 designer handbag from self-fridges, suggesting we should continue to pay millions for bombs to plant more holes in Syria, suggesting they should just glass the Middle East and get it over and done with. Whilst I am from a working class household myself with single mother who worked two jobs just to ensure food was on table and my needs are met, partially being raises by family friends and my grandmother who chipped in. I have family who are 'rich' who sit in their tables in their world and constantly say they know best when they vote blue.

So saying I should have be open minded? You haven't got a clue. What are you are really suggesting is that I should be more narrow minded and selfish,and instead of humanely caring for others, I should be a good boy and slap their 'greedy' hands away and tell them to get a proper job. Because these are the people you are saying I should be understanding of, the thing, I do. I really do understand how selfish and wrapped up in their own little worlds. There are also those people who vote Blue as some kind of status symbol, they are obviously better than the rest and want to la-de-da associated with the richer sections because they vote Blue, and not with the plebs who vote Red despite actually being one of the 'plebs'.

And this is why I end up with such extreme scores in those political compass tests, because giving half a shit about people turns out means you are some kind of radical extremist lefty.

I also keep a lid on these things too, because no one likes to hear the nitty-gritty truth about realty, thus resulting in me posting little tidbits or half-humorous photoshops allows me to express enough without getting really into it and upsetting peoples sensibilities.

Want me to start sharing stories about the situations people get into, such as a woman who experiences periods of severe depression and some physical disabilities lived in a council house with her son, who unfortunately killed himself after a horrible incident in his work place and unfairly losing his job?
Then discuss how the council were trying to kick her out of her house because she now had a spare bedroom and hit by the bedroom tax?
Had desperately trying to find her new accommodation which was on ground floor which met her needs without her going homeless, whilst trying to support her and prevent her from 'joining her son' ?
Going into how unhelpful society is where energy companies refuse to allow her pay by any other method than pre-paid cards because she was on benefits, so she had to pay £10 to get a taxi to the supermarket, because she struggles to walk, to pick up a £20 pre-paid card which is on the highest tariff, resulting in her paying 4-times the price for electricity than I would for myself via direct debit?
This is just one example of hundreds I have personally seen about how unjust society can be. Even the chain-reactions and knock-on effects these can have for the most desperate in our society.

I have no objection to you feeling the way you do, nor would i suggest that you are 'wrong' to hold the values that inform that view.
I do object to the way you phrased the quoted text, so while your riposte is no doubt cathartic i still feel you are blind to the problem i describe.

[Beskar]

I have no objection to you feeling the way you do, nor would i suggest that you are 'wrong' to hold the values that inform that view.
I do object to the way you phrased the quoted text, so while your riposte is no doubt cathartic i still feel you are blind to the problem i describe.

It was definitely cathartic!

[Pannonian]

So...

Labour is, at the moment, led by someone who is a true communard (thus appealing to the party's emotional 'heart' and unionists-to-the-barricades roots) but who cannot seem to function well as an executive, while the other leadership contenders are probably more competent at the affairs of governance but seem "tainted" by right-wing attitudes or alliances and thus unappealing to a large portion of the labour voting base. All of which is confounded by being supported by a minority of the voters at large and with few prospects for establishing a coalition government with one of the other parties.

Is that an accurate summary of the current state of things?

Labour is led by someone who has cultivated ties with all the ideological causes of the non-mainstream Left. These causes often conflict with each other, but they have the common theme of despising compromise and the centre. The latter is personified by Tony Blair, who made alliances with people whom the ideological Left loathe, and who appealed to the centre. Corbyn's leadership shtick is that he is everything Blair isn't. This appeals to his supporters. Unfortunately, there's a reason why Blair won 3 elections, including two of the largest majorities in British history.

And for Beskar: Blair's government did more to help the vulnerable than any other government in my life time. I am deeply appreciative of the things his government did, as my other experience of British government is Tory to greater and lesser extents. Corbyn's supporters despise Blair's government, describing them as no different from the Tories. I strongly, strongly disagree, especially given the pedigree of the man they support instead. Corbyn entered Parliament in the same election where Blair was first elected as MP. What has Corbyn done in this 30-odd years as MP? Does it compare with what Blair has done? Why should I hate Blair?

[Beskar]

And for Beskar: Blair's government did more to help the vulnerable than any other government in my life time. I am deeply appreciative of the things his government did, as my other experience of British government is Tory to greater and lesser extents. Corbyn's supporters despise Blair's government, describing them as no different from the Tories. I strongly, strongly disagree, especially given the pedigree of the man they support instead. Corbyn entered Parliament in the same election where Blair was first elected as MP. What has Corbyn done in this 30-odd years as MP? Does it compare with what Blair has done? Why should I hate Blair?

Lots of people disagree with the War, PFI schemes, the poor economics of boom-boom-boom-no-bust which was sorely mistaken, and his tendency to lie and be two-faced about everything. There is also the whole thing post-government where he went around trying to glorify himself more, raking in millions from publicity stunts. He also tried to purge the left from the Labour party too, which as you now know, were not very happy with that and resurged itself with avengeance. His policies were definite improvements from Margaret Thatcher and John Major, but he courted a lot of the moneyed interests which ended up bringing New Labour centre-right politically. The conservatives as a reaction made themselves more and more right wing to try to distant themselves (Remember Michael Howard? *shivers*) which was only corrected under David Cameron which went back to the centre-right.

[Pannonian]

Lots of people disagree with the War, PFI schemes, the poor economics of boom-boom-boom-no-bust which was sorely mistaken, and his tendency to lie and be two-faced about everything. There is also the whole thing post-government where he went around trying to glorify himself more, raking in millions from publicity stunts. He also tried to purge the left from the Labour party too, which as you now know, were not very happy with that and resurged itself with avengeance.

Well, the Corbynista faction has won now, with the rules guaranteeing their perpetual control of the Labour party. What happens to the Labour party is now their responsibility. Blairites will never again be a factor in the party.

[Beskar]

http://www.edwest.co.uk/telegraph-blogs/why-liberals-cant-understand-conservatives/
not quite the exact links, but close enough to expand on the premise.

Quoting from article which refers to the book:

The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as ‘One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenceless animal’ or ‘Justice is the most important requirement for a society,’ liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree.

The problem is the persons perspective of themselves and their actual actions. There is a cognitive disconnection between these in the cases of Conservatives. As for the question about defenceless animals, just look at how the Tories are so keen on scrapping the ban on Fox Hunting. They are frothing at the mouth to get rid of that, despite the majority of the country firmly wanting it in place. In America, Conservatives are the ones who travel across their countries and others to shoot wild animals, especially endangered creatures. With a question such as "Do you think hurting defenceless creatures is wrong?", they will obviously not disagree with it in answering, but it doesn't stop the fact in practice they actually do it.

It is like answering a question: "Do you enjoy kicking homeless people when they are down?" I would highly suspect a Conservative will not be answering "Actually, I do enjoy that, I strongly agree!", they will most likely put down 'strongly disagree'. At the same time, that same Conservative will vote for the candidate who will tackle vagrants and homelessness by installing anti-homelessness spikes. mandating people have to have an address for a bank account, mandating they need an address for benefits, mandating they need passports to rent any accommodation to prove they are not illegal immigrants, harsher punishments for petty crimes as they steal a loaf of bread from corner shop to feed themselves, and provide no funding for any socioeconomic programs to help people get off the streets and back within society.

It is like the example of the person who was moaning about eastern europeans flooding the UK and driving down wages, and the threat of Turkey doing similar if they joined the EU. He moans about this despite the fact he actually owns and runs a business who employs staff at minimum wage on zero hour contracts! He even moans about the fact minimum wage goes up as it is costing his business profit to pay for increases in salaries. How can someone who employs people on the bare minimum also complain about immigration driving down wages? There has to be a clear cognitive disconnect going on. You would think someone expressing values about immigration driving down wages would employ staff on a living wage with secure contracts... but nope. Voting Conservative because it suits his pocket better. Also an argent Brexit supporter, he is rubbing his hands at scrapping the working time directive. In some ways, would be great if the Europeans returned home, he would probably go out of business because there will be no one working for him or want to work for him, in exchange for a terrible contract and pay. Will be forced to actually offer good job opportunities to people.

Could argue it is leading question. If the question was "Do you support peoples right to hunt wild animals?" Conservatives would be strongly agreeing with this, rather than phrasing it as them preying on innocent defenceless animals. Brings us back to Yes. Prime Minister.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

[Beskar]

Well, the Corbynista faction has won now, with the rules guaranteeing their perpetual control of the Labour party. What happens to the Labour party is now their responsibility. Blairites will never again be a factor in the party.

Is One Person, One Vote that terrible? The previous system was "33% membership, 33% parliament MPs, 33% trade unions" which was an awful system. It was also blamed for Ed Miliband for getting into power over his brother, David Miliband, due to the 'influence of trade unions'. Liberal democrats have had 1P1V since the 1980s, yet there haven't been any problems with that for them.

[Pannonian]

Is One Person, One Vote that terrible? The previous system was "33% membership, 33% parliament MPs, 33% trade unions" which was an awful system. It was also blamed for Ed Miliband for getting into power over his brother, David Miliband, due to the 'influence of trade unions'. Liberal democrats have had 1P1V since the 1980s, yet there haven't been any problems with that for them.

And one member one vote means the membership has to accept responsibility for the choice they make. What happens to the Labour party happens because they've chosen the leader they have. Watch the Corbynista fans blame everyone but Corbyn though. It's their way of taking power without accepting responsibility.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Beskar, you appear to have fallen headfirst inot the trap of believing your political opponents are an inhuman "other". My friend, it is not so and such thinking leads down a decidedly dark path.


The problem is the persons perspective of themselves and their actual actions. There is a cognitive disconnection between these in the cases of Conservatives. As for the question about defenceless animals, just look at how the Tories are so keen on scrapping the ban on Fox Hunting. They are frothing at the mouth to get rid of that, despite the majority of the country firmly wanting it in place.

OK, first of all, the phrase "frothing at the mouth" is linked to rabies - you are comparing Conservatives to uncontrollably violent animals that have to be put down. Think about that. As to the Fox Hunting ban, please allow me to explain the rural perspective to you, which you are missing. Foxes do not come under the catagory of "defenceless animals". Foxes are mercilous, and wasteful, killers, the defenceless animals are the small lambs, chickens, rabbits and occasional babies that they savage and kill. The worst thing about a fox is that it kills many but takes few. If a fox is disturbed in a hen house it kills all the hens to stop the squarking but takes only one.

A Fox is more wasteful, by far, than any human thief and more violent and this is why we hunt and kill them. There is no cognitive difference here.


In America, Conservatives are the ones who travel across their countries and others to shoot wild animals, especially endangered creatures. With a question such as "Do you think hurting defenceless creatures is wrong?", they will obviously not disagree with it in answering, but it doesn't stop the fact in practice they actually do it.

Most hunters of this type would reply that they make every effort to kill quickly and they eat what they kill. There are exceptions, of course, but we are not talking of exceptions, we are talking generally. Many hunters would also reply that the way they kill animals is far less traumatic than killing in an abattoir where we have mechanised death, and that is undoubtedly true in the case of a skilled hunter with a rifle.


It is like answering a question: "Do you enjoy kicking homeless people when they are down?" I would highly suspect a Conservative will not be answering "Actually, I do enjoy that, I strongly agree!", they will most likely put down 'strongly disagree'.

Here, again, there is an implication of moral degeneracy on the part of Conservatives, Conservatives might be psychopaths who enjoy inflicting pain. To even suggest that is stupid.


At the same time, that same Conservative will vote for the candidate who will tackle vagrants and homelessness by installing anti-homelessness spikes. mandating people have to have an address for a bank account, mandating they need an address for benefits, mandating they need passports to rent any accommodation to prove they are not illegal immigrants, harsher punishments for petty crimes as they steal a loaf of bread from corner shop to feed themselves, and provide no funding for any socioeconomic programs to help people get off the streets and back within society.

This is a difficult issue. On the one hand you have the need to get the homeless off the streets, on the other you have the need to balance that with the safety and well-being of the rest of the local population. For example, if banks are allowed to hold accounts for people with "no fixed abode" then this allows huge scope for fraud, from the banks and their customers. If banks are persistently defrauded they lose money, go bankrupt and have to be bailed out by government, and all their customers' deposits need to be covered.

This costs money, money that then can't be spent on hospitals or roads unless you raise taxes. Homeless people don't pay taxes, but everyone else does and they now lose out one way or another, they might even go broke themselves from higher taxes, either requiring benefits to keep their homes or becoming homeless themselves. The whole thing then becomes a vicious cycle with the government having less money to provide services and a shrinking tax base.

Now, you might argue that the risk of this is worth it against giving people with no fixed abode the opportunity to work and save and eventually get back on their feet. This calculation is where Right and Left differ, a case of priorities rather than values or feelings. The same basic argument applies to benefits, with the additional point that if you don't know where someone lives it's hard to guarantee the benefits are going to the person they are meant for.

Recent changes to renting regulations are there to protect legitimate renters, you can actually use an expired passport you know (I did, but the point is it's targeting slum landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and maintain dangerous properties.


It is like the example of the person who was moaning about eastern europeans flooding the UK and driving down wages, and the threat of Turkey doing similar if they joined the EU. He moans about this despite the fact he actually owns and runs a business who employs staff at minimum wage on zero hour contracts! He even moans about the fact minimum wage goes up as it is costing his business profit to pay for increases in salaries. How can someone who employs people on the bare minimum also complain about immigration driving down wages? There has to be a clear cognitive disconnect going on. You would think someone expressing values about immigration driving down wages would employ staff on a living wage with secure contracts... but nope. Voting Conservative because it suits his pocket better. Also an argent Brexit supporter, he is rubbing his hands at scrapping the working time directive. In some ways, would be great if the Europeans returned home, he would probably go out of business because there will be no one working for him or want to work for him, in exchange for a terrible contract and pay. Will be forced to actually offer good job opportunities to people.

There are also people who make a career out of being unemployed and having lots of babies, over multiple generations - they all vote Labour. What, you thought Shameless was just fiction?

There are selfish arseholes on both sides.

[Beskar]

Beskar, you appear to have fallen headfirst inot the trap of believing your political opponents are an inhuman "other". My friend, it is not so and such thinking leads down a decidedly dark path.
I haven't gone that far. It is more that their prioritise themselves rather than others (in general). Being selfish isn't a seventh sin... it can get close with greed, but it depends on how it manifests itself. Is it selfish in the form of forcing people to be more independent, or is it selfish in form of getting tax breaks at the expense of working people as they pay for it (which does come under greed).


As to the Fox Hunting ban, please allow me to explain the rural perspective to you, which you are missing. Foxes do not come under the catagory of "defenceless animals". Foxes are mercilous, and wasteful, killers, the defenceless animals are the small lambs, chickens, rabbits and occasional babies that they savage and kill. The worst thing about a fox is that it kills many but takes few. If a fox is disturbed in a hen house it kills all the hens to stop the squarking but takes only one. A Fox is more wasteful, by far, than any human thief and more violent and this is why we hunt and kill them. There is no cognitive difference here.

Unfortunately, I disagree. There is a fundamental difference between protecting your farm and dressing up in your red-coats, mounting a horse, having a pack of dogs, going over to a fox's den, digging them out, and lets loose the dogs of war to rip apart animals for sport. This is still going on despite the fact is illegal, there was even a recent case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-39738043). To respond to your claim, I post this biased sourced article (https://www.league.org.uk/fox-hunting) from an anti-hunting website.

"Early fox hunting with packs of hounds first emerged in the UK in the late 1600s. While in some cases foxes were hunted to stop them from killing livestock, the ‘thrill of the chase’ became a sport in its own right. The excitement of the ride plus the social and apparently glamourous aspects of hunt gatherings established hunting as a fixture of the countryside. But these were the reasons why it flourished, no other. The suggestion that fox hunting is about ‘pest control’ can be dismissed very quickly by the fact that hunts have been caught capturing and raising foxes purely so they can then be hunted."

"Autopsies reveal hunted foxes are not killed quickly, but endure numerous bites and tears to their flanks and hindquarters - causing enormous suffering before death. Foxes forced to face terriers underground can suffer injuries to the face, head and neck, as can the terriers."

"While foxes are of course predators – they kill other animals for food – their impact on livestock is exaggerated, and can be reduced with good farming practices. The threat of the ‘fox in the chicken coop’ can be remedied with a secure electric fence. While sheep farmers may curse foxes for the loss of their lambs, in reality studies have shown that poor farming practices, disease and bad weather are far more likely to lead to lamb deaths. A 2000 study in Scotland found that around just 1% of lamb losses could be directly attributed to foxes. On the other hand, by feeding on rabbits, a 2003 study estimated that rural foxes save British crop farmers around £7m per year."

I pulled up a few quotes to address your points. Any farm issues can be solved with secure fencing... not perfect but statistically more likely for the animal to die in other ways.


Here, again, there is an implication of moral degeneracy on the part of Conservatives, Conservatives might be psychopaths who enjoy inflicting pain. To even suggest that is stupid. Kick them when they're down is an expression which means to give someone unfortunate a bad time. I qualified this in my post that whilst no sane conservative would actually enjoy inflicting pain, it is sometimes an unfortunate consequence of their policies that this happens.


Now, you might argue that the risk of this is worth it against giving people with no fixed abode the opportunity to work and save and eventually get back on their feet. This calculation is where Right and Left differ, a case of priorities rather than values or feelings. The same basic argument applies to benefits, with the additional point that if you don't know where someone lives it's hard to guarantee the benefits are going to the person they are meant for.

I worked with many who were homeless. Even people who were alcoholics and took drugs on the streets. They mostly took the substances because their life was so terrible, it was the only thing they could do to make their situation bearable. There is a clear sense of hopelessness, a feeling that society has deserted them and doesn't give a single care about their welfare. To some people, homelessness is nothing more than vermin on the street, yet when these individuals are given the proper support, willing to push for a change in their lives, they can pick themselves up and make real differences. I even came across colleagues who were on in their life, homeless, and it was through these efforts and investment of others they can really changed things around. One guy was even now earning £32,000! If you think he was at one time a homeless alcoholic, the fact he is changed everything around with support and is even now on a good income, just shows that these are people who can shine and make something of themselves. These are not vermin in the street but potential diamonds in the rough. There was even this guy (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3865804/SunLife-Organics-juicing-mogul-Khalil-Rafati-went-homeless-addict-millionaire.html).

[Montmorency]

I assume PVC was talking about farmers maintaining their immediate property with permission to harm or kill foxes and some other creatures under select circumstances, likely with shotgun.

[Montmorency]

This funny fox does not enjoy the situation. ~:)

https://i.imgur.com/F7KVR0M.jpg

[Gilrandir]

I worked with many who were homeless. Even people who were alcoholics and took drugs on the streets. They mostly took the substances because their life was so terrible, it was the only thing they could do to make their situation bearable.

As the case of celebrities shows, they take substances because their life is so beautiful. Conclusion: it is not so much the life that makes people take substances, but more something inside people which makes them prone to taking substances.

[Furunculus]

Quoting from article which refers to the book:


The problem is the persons perspective of themselves and their actual actions. There is a cognitive disconnection between these in the cases of Conservatives. As for the question about defenceless animals, just look at how the Tories are so keen on scrapping the ban on Fox Hunting. They are frothing at the mouth to get rid of that, despite the majority of the country firmly wanting it in place. In America, Conservatives are the ones who travel across their countries and others to shoot wild animals, especially endangered creatures. With a question such as "Do you think hurting defenceless creatures is wrong?", they will obviously not disagree with it in answering, but it doesn't stop the fact in practice they actually do it.....

That is really just a restatement of your beliefs, and doesn't really address the core of Haidt's argument:


Haidt suggests that human beings have six moral foundations, a desire for care over harm, fairness, liberty over oppression, loyalty, authority, and sanctity, and that these govern our politics and religions. Surveying tens of thousands of self-identified liberals and conservatives with a series of ethical questions, he concluded that those on the Left were only really motivated by the first three, but (social) conservatives care about all six, roughly equally.

Haidt grew interested in the subject because, as a card-carrying Democrat, he became frustrated at the way that John Kerry was unable to connect with the American public during the 2004 elections; how could Democrats understand people’s desire to fight injustice and protect the weak on the one hand, and yet be completely blind to their desire for patriotism or faith or genuine concerns about free riders? The Left has traditionally dismissed these beliefs with various explanations based on Marx’s idea of false consciousness, but they are genuine human instincts.

I start from a belief that collective benefit is not so important that we should invest the state with enormous moral authority, a majority of the wealth in the economy, and the power to regulate private activity at a micro level.

This means i don't want public spending at more than 40% of GDP.
I also demand that at least 2% is spent on Defence, leaving only 38% for other essential government duties, and public welfare.
Do I want essential government duties performed, and public welfare distributed? Of course. Not as much as you apparently, but c'est la vie!

This means I reject the principle that the gov't gives me my rights.
English Common Law with its roots in the concept of Natural Law has led to a presumption of negative liberty; I am free to do anything that which is not specifically proscribed by the law.
This means that some people will suffer from the lack of protection a more legal-possitivist interpretation of law could provide. I'm fine with this.

This means I prefer a regulatory regime based on demonstrable harm, rather than the precautionary principle.
Yes, I'm willing to tolerate it for existential threats to the nation that have a horizon well beyond the ability of the 5 year electoral cycle to manage.
But in all walks of life i'm willing to tolerate a greater incidence and severity of harm in order to protect our freedom from interference.

In all these broad themes I take a position that will directly help individual people less from the major inequities they face in their life.
I do so because i perceive indirect benefits that ill accrue to the collective 'all', which 'they' may or may not choose to exercise.
But in none of these areas do I not want welfare to exist, gov't to shelter, and regulation to protect. I just want other things too.

[Idaho]

PVC - The problem with Tories is not that they are inhuman. It's that they don't seem to step outside of their privileged situation and see those who need help as being in any way deserving.

We humans have a tendency to see our own good luck as skill, hard work and worthiness. And others bad luck as an expression of their flaws and failings. Tories take this heuristic to the ultimate level and make societal decisions on it.

[Furunculus]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/27/lib-dems-shouldnt-count-on-remain-votes-the-data-looks-bleak

#oops

[Beskar]

As the case of celebrities shows, they take substances because their life is so beautiful. Conclusion: it is not so much the life that makes people take substances, but more something inside people which makes them prone to taking substances.

Not really. There are different reasons for drug addiction, but majority of it comes from terrible life circumstances. This clip explains it really well:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I haven't gone that far. It is more that their prioritise themselves rather than others (in general). Being selfish isn't a seventh sin... it can get close with greed, but it depends on how it manifests itself. Is it selfish in the form of forcing people to be more independent, or is it selfish in form of getting tax breaks at the expense of working people as they pay for it (which does come under greed).

No, we do not prioritise only ourselves. Selfishness is, in fact, an aspect of Greed, and I think you meant "Eighth Deadly Sin" as there are already seven. Again, you are attributing vice to others because you do not understand their position. I cannot see how "forcing people to be independent" can be selfish when what youa re "forcing" is independence from the State. I am not independent, I rely on my family, and we are not especially wealthy. Still, I know I shall never be homeless because I have kith and kin.

There may be a blind spot here, which Idaho has hit upon, but that doesn't mean there's any selfishness.


Unfortunately, I disagree. There is a fundamental difference between protecting your farm and dressing up in your red-coats, mounting a horse, having a pack of dogs, going over to a fox's den, digging them out, and lets loose the dogs of war to rip apart animals for sport. This is still going on despite the fact is illegal, there was even a recent case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-39738043). To respond to your claim, I post this biased sourced article (https://www.league.org.uk/fox-hunting) from an anti-hunting website.

That recent case is an excellent example of what happens when you do not regulate a necessary activity. It is "bad form" to dig the fox out and set the dogs on him.

Have you ever had to kill anything? It's always horrible. Hunts vary in their conduct, some are cruel, some are not. Variance has become greater since the ban, killing of foxes has if anything become more earnist and more sadistic as the ban protecting them is resented.


"Early fox hunting with packs of hounds first emerged in the UK in the late 1600s. While in some cases foxes were hunted to stop them from killing livestock, the ‘thrill of the chase’ became a sport in its own right. The excitement of the ride plus the social and apparently glamourous aspects of hunt gatherings established hunting as a fixture of the countryside. But these were the reasons why it flourished, no other. The suggestion that fox hunting is about ‘pest control’ can be dismissed very quickly by the fact that hunts have been caught capturing and raising foxes purely so they can then be hunted."

I've never heard of hunts capturing and raising foxes, but it's not outside the realms of possibility. Mind you, if I've never heard of it I think it unlikely to be in any way a pervasive practice. The person who wrote that, of course, pretends to know the minds of a segment of society to which he does not belong. He also demonstrates ignorance as to why fox hunting arose, principally due to a lack of dear for the Aristocracy to hunt.

That applies to "aristocratic" fox hunting, though. Farmers have always hunted vermin with dogs and they followed the dogs on horseback, but without the pageantry.


"Autopsies reveal hunted foxes are not killed quickly, but endure numerous bites and tears to their flanks and hindquarters - causing enormous suffering before death. Foxes forced to face terriers underground can suffer injuries to the face, head and neck, as can the terriers."

I'm sure this is true - on the other hand it should be noted that handguns are illegal and shotguns are sometimes prohibitively difficult to obtain and keep.


"While foxes are of course predators – they kill other animals for food – their impact on livestock is exaggerated, and can be reduced with good farming practices. The threat of the ‘fox in the chicken coop’ can be remedied with a secure electric fence. While sheep farmers may curse foxes for the loss of their lambs, in reality studies have shown that poor farming practices, disease and bad weather are far more likely to lead to lamb deaths. A 2000 study in Scotland found that around just 1% of lamb losses could be directly attributed to foxes. On the other hand, by feeding on rabbits, a 2003 study estimated that rural foxes save British crop farmers around £7m per year."

The extent to which you can mitigate the danger of foxes is debatable, because they are cunning, and patient, and you only have to slip up once.


I pulled up a few quotes to address your points. Any farm issues can be solved with secure fencing... not perfect but statistically more likely for the animal to die in other ways.

No, not "any farm issues". Some farming issues can be helped by fencing, they are helped more by fencing and killing foxes. We actually gave up keeping chickens when I was young because no matter what we did the foxes always got them in the end. Electric fences also only work so long as the animal is afraid. Even with mains electric fences (which are expensive) suffer from this problem, and any animal that lives long enough learns that they aren't really harmful and can ignore them. I've seen this from horses and sheep, I imagine foxes are clever enough to work this out against.

Who's going to foot the cost of turning these farms into Fort Knox? How are you going to set this up for Hill Farms and crofters where there's no mains electric near the fields?


Kick them when they're down is an expression which means to give someone unfortunate a bad time. I qualified this in my post that whilst no sane conservative would actually enjoy inflicting pain, it is sometimes an unfortunate consequence of their policies that this happens.

Yes, I know what it means. My point is to even suggest that it's a question with the Right (but not the Left) speaks to your view and your lack of empathy for people on a different part of the political spectrum. I'd also point out that rarely is this an "unfortunate consequence" so much as a foreseen consequence.

Let me give you a real-world example. Exeter City Council has a "no second night" policy so that no homeless person in the city should ever spend a second night out of doors. This is laudable, certainly, but it has not solved the homelessness problem in the city, the problem has got worse. Exeter is drawing homeless people in from the surrounding towns, and not all of them the City trie to re-house actually stay put, some of them end up back on the streets. So our homelessness problem is worse than it was five years ago, and some of these people are mentally unstable, or aggressive when begging, and we're a University city with lots of young girls walking down the High Street (drunk) of an evening.

So, the city suffers for its charity, at a time when we're also dealing with an uptick in violent crime. One young lad I know told me a lot of the kids in the Saint Thomas area carry knives now, then there was the man found stuffed in a bin last year:

http://www.devonlive.com/second-man-charged-with-murder-over-death-of-man-in-exeter/story-29939692-detail/story.html

So - choices - keep the streetlights on at night or try to house an increasing homeless population.


I worked with many who were homeless. Even people who were alcoholics and took drugs on the streets. They mostly took the substances because their life was so terrible, it was the only thing they could do to make their situation bearable. There is a clear sense of hopelessness, a feeling that society has deserted them and doesn't give a single care about their welfare. To some people, homelessness is nothing more than vermin on the street, yet when these individuals are given the proper support, willing to push for a change in their lives, they can pick themselves up and make real differences. I even came across colleagues who were on in their life, homeless, and it was through these efforts and investment of others they can really changed things around. One guy was even now earning £32,000! If you think he was at one time a homeless alcoholic, the fact he is changed everything around with support and is even now on a good income, just shows that these are people who can shine and make something of themselves. These are not vermin in the street but potential diamonds in the rough. There was even this guy (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3865804/SunLife-Organics-juicing-mogul-Khalil-Rafati-went-homeless-addict-millionaire.html).

People become homeless for a number of reasons, one reason is abuse (particularly childhood abuse) but drug and alcohol addictions are another reason, as is isolationism. If you think that a lot of homeless people have families, parents, grandparents, children etc. that they walked out on or broke contact with for one reason or another. It's a story you frequently hear, after they're murdered, that this homeless person had someone looking for them but they dropped off the map.

I agree that once you're homeless it's incredibly difficult to get back on your feet unless someone gives you a lot of support but at the same time we need to address how people become homeless, and we need to acknowledge that in some cases it is because of choices they made, and they had other options.

This is particularly true of young people.

[Strike For The South]

Things my terrier has gotten stuck in:

prairie dog hole
fence(s)
mattress(es)
trash can(s)
beer box
pool
crate
tub
the backseat

little monsters man

[Idaho]

I honestly couldn't care less about fox hunting. If people really want to go out in a big group and torment wildlife - bully for them.

[Greyblades]

We should legalize social studies student hunting.

[Fragony]

We should legalize social studies student hunting.

As Good idea but try missing me, I know it's bullsgit it were just (really) easy points

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We should legalize social studies student hunting.

Seems a bit broad. Any student studying "social studies?"

Social sciences in general? Or sociology?

All students? Grad students? Are those who have completed their piled-highest-and-deepest a protected class while their students are fair game?

[Husar]

The real question is why?

Just the usual fascist alt-right argument of "It's all bogus anyway and only SJWs study it!" ?

It's especially sad coming from someone who says their concerns are not relevant anymore in modern politics. Instead of chasing away the social studies people like sociologists, you should demand they get more say in government than they currently do, because they may actually improve things for those people forgotten by politics and economists. See linked article for more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/upshot/what-if-sociologists-had-as-much-influence-as-economists.html?_r=0

[Strike For The South]

Population control is necessary for a healthy ecosystem.

im not sure how it works in the U.K. But here hunters and fishers tend to do the most for conservation.

[Husar]

Population control is necessary for a healthy ecosystem.

im not sure how it works in the U.K. But here hunters and fishers tend to do the most for conservation.

You mean after they killed all the natural predators they now pretend that the ecosystem can't work on its own?

[Pannonian]

You mean after they killed all the natural predators they now pretend that the ecosystem can't work on its own?

A bit late to start regretting the loss of natural predators/competition for foxes. The last wolves seen in England were around 13th/14th century.

[Idaho]

Population control is necessary for a healthy ecosystem.

im not sure how it works in the U.K. But here hunters and fishers tend to do the most for conservation.

Numerous hunts in the UK used to feed foxes to make sure there were enough to hunt. So the pest control argument falls flat.

Still, if ripping up small dogs is your thing, crack on.

[Strike For The South]

You mean after they killed all the natural predators they now pretend that the ecosystem can't work on its own?
or they are an invasive species or they are able take advantage of human habitation practices or sometimes populations simply become out of control. Nature is not harmony, stewardship is required.

Numerous hunts in the UK used to feed foxes to make sure there were enough to hunt. So the pest control argument falls flat.

Still, if ripping up small dogs is your thing, crack on.

I mean that's not particularly sporting but it doesn't change the fact the fox population needs to be managed.

[Husar]

A bit late to start regretting the loss of natural predators/competition for foxes. The last wolves seen in England were around 13th/14th century.

Simple, reintroduce wolves. If they eat a few Englishmen as well now and then it dampens all the problems Strike mentions.


or they are an invasive species or they are able take advantage of human habitation practices or sometimes populations simply become out of control. Nature is not harmony, stewardship is required.

Most of that is indeed due to human influence. This wouldn't be necessary if we lived in caves and ate a few of them now and again.
Predators starve naturally if they overhunt, just like we will once we've cleared the oceans and destroyed our soils (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/). :whip::stare:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Numerous hunts in the UK used to feed foxes to make sure there were enough to hunt. So the pest control argument falls flat.

Still, if ripping up small dogs is your thing, crack on.

Like I say, never heard of this so it can't have been pervasive. Mind you, North Devon never lacked for mangy foxes, and I mean that literally.

[Beskar]

I mean that's not particularly sporting but it doesn't change the fact the fox population needs to be managed.

Yet hunters and sponsored extermination practices don't work. Significantly more die to mange than to hunters (as PVC liked to point out with 'mangy foxes'). Practices to secure fencing do better than hunting in eliminating 'chicken coop massacres' described. There is even the concept of feeding local foxes so they don't need to try to break into enclosures. Foxes also control their own populations with their breeding patterns. If you go on killing sprees, the foxes breed significantly more and there is influx from migration, reducing in more foxes in the area in the following spring.

Fox Hunting is simply a sadistic sport where aristocrats glamour up with their red-coats and stick hordes of dogs on foxes for 'sport'. If we are going to be really truthful on the subject, the hunting ban stops packs of dogs, the hunts can continue with two dogs to flush them out, so 'ban' is probably the wrong word to use.

We are not talking about some random farmer having to deal with a fox inside of a chicken coop. The hunting ban doesn't affect this in the slightest.

[Gilrandir]

Not really. There are different reasons for drug addiction, but majority of it comes from terrible life circumstances. This clip explains it really well:


There are indeed different reason for drug addiction as well as there are drugs different in their price which determines different income categories of the abusers. But while not denying vicissitudes of fortune as an important reason for drug abuse, I can't agree on it being the major one. In the USSR drug addiction was predominantly the amusement of the well-to-do youths whose parents had warm positions among the Communist party elite.

[Furunculus]

Fox Hunting is simply a sadistic sport where aristocrats glamour up with their red-coats and stick hordes of dogs on foxes for 'sport'.

in my limited experience it is very much a working class affair, a collective participation of rural communities.

[Sarmatian]

19624

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yet hunters and sponsored extermination practices don't work. Significantly more die to mange than to hunters (as PVC liked to point out with 'mangy foxes').

Mangy foxes are an Urban problem, resulting from poor sanitation and over-breeding due to complete lack of control and ample food source. Urban Councils would dump mangy foxes in the country side rather than exterminating them (or treating them). This was considered more humane. From the Urban population mange would spread into rural foxes.


Practices to secure fencing do better than hunting in eliminating 'chicken coop massacres' described.

This isn't really true, for reasons already described. Fencing alone is not a solution.


There is even the concept of feeding local foxes so they don't need to try to break into enclosures.

Yes, please, convince the foxes to move in, long term, to multiply and then tell me what happens when the farmer doesn't have enough money to spend on the luxury of feeding pests to bribe them from killing his livestock. This is the same thinking as behind Danegeld, pay the predator to leave, be surprised when he comes back.


Foxes also control their own populations with their breeding patterns.

Manifestly not true - see "Urban Foxes".



If you go on killing sprees, the foxes breed significantly more and there is influx from migration, reducing in more foxes in the area in the following spring.

Hunting is not a "killing spree" though. A "Killing Spree" is conducted at night from a blind with a rifle and a scope over the course of a month, several times a week. Hunts are conducted during the day with a large, loud, pack of dogs, once a week or less over the course of several months. Hunters primarily target healthy foxes, Hunts primarily target sickly ones.


Fox Hunting is simply a sadistic sport where aristocrats glamour up with their red-coats and stick hordes of dogs on foxes for 'sport'.

1. Most people aren't in it for the killing, very few are in it to see the animal suffer.

2. Most hunters are not aristocrats - that's urban class prejudice that says only the wealthy own horses and ride for please. I'm not wealthy, nor is my sister or mother, we all ride. Most of my friends ride, as do MOST farmers and their children in traditional farming communities.

3. Most people on a hunt do not wear the red coat, many hunts do not even have red coats, but blue or green.

You're three for three on not understanding the culture here - please - stop pretending to know anything about the inner workings of people you have never met and start listening to what they say instead.


If we are going to be really truthful on the subject, the hunting ban stops packs of dogs, the hunts can continue with two dogs to flush them out, so 'ban' is probably the wrong word to use.

Two dogs is a practically useless number, you need at least four. The only thing you can use two dogs to hunt is rabbits. The irony being that rabbit hunting with Lurchers is much more cruel than anything done to foxes.


We are not talking about some random farmer having to deal with a fox inside of a chicken coop. The hunting ban doesn't affect this in the slightest.

Of course it does, the hunting Ban changes the way we hunt and kill foxes, which affects their demographics and breeding patterns - as you already noted. In fact, just by removing this regular, cyclical, form of hunting you have disrupted rural ecosystems and presented farmers with foxes that behave differently, and require different counter-measures not previously employed.

[Strike For The South]

I don't understand the use of dogs at all. Why put the little guys in harms way?

[Montmorency]

Reading through wiki it seems systematic fox hunting has a minimal effect for the purpose of population control and management, and that "shooting, poisoning, and fencing" are superior methods.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't understand the use of dogs at all. Why put the little guys in harms way?

Hunting with dogs as partners -- and often the killing tool in the hunt -- is a very old tradition in Europe. Goes back at least to Celtic times with their legends of the Wild Hunt and so on.

[Pannonian]

Mangy foxes are an Urban problem, resulting from poor sanitation and over-breeding due to complete lack of control and ample food source. Urban Councils would dump mangy foxes in the country side rather than exterminating them (or treating them). This was considered more humane. From the Urban population mange would spread into rural foxes.

This isn't really true, for reasons already described. Fencing alone is not a solution.

Yes, please, convince the foxes to move in, long term, to multiply and then tell me what happens when the farmer doesn't have enough money to spend on the luxury of feeding pests to bribe them from killing his livestock. This is the same thinking as behind Danegeld, pay the predator to leave, be surprised when he comes back.

Manifestly not true - see "Urban Foxes".

Hunting is not a "killing spree" though. A "Killing Spree" is conducted at night from a blind with a rifle and a scope over the course of a month, several times a week. Hunts are conducted during the day with a large, loud, pack of dogs, once a week or less over the course of several months. Hunters primarily target healthy foxes, Hunts primarily target sickly ones.

1. Most people aren't in it for the killing, very few are in it to see the animal suffer.

2. Most hunters are not aristocrats - that's urban class prejudice that says only the wealthy own horses and ride for please. I'm not wealthy, nor is my sister or mother, we all ride. Most of my friends ride, as do MOST farmers and their children in traditional farming communities.

3. Most people on a hunt do not wear the red coat, many hunts do not even have red coats, but blue or green.

You're three for three on not understanding the culture here - please - stop pretending to know anything about the inner workings of people you have never met and start listening to what they say instead.

Two dogs is a practically useless number, you need at least four. The only thing you can use two dogs to hunt is rabbits. The irony being that rabbit hunting with Lurchers is much more cruel than anything done to foxes.

Of course it does, the hunting Ban changes the way we hunt and kill foxes, which affects their demographics and breeding patterns - as you already noted. In fact, just by removing this regular, cyclical, form of hunting you have disrupted rural ecosystems and presented farmers with foxes that behave differently, and require different counter-measures not previously employed.

What I'd like to see figures for, if possible, from the past, if not, then from a limited reintroduction for the purpose of producing stats, is how successful these hunts are. Poisoning, hidden shooting and other non-discriminatory methods take both unhealthy and healthy foxes alike. If hunting with dogs weeds out the diseased and only the least athletic of the other foxes, then it might be the most natural method. If it has an extremely high success rate, then it's not much more useful than other non-discriminatory methods in keeping the general population healthy. Most hunts in nature end in failure.

[Strike For The South]

Hunting with dogs as partners -- and often the killing tool in the hunt -- is a very old tradition in Europe. Goes back at least to Celtic times with their legends of the Wild Hunt and so on.


You shoot the bird and the pupper goes and gets it. You don't make the dog do the work, philistines.

[Gilrandir]

Is it somehow symbolic that the discussion of British elections came down to discussing foxes?

[Husar]

You shoot the bird and the pupper goes and gets it. You don't make the dog do the work, philistines.

Foxes can fly in the UK?
I guess everything is really better there than on the continent.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What I'd like to see figures for, if possible, from the past, if not, then from a limited reintroduction for the purpose of producing stats, is how successful these hunts are. Poisoning, hidden shooting and other non-discriminatory methods take both unhealthy and healthy foxes alike. If hunting with dogs weeds out the diseased and only the least athletic of the other foxes, then it might be the most natural method. If it has an extremely high success rate, then it's not much more useful than other non-discriminatory methods in keeping the general population healthy. Most hunts in nature end in failure.

I can't give you figures, but I can tell you anecdotally that many hunts would end in failure.


Is it somehow symbolic that the discussion of British elections came down to discussing foxes?

Yes, it's seen as a class issue. The Labour party banned fox hunting - ostensibly because it's cruel but really because about two centuries ago an alliance of Tories and Liberals caused baiting of Dogs, Bears and Badgers to be banned.

Hunting is a "Field Sport" in British parlance because you go out into "the field" and hunt, and properly fail. However, the League Against Cruel Sports classifies it as a "Blood Sport" alongside the aforementioned baitings.

[Gilrandir]

Yes, it's seen as a class issue. The Labour party banned fox hunting - ostensibly because it's cruel but really because about two centuries ago an alliance of Tories and Liberals caused baiting of Dogs, Bears and Badgers to be banned.

Hunting is a "Field Sport" in British parlance because you go out into "the field" and hunt, and properly fail. However, the League Against Cruel Sports classifies it as a "Blood Sport" alongside the aforementioned baitings.

Then just hold a poll on the attitude to fox hunting and skip the elections altogether. Will save much money anyway.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, I actually couldn't actually bring myself to vote yesterday, but crikey.

Labour battered, UKIP wiped out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39810488

[Montmorency]

Net gains and losses in the hundreds, and apparently the majority of results have not even been declared yet.

[Elmetiacos]

So, I actually couldn't actually bring myself to vote yesterday, but crikey.

Labour battered, UKIP wiped out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39810488
The people's verdict: BAA-AA-AA-AH!

[Beskar]

We knew UKIP died, but it seems their decline is the Conservatives net-gain.

[Greyblades]

It was inevitable; a one issue party dies the second it wins and it can only be resurrected by having that victory reversed post fact.

[Beskar]

https://i.imgur.com/S6q8Xs0.jpg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://i.imgur.com/S6q8Xs0.jpg

Replace "Socialist" with "Christian".

Watch as hilarity ensures.

[Beskar]

Replace "Socialist" with "Christian".

Watch as hilarity ensures.

Not really... remember Cat Smith? "Smith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Smith) has stated that she believes Jesus was a radical socialist"

Though, if you read the full thing, she identifies as bisexual. So a Christian Socialist LGBT-identifier.

[Montmorency]

So...+~600 Tory seats?

[Pannonian]

And Labour decide that the right response to the local election disasters is to promote John McDonnell to a more prominent role. Yup, that's the guy who said he'd been waiting for decades for the opportunity that is the economic crisis. The guy who recently (less than a week ago) spoke at a rally, directly under Communist and Baathist flags. As in look at McDonnell on the podium, then look up to see the hammer and sickle a few feet above him. I guess he's replacing Diane Abbott, who not only has a tenuous grasp of geography, but has no concept of numbers either.

[Pannonian]

So...+~600 Tory seats?

How many seats did UKIP win?

http://www.viraltechtricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/enable-middle-finger-emoji.png

[Beskar]

I am noticing a trend with the baby boomers, some of which voted Labour which have moved their vote to Conservative. Just asked one of them for feedback.
- "Need a strong leader to take us out of Europe"
- "I cannot trust any of them, but I feel I can trust her the most"
- "Corbyn is unimpressive."
- "Pacifism is a concern. I want some one like Maggie, who will go off and sort it."
- "I like Tim Farron, but he is talking out of his rear if he thinks he can get an experienced government together. Gone too far for Brexit, and he needs to listen to the people."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not really... remember Cat Smith? "Smith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Smith) has stated that she believes Jesus was a radical socialist"

Though, if you read the full thing, she identifies as bisexual. So a Christian Socialist LGBT-identifier.

Jesus was a Hippie, not a Socialist.

The difference is not their aims, but their methods.

Socialists believe the rich should be taxed heavily, and that the richer you are the more heavily you should be taxed. Meanwhile the Christians believes that the rich should give generously and the richer you are the more generous you should be.

The Socialist doesn't trust society, he passes laws and forces the rich to support the law. The Christian trusts society too much.

As in all things, moderation.

The point being that your poster was reductive, and not entirely true - some Socialists will try to tax the wealthy in a way designed to actively prevent them gaining more wealth - such as inheritance tax - a tax considered morally dubious until recent times.

Anyway - the story of the local election is that the Governing Party of 8 years was the only real beneficiary in England and the main one in Scotland and Wales. In Scotland the Conservatives overtook Labour as the second-largest party.

@Pannonian (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=11905) - you forgot when McDonnell said he "wanted to take Britain back to the 1970's".

You know, everybody in a Union, collective bargaining, rolling blackouts, a three day week, a stagnant and failing economy.

[Montmorency]

The Socialist doesn't trust society, he passes laws and forces the rich to support the law. The Christian trusts society too much.

I don't see the coherence in this. Christianity doesn't see a need for law and government, or assumes that a society exists without them? Or is it that Christianity identifies a supervenient "higher power"?

[Pannonian]

@Pannonian (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=11905) - you forgot when McDonnell said he "wanted to take Britain back to the 1970's".

You know, everybody in a Union, collective bargaining, rolling blackouts, a three day week, a stagnant and failing economy.

TBF, he doesn't just look back to the 1970s. He also celebrates some 1980s events, like the Brighton hotel bombing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't see the coherence in this. Christianity doesn't see a need for law and government, or assumes that a society exists without them? Or is it that Christianity identifies a supervenient "higher power"?

Christians believe that people should have everything on Beskar's list - but what defines a Socialist is the belief that everything should be provided by the State, as opposed to the community.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

[Pannonian]

Christians believe that people should have everything on Beskar's list - but what defines a Socialist is the belief that everything should be provided by the State, as opposed to the community.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

That's not an exact definition of socialism, particularly the type espoused by old (meaning, really old, not Bennite old) Labour, which ironically has more in common with Blair's New Labour than Corbyn's 1970s-80s Bennite Labour. The line "Libraries gave us power" sums it up. It's the state providing opportunity for the individual and community to better themselves through their own effort, opportunity that would not be available in a pure laissez-faire environment.

[Beskar]

Christians believe that people should have everything on Beskar's list - but what defines a Socialist is the belief that everything should be provided by the State, as opposed to the community.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

If we want to be picky, "Community" and "Communism" has the same root. in a sense, the State is the Community.

[Montmorency]

Christians believe that people should have everything on Beskar's list - but what defines a Socialist is the belief that everything should be provided by the State, as opposed to the community.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

Beskar's right - how is the community organized? They have to be in order to make a community, even if it's just an innate impulse to do God's work. State socialism in that context would be a matter of bookkeeping.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If we want to be picky, "Community" and "Communism" has the same root. in a sense, the State is the Community.

Communism is enforced community, which is why it fails.

The State is not the community, though it arises out of it, because whilst everyone is - at least marginally - part of the community only certain people are part of the state.

For example, I am not a politician or an employee of the State - ergo I am not a part of the Organs of the State.

That does not exclude me from the community.

[Pannonian]

Nope, McDonnell is not replacing Diane Abbott, whom I just saw on Daily Politics. The Labour front bench is abysmally poor, probably the worst I've seen in my life by some distance.

[Beskar]

The Progressive Alliance (http://www.progressivealliance.org.uk/) is gaining momentum.

With some luck, they will succeed in getting rid of the terrible Jimmy 'Unt.

A "progressive forum" organised by the South West Surrey Compass group over the weekend saw the Green Party withdraw their candidate from the race completely, while Liberal Democrats and Labour members agreed not to campaign, after members from all four parties selected the leader of the National Health Action party as the best placed candidate to oppose the Health Secretary.
Article Source (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-stands-down-to-help-nhs-doctor-win-against-jeremy-hunt-a7723491.html?)

[Beskar]

Tory MP Candidate claims to heal Deaf people through Prayer
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-mp-candidate-kristy-adams-christian-healed-deaf-man-prayer-a7721621.html

A Conservative party candidate has reportedly claimed she healed a deaf man with her bare hands by channelling the power of prayer.
Kristy Adams, who is standing to be MP for Hove and Portslade, said she healed the man by placing her hands over his ears and saying: “Be healed in Jesus' name.”

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Tory MP Candidate claims to heal Deaf people through Prayer
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-mp-candidate-kristy-adams-christian-healed-deaf-man-prayer-a7721621.html

Earnest Ainsley has her beat. Devil come OUT!

[Pannonian]

The difference between the UK and US is that anyone who openly talks about their religion is considered a crackpot here, while it's mandatory in the US. Although I suspect faith healing would be considered crackpot even in the States.

[Montmorency]

The difference between the UK and US is that anyone who openly talks about their religion is considered a crackpot here, while it's mandatory in the US. Although I suspect faith healing would be considered crackpot even in the States.

Obviously the coastal elites do.

But it's about as popular as "detox" across the country, and almost all states allow religious or personal-belief exemptions for child medical care, including vaccination (except California, West Virginia, and somehow Mississippi).

[Pannonian]

Corbyn reads The Canary (the left's equivalent of Breitbart) and he'll stay on as leader whatever happens in the election (with expectations being a Tory landslide).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Progressive Alliance (http://www.progressivealliance.org.uk/) is gaining momentum.

With some luck, they will succeed in getting rid of the terrible Jimmy 'Unt.

Article Source (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-stands-down-to-help-nhs-doctor-win-against-jeremy-hunt-a7723491.html?)

I don't think it is really.

Also, I agree with Tim Farron here (shocker) - Labour are not a Liberal Party, and the Lib Dems should not try to prop them up, notwithstanding what former Labour Councillor Sir Vince Cable says.


Tory MP Candidate claims to heal Deaf people through Prayer
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-mp-candidate-kristy-adams-christian-healed-deaf-man-prayer-a7721621.html

Well that's just silly, only the King can cure the halt, death and lame.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The difference between the UK and US is that anyone who openly talks about their religion is considered a crackpot here, while it's mandatory in the US. Although I suspect faith healing would be considered crackpot even in the States.

Far from mandatory. We have any number of settings where talking of one's religions is considered a little 'pushy.' On the other hand, except for rare circles, the declaration that one is religious does not evoke some form of pariah status either.

Most consider faith healing a little crackpot -- though anyone who has studied the placebo effect at all cannot discard the value of belief in and of itself.

My reference above to Earnest Angley [sorry, mis-spelled things above] was using one of his catch-phrases.

I recall laughing over his recounting of a faith healing episode while on a mission trip to China. He prayed over a mute from birth teenager, and then claimed that he spoke his first words ever....and spoke in English.

[Pannonian]

I don't think it is really.

Also, I agree with Tim Farron here (shocker) - Labour are not a Liberal Party, and the Lib Dems should not try to prop them up, notwithstanding what former Labour Councillor Sir Vince Cable says.

Well that's just silly, only the King can cure the halt, death and lame.

Has he trademarked the cure? Don't forget scrofula as well.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Has he trademarked the cure? Don't forget scrofula as well.

Or 'rising of the lights'

[Beskar]

Labour's leaked manifesto looks good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39877439
Pro Manifesto Reporting - Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/11/leaked-labour-manifesto-cornucopia-delights-tories-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may?CMP=share_btn_tw)
Negative Manifesto Reporting - Daily Mail (https://i.imgur.com/9g2EvBw.jpg)


Theresa May will repeal ban on hunting cute fluffy animals with hordes of dogs.
https://i.imgur.com/Q9ImNzG.jpg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It looks shit.

And foxes are murderous sociopaths. What? Just because they (mostly) kill small lambs and rabbits it's OK? That picture of a Fox even LOOKS murderous.

That's speciesist.

Sorry Beskar, but if you're going to be horribly biased, so am I.

[Beskar]

And foxes are murderous sociopaths. What? Just because they (mostly) kill small lambs and rabbits it's OK? That picture of a Fox even LOOKS murderous.

https://i.imgur.com/EnLe9sQ.jpg

[Montmorency]

It looks shit.

And foxes are murderous sociopaths. What? Just because they (mostly) kill small lambs and rabbits it's OK? That picture of a Fox even LOOKS murderous.

That's speciesist.

Sorry Beskar, but if you're going to be horribly biased, so am I.

Poor Husar impression.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://i.imgur.com/EnLe9sQ.jpg

Because, every time I see you I remember seeing those small lambs your kin killed and left in our field.

I don't want to kill you, but I don't want any other small boy to have to suffer a trauma like that at your hands.

[Elmetiacos]

Foxhunting FFS. The Tories never change no matter what they say.

[Strike For The South]

There are too many foxes. They need to be culled. I don't understand the pomp and the dogs though. Puppers should be protected. Natures way of "taking care of things" is ecosystem collapse. Like you don't have to take joy in it to recognize the importance of good stewardship.

Beskar have you ever left London?

[Beskar]

Beskar have you ever left London?

Considering I live on the other side of country, that would be quite a feat if true.

Distance Wise to London:
Pannanion (London)
Greyblades (South)
Philippus & Idaho (South-West)
Furunculus
Me (North West) InsaneApache (North East)
Rhyfelwr (Scotland)

[Strike For The South]

Considering I live on the other side of country, that would be quite a feat if true.

Distance Wise to London:
Idaho and Pannanion (London)
Greyblades (South)
Phillippus (South)
Furunculus
Me & InsaneApache (North)
Rhyfelwr (Scotland)

Aren't the Northerners supposed to be manly men, raised in the mines, clothes made out of tin, grew up on a steady diet of earl grey and coal? Truth be told, I thought Albion specifically referred to London, or at least the south of England.

The more you know, I suppose.

[Beskar]

I thought Albion specifically referred to London, or at least the south of England.

Used in the context of Ancient name of the Island of Great Britain. (the landmass which contains England, Scotland and Wales).

We have the delights such as Yorkshire Puddings. Go to London.. the blasphemers cannot even serve a proper Roast Dinner with them. Severely disappointing.

[Strike For The South]

Used in the context of Ancient name of the Island of Great Britain. (the landmass which contains England, Scotland and Wales).

We have the delights such as Yorkshire Puddings. Go to London.. the blasphemers cannot even serve a proper Roast Dinner with them. Severely disappointing.

London is the dropoff for all Americans. Its our first impression.

[Beskar]

London is the dropoff for all Americans. Its our first impression.

I live near as area called the 'Lake District'. Probably one of the most beautiful natural areas of the country.
https://i.imgur.com/AcXjqlW.jpg

If I travel east, I have got the Yorkshire Dales. (Picture: Bolton Abbey)
https://i.imgur.com/7n71L11.jpg

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Considering I live on the other side of country, that would be quite a feat if true.

Distance Wise to London:
Idaho and Pannanion (London)
Greyblades (South)
Phillippus (South)
Furunculus
Me & InsaneApache (North)
Rhyfelwr (Scotland)

OK, first off, I'm in the South-West, my family is from the South.

Second off, unless he's moved Idaho and I live within walking distance of each other and within the same Electoral Constituency.

Third off, my given name has three "p"s, two "i"s and one "l".


Aren't the Northerners supposed to be manly men, raised in the mines, clothes made out of tin, grew up on a steady diet of earl grey and coal? Truth be told, I thought Albion specifically referred to London, or at least the south of England.

The more you know, I suppose.

Tin is from Cornwall and Earl Grey is drunk primarily by, well, Earl Grey and his friends.

You're right though, they are meant to be manly men covered in coal dust.

As to fox hunting - answer me this:

Why is it apparently OK for the fox to slaughter lambs and no eat them, or a whole hen house, but it's not ok for hounds to rip the fox apart?

It is, after all, primarily the hounds which "enjoy" the killing. Once upon a time every huntmaster carried a long barrelled pistol to finish off the fox before the hounds caught it - he shot it from horseback.

Guess why that stopped?

[Greyblades]

He kept accidentally shooting his dog?

[Beskar]

OK, first off, I'm in the South-West, my family is from the South.

and I am North West and InsaneApache is North East, which I simply shortened to 'North'. I changed it for you.

As for Foxes, from Google (http://www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com/2011/03/research-has-conclusively-shown-that-the-fox-is-a-scrounger-of-carrion-hunters-peddle-the-myth-that-foxes-are-a-terrible-problem-for-sheep-farmers/) on a site by Conservatives (Tories) against Fox Hunting It argues it represents 2/3rds of Tory voters and 84% of the Population on this matter:

One of the great myths that the hunters peddle is that foxes are a terrible problem for sheep farmers. It is rubbish of course, but as ever they don’t let inconvenient facts get in the way of their supposed justification for fox persecution.
It says Foxes primarily prey on Carrion (dead animals). Goes on to say that Foxes are used as a scapegoat for bad farming and how Ewes are fiercely protective of their lambs, even headbutting sheepdogs to death if they approach during lambing session.

Goes on to say that Fox hunting is a highly ritualised social event where they set hordes of dogs onto wild animals 'for sport', classifying it as a bloodsport and not exercises in pest control.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

and I am North West and InsaneApache is North East, which I simply shortened to 'North'. I changed it for you.

I do not pretend to understand the North, but here "South" and "South West" are different, as it "South East."

More annoyed you got my name wrong and placed Idaho in teh wrong city, though.


As for Foxes, from Google (http://www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com/2011/03/research-has-conclusively-shown-that-the-fox-is-a-scrounger-of-carrion-hunters-peddle-the-myth-that-foxes-are-a-terrible-problem-for-sheep-farmers/) on a site by Conservatives (Tories) against Fox Hunting It argues it represents 2/3rds of Tory voters and 84% of the Population on this matter:

It says Foxes primarily prey on Carrion (dead animals). Goes on to say that Foxes are used as a scapegoat for bad farming and how Ewes are fiercely protective of their lambs, even headbutting sheepdogs to death if they approach during lambing session.

Goes on to say that Fox hunting is a highly ritualised social event where they set hordes of dogs onto wild animals 'for sport', classifying it as a bloodsport and not exercises in pest control.

Hunting is a Field Sport, as the primary activity is the hunt, not the kill. Feel free to argue all Field Sports are cruel, though.

Anyway...

*Head. Ripped. Off*

One of the lambs was headless, another had it's throat ripped out. I'll never forget the image of that tiny animal just killed and left for dead.

I suppose it might not have been foxes, could have been a particularly angry badger but the multiple kills in close proximity and only one missing lamb suggest "fox".

The Farmer down the road did lose two of his dogs to something evil though, with the third found the next morning huddled in the corner. That was probably a badger.

You haven't addressed my question - why is it OK for the fox to kill wastefully but not for the hounds to kill the fox?

[Montmorency]

Why is it OK for hunters to send dogs into a situation where they must kill the fox?

You really need to step back here Phillip, you sound frantic.

[Husar]

You guys need to think outside the box: https://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-project/reprogramming-predators.html


Reprogramming Predators

A biosphere without suffering is technically feasible. In principle, science can deliver a cruelty-free world that lacks the molecular signature of unpleasant experience. Not merely can a living world support human life based on genetically preprogrammed gradients of well-being. If carried to completion, the abolitionist project entails ecosystem redesign, cross-species immunocontraception, marine nanorobots, rewriting the vertebrate genome, and harnessing the exponential growth of computational resources to manage a compassionately run global ecosystem. Ultimately, it's an ethical choice whether intelligent agents opt to create such a world - or instead express our natural status quo bias and perpetuate the biology of suffering indefinitely.

[Montmorency]

You guys need to think outside the box: https://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-project/reprogramming-predators.html

There's nothing more inside-the-box than "parasidism". It's just the logical conclusion of imbuing suffering with so much meaning - not a smart one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why is it OK for hunters to send dogs into a situation where they must kill the fox?

You really need to step back here Phillip, you sound frantic.

I assume you're trolling me as you also miss-spelled my name, like Beskar.

I fail to see how I sound "frantic" though - and I have to say I take exception to that.

I'm really not joking though, that image has stayed with me. It left me traumatised and is probably why, as I grew older, I didn't take up sheep farming. This is why I have no sympathy with the fox as a "cute and cuddly" animal. It's just an animal, it kills to eat, if it gets caught it kills all the witnesses.

I honestly do not understand - why is the fox still a "defenceless animal" even though we know every fox is a born killer, and a wasteful one at that? The hound is also a born killer, it chases the fox, it catches the fox, it kills the fox. So, why is is permissible to allow the fox to kill lambs and rabbits, and attack babies, and nobody even wants to talk about culling them - let alone hunting then - yet everybody is horrified at hunting and maybe catching and killing a fox with dogs?

It's a double standard - the fox keeps its "cute and cuddly" tag no matter that it hunts and kills every day, yet the hound is a horrible, abhorrent, thing that must be penned up and prevented from hunting or killing.

It's not like humans don't kill all the time, either, we're horrible to the things we eat - we pen them up in huge barns that stink of offal and death, we lead them up a ramp one by one, torture them to make them insensible and then we kill them.

So, that's OK, but getting on a horse and riding out behind a pack of hounds isn't?

I do not understand this bizarre selective cruelty.

I favour hunting with dogs because done properly it weeds out the weak foxes, after they'd had their cubs for the year. I consider man and dog hunting foxes to be the same as wolves hunting deer or foxes killing hens. If you actually take pleasure in the pain of the animal as it dies you're sick in the head, and if you dig the fox out after he's gone to ground I think that's unsporting. I see nothing inherently wrong with hunting with dogs, however, and letting the dogs have the kill.

What really does frustrate me, though, is that nobody will try to explain to me why this is wrong. I hear things like "It's cruel" which makes no sense because cruelty is an intention, not an action. I also hear people say "the animal suffers needlessly" but this is true of a hen house full of hens where the fox takes only one and leaves the rest dead.

For me, the fox is a pest. I have no desire to kill foxes but if I were still on my father's farm, hunting ban in place, I would need to go out and find the dens with a brace of dogs, dig them out and kill everything inside if we had a fox problem.

That, to me, sounds more horrific than hunting foxes with a pack of hounds. At least if the hunt catch wind of Mr Fox he might get away, and if he is caught and killed it's only him, not his entire family and the destruction of his home. Digging out the den is also a far more deliberate act, it requires thought and planning. So you're planning how best to kill something. If we're talking about the human psychology of this that seems much "crueller" than hunting with hounds. Without a Hunt many farmers will dig out a den as soon as they see any sign of a fox, regardless of the season.

I could go on and on, but the point is I don't get why hunting with dogs is worse than anything else, if you actually sit down and thing about it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You guys need to think outside the box: https://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-project/reprogramming-predators.html

I am as horrified as you would expect me to be.

We would, of course, all have to become Vegans.

The proposals only appear to apply to vertebrates - so back to "Cute and Cuddly" here too.

What do you do with the parasite whose life cycle requires it to eat another creature's eyes? Given the relative primitiveness of the organism it's unfair to imbue it with any real degree of responsibility but it's also not really feasible to reprogram every parasitic insect and their predators. Then you have the problem of insect over-population as well, and as they've all been re-programmed to eat greens they're essentially locusts.

This is a great example of an idea designed exclusively around the affective sensibilities of human being with too much time on their hands. Having reached the top of the food-chain man feels guilty. The suffering of other animals distresses him, and so he decides HE will REMAKE THE WORLD to please HIM.

This is actually the best example ever of a secular "God Complex" I have personally been exposed to - please tell me it isn't real.

[Montmorency]

I assume you're trolling me as you also miss-spelled my name, like Beskar.

I just removed the suffix; it's spelled as you wish otherwise.


It's a double standard - the fox keeps its "cute and cuddly" tag no matter that it hunts and kills every day, yet the hound is a horrible, abhorrent, thing that must be penned up and prevented from hunting or killing.

is it about the hound, or the hound's master?


So, that's OK, but getting on a horse and riding out behind a pack of hounds isn't?

I believe most who oppose the hunts would say it is not OK.


I favour hunting with dogs because done properly it weeds out the weak foxes

Setting aside the findings that this isn't a very effective practice toward that end, why wouldn't you want to consider all the other common means of fox control that are in use in context? If keeping the foxes under control is the objective, then even effective hunting could not be taken as the only solution worth discussing.


I see nothing inherently wrong with hunting with dogs, however, and letting the dogs have the kill.

Whether or not it's "inherently wrong", it's a matter of public policy and is subject to numerous other considerations.


cruelty is an intention, not an action.

I've never heard that perspective before. Apparently here are differing common ideas on the nature of cruelty.


I also hear people say "the animal suffers needlessly" but this is true of a hen house full of hens where the fox takes only one and leaves the rest dead.

Why would that matter?


That, to me, sounds more horrific than hunting foxes with a pack of hounds. At least if the hunt catch wind of Mr Fox he might get away, and if he is caught and killed it's only him, not his entire family and the destruction of his home. Digging out the den is also a far more deliberate act, it requires thought and planning. So you're planning how best to kill something. If we're talking about the human psychology of this that seems much "crueller" than hunting with hounds. Without a Hunt many farmers will dig out a den as soon as they see any sign of a fox, regardless of the season.

Proponents might argue the opposite, that deliberate and constrained killing is both more humane and and practical. But fundamentally what you should recognize is that critics of the hunts consider them as having more to do with the enjoyment of the hunters in the exercise, rather than threat control or ecological stewardship. You would find firmer ground in arguing for the retention of certain rationalized constructions of the hunt that mitigate the factors opponents find most objectionable than in opening a debate about what constitutes cruelty and animal cruelty.

[Montmorency]

I am as horrified as you would expect me to be.

We would, of course, all have to become Vegans.

The proposals only appear to apply to vertebrates - so back to "Cute and Cuddly" here too.

What do you do with the parasite whose life cycle requires it to eat another creature's eyes? Given the relative primitiveness of the organism it's unfair to imbue it with any real degree of responsibility but it's also not really feasible to reprogram every parasitic insect and their predators. Then you have the problem of insect over-population as well, and as they've all been re-programmed to eat greens they're essentially locusts.

This is a great example of an idea designed exclusively around the affective sensibilities of human being with too much time on their hands. Having reached the top of the food-chain man feels guilty. The suffering of other animals distresses him, and so he decides HE will REMAKE THE WORLD to please HIM.

This is actually the best example ever of a secular "God Complex" I have personally been exposed to - please tell me it isn't real.

That's philosopher David Pearce.

Here's his response to your complaint:


et if the world's 4000 species of cockroach were no longer extant outside a handful of vivariums, then their absence in the wild would be accounted no great loss on any plausible version of the felicific calculus. Nor would extinction of the swarming grasshoppers we know as plagues of locusts. A swarm of 50 billion locusts can in theory eat 100,000 tonnes of foodstuffs per day. Around 20% of food grown for human consumption is eaten by herbivorous insects. A truly utopian future world would lack even minuscule insect pangs of hunger, and its computational resources could micro-manage the well-being of the humblest arthropods - including the Earth's estimated 10 quintillion (1018) insects. In the meantime, we must prioritise. On a neoBuddhist or utilitarian ethic, the criterion of value and moral status is degree of sentience. In a Darwinian world, the welfare of some beings depends on their doing harm to others. So initially, ugly compromises are inevitable as we bootstrap our way out of primordial Darwinian life. Research must focus on how the ugliness of the transitional era can be minimised.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I just removed the suffix; it's spelled as you wish otherwise.

You wrote

Phillip

Not

Philip.

See? My Forum name is "Philippus" not "Phillippus".

The spelling is the same as HRH.


is it about the hound, or the hound's master?

Probably both, which is at least unfair to the hound.


I believe most who oppose the hunts would say it is not OK.

I the majority of the anti-hunt lobby still consume meat irrc. Supposedly the majority of the population opposes hunting with dogs, and the majority of them certainly eat meat. It follows that their either condone modern abattoirs or are ignorant of them. In the former case they are hypocritical, in the latter case I don't think they're entitled to comment.

Vegans would be entitled to comment, though.


Setting aside the findings that this isn't a very effective practice toward that end, why wouldn't you want to consider all the other common means of fox control that are in use in context? If keeping the foxes under control is the objective, then even effective hunting could not be taken as the only solution worth discussing.

You assume, wrongly, that those who support hunting support only hunting. Hunting can be conducted only during part of the year - in fact it cannot be conducted in the spring when foxes have cubs and ewes have lambs, so other methods of control are also required.

Those who support hunting support it as the primary method of killing foxes.


Whether or not it's "inherently wrong", it's a matter of public policy and is subject to numerous other considerations.

The justification for the ban, then and now, is that the practice is morally repugnant.


I've never heard that perspective before. Apparently here are differing common ideas on the nature of cruelty.

No? Well, then consider that "cruelty" is an attribute almost exclusively applied to human beings. To be cruel is, therefore, clearly a moral state and not an actual.


Why would that matter?

Because, in essence, man and fox and hound all act in the same way - but only man and hound are criticised.


Proponents might argue the opposite, that deliberate and constrained killing is both more humane and and practical. But fundamentally what you should recognize is that critics of the hunts consider them as having more to do with the enjoyment of the hunters in the exercise, rather than threat control or ecological stewardship. You would find firmer ground in arguing for the retention of certain rationalized constructions of the hunt that mitigate the factors opponents find most objectionable than in opening a debate about what constitutes cruelty and animal cruelty.

I do not believe it is possible to win a moral debate through rational application of logic.

What you are describing, however, is essentially a class-issue. One class sees the activity of another class as morally repugnant and therefore seeks to ban the activity.

As I asked - what is wrong with enjoying the hunt? Not the kill, but the hunt? Nothing, apparently, as drag hunting is permitted. Interestingly, I don't think anyone has ever tried to test to see if the hounds experience any catharsis when they catch and kill their prey. Note that on the hunt the humans do not do the killing the dogs do, the humans are essentially along for the ride. However, in the case where the den is dug out it is the humans who do the killing, not the dogs. Whilst some hunts do illegally set out to hunt foxes in many more cases (the ones that never come to caught) the hounds are out to track a scent-trail left by a drag and catch a live fox's scent instead. Then they hunt and kill the fox - because that's what Hounds do. So, even when humans set out NOT to hunt foxes and just to have a thrilling ride quite often the hounds conspire to killing a fox anyway.

[Montmorency]

You wrote

Phillip

Ok Ok


I the majority of the anti-hunt lobby still consume meat irrc. Supposedly the majority of the population opposes hunting with dogs, and the majority of them certainly eat meat. It follows that their either condone modern abattoirs or are ignorant of them. In the former case they are hypocritical, in the latter case I don't think they're entitled to comment.

Have you previously voiced the opinion that in matters of animal cruelty all methods of killing for food are cruel, or equally cruel? IIRC in a topic on Kosher killing you found only some methods to be unacceptable and not the practice in principle. Otherwise, abbatoirs have little relevance to this topic.

As for hunting with dogs, I wonder what those people say on other hunting with dogs, such as large game. For the anti-fox-hunters, is it more to do with the one practice or with dogs' violent instrumentality in general (as STFS apparently represents)? It is admittedly likely to be related - in the United States, deer-hunting with dogs is almost universally outlawed and has been for around a century.


Those who support hunting support it as the primary method of killing foxes.

So, that would be the problem, as it would have to settle for tertiary even in the best cases.


The justification for the ban, then and now, is that the practice is morally repugnant.

The justifications have been a little more specific than that.


Well, then consider that "cruelty" is an attribute almost exclusively applied to human beings.

Not really - according well with an understanding of cruelty as referring to acts just as well as intentions. If you rule out the former, then of course you would be more likely to apply it to humans than other animals in frequent usage.


Because, in essence, man and fox and hound all act in the same way - but only man and hound are criticised.


Well, "same way" is a rather dubious contention, but if it were the case - would it be alright for me to raid your abode, strike you down, devour your livestock, and forcibly mate with your children - as often goes on in the practices of living things? Trying to maintain an identical standard between human affairs and non-human affairs (which are so manifold in kind anyway) seems to handicap one's philosophy in ways that conservative types like you have long considered resolved.


As I asked - what is wrong with enjoying the hunt? Not the kill, but the hunt? Nothing, apparently, as drag hunting is permitted.

When the hunt is practiced for recreational reasons over the professed practical ones. With some relevance here, Faroe islanders in the northern sea enjoy a tradition of mass killing whales far in excess of what can be consumed or processed. That's a clear-cut case of a tradition that only exists for its own sake, against urgent ecological motivations. You could condone hunting of whales for meat and parts, but extermination and enforced waste defeat that purpose. Drag hunting on the other hand involves no game or prey - it's just running around with dogs, no?

[Strike For The South]

In Texas it is becoming popular to outfit pitbulls in padding and send them after Hogs for big trophy kills. The sound the pig makes as it is being bitten by a dozen dogs is spine chilling. It is almost exactly the same as a pupper being bitten,. There is no honor in that kind of kill. It maximizes suffering and minimizes utility. Totally unethical.

That's where Im coming from.

[Pannonian]

Hang on Philippus, you're making non-mutual arguments here. IIRC you earlier made the argument for conservation, to which I responded. You now make the argument for pest control. But how is hunting with dogs effective pest control? Also, there is something else to be considered. Hunting with dogs was banned by Parliament some years ago. Hence it is now the status quo. Why the urgent need to change this? Is there a measurable difference in livestock keeping before and after hunting with dogs was banned?

[Furunculus]

the only point that matters:

Burns could not demonstrate that hunting with hound with any worse for the welfare of the fox than the other methods assessed.

[Pannonian]

the only point that matters:

Burns could not demonstrate that hunting with hound with any worse for the welfare of the fox than the other methods assessed.

But fox hunting with dogs is not allowed. That is the status quo. Why change the status quo?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ok Ok

I could make a whole topic on how people keep making this mistake...

Nevermind.


Have you previously voiced the opinion that in matters of animal cruelty all methods of killing for food are cruel, or equally cruel? IIRC in a topic on Kosher killing you found only some methods to be unacceptable and not the practice in principle. Otherwise, abbatoirs have little relevance to this topic.

Actually, I think I have voiced the opinion that all killing is horrible - and everything suffers when it dies. That doesn't mean we shouldn't kill animals and eat them. If I recall the point I made about certain forms of slaughter was that they caused needless suffering.

My contention here is that if you need to kill foxes then I don't believe the hunt is worse for the fox that being dug out and either gassed, shot or having their head stoved in.


As for hunting with dogs, I wonder what those people say on other hunting with dogs, such as large game. For the anti-fox-hunters, is it more to do with the one practice or with dogs' violent instrumentality in general (as STFS apparently represents)? It is admittedly likely to be related - in the United States, deer-hunting with dogs is almost universally outlawed and has been for around a century.

It does seem to vary, a lot of people (including Lefties I know personally) will say "It's a bunch of post people getting on horses in fancy red coats and tearing round the countryside".

[Idaho]

Second off, unless he's moved Idaho and I live within walking distance of each other and within the same Electoral Constituency.
Bradshaw was knocking on doors on my street earlier in the week. Can't stand the man - traitorous blairite tosser. I'm in Heavitree.

As for foxes killing sheep. Those sheep were going to be electrocuted, bled and evicerated any how.

[Greyblades]

It is a foxes' fate to die as well and there are few quick easy deaths in nature; without the intervention of man they would mostly meet their fate at the jaws of dog's wild counterparts. I see little practical reason to alter this fate for a creature of little utility and high destructiveness.

On an emotional level I must admit a increasing distaste for the sources of protest being either "fuck the rich" communists and "population control, who needs it?" Enviromentalists. The "my only exposure to foxes is through disney" urbanites who back them while less offensive tend to be disconnected from the whys of the practice, being about as convincing as a greek banker.

[Idaho]

Parading your ignorance again Greyblades. Predators are most likely to die of starvation. They live on the edge of starvation - a few bad weeks, an injury, an illness and they are done for.

[Gilrandir]

As for foxes killing sheep. Those sheep were going to be electrocuted, bled and evicerated any how.


Predators are most likely to die of starvation. They live on the edge of starvation - a few bad weeks, an injury, an illness and they are done for.

So, following your logics, why feel pity for hunted foxes, they are all likely to die anyway.

[Beskar]

Probably both, which is at least unfair to the hound
Considering my Terrier doesn't feel neglected as I refuse to put a red coat on, happily exposing her belly for tickles; I don't think hounds are particularly affected by not being allowed to hunt. If some idiot just locks them up in cages for rest of their life, then that person is an idiot who probably likes animal abuse.


It follows that their either condone modern abattoirs or are ignorant of them.
There is the fundamental difference between "I am going to eat that sheep for food with a quick death", and "I am going to get a big stick, start chasing it around, beating it repeatedly, making sure to torture it inhumanely and relish in its pain and suffering." As you said yourself intention. Fox Hunting with Hounds is a Blood Sport, and it is terrible for pest control too compared to other methods. People like the idea of hounds ripping apart hounds out of personal enjoyment, it is rather sick and perverse. I do have more sympathy with hunting in America, only because there are people who live in wild territories who actually hunt for their dinner.


You assume, wrongly, that those who support hunting support only hunting. Hunting can be conducted only during part of the year - in fact it cannot be conducted in the spring when foxes have cubs and ewes have lambs, so other methods of control are also required. Doesn't stop them even with the ban in place. Probably never did before either.

[Greyblades]

Parading your ignorance again Greyblades. Predators are most likely to die of starvation. They live on the edge of starvation - a few bad weeks, an injury, an illness and they are done for.

In a primordial England? Hm, would depend on the era, regardless, that helps my argument does it not? Starvation is an agonizing death worse than the dog's applications and increases their chances of being hunted during the process.

[Idaho]

So, following your logics, why feel pity for hunted foxes, they are all likely to die anyway.

I couldn't give a toss about foxes. I was just highlighting the double standard.

[Gilrandir]

I couldn't give a toss about foxes. I was just highlighting the double standard.

So, you mean if everyone is to die sooner or later, why bother about someone getting killed?

[Husar]

There's nothing more inside-the-box than "parasidism". It's just the logical conclusion of imbuing suffering with so much meaning - not a smart one.

What is "parasidism"? Even Google does not know it.
And no, you guys were inside the box of killing and suffering, inside the box of today's imperfect reality with no talk about leaving it. I showed you the light and you should thank me before I reprogram you because your ungratefulness hurts my mind. :whip:

This whole killing thing is a boon for the rich who are perverted by their monies and have trained their disdain for all life by torturing their wage slaves who made them all the money in the first place. There'd be no need for these unnatural methods if we were more in tune with nature and hadn't killed all the wolves for example. https://www.facebook.com/newsnercom/videos/810945719072741/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

Of course ideally the wolves and foxes would be reprogrammed to get fewer babies and not hurt anyone.

As for veganism, Philippus, what a terrible idea, it just shifts the suffering to another life form: http://gizmodo.com/nice-try-vegans-plants-can-actually-hear-themselves-b-1599749162


Thanks to a new report from the University of Missouri-Columbia (MU), researchers have discovered that plants respond to the specific sounds caterpillars make when eating them, and what's more, the noises even prompt the plants into putting up additional defenses. We already knew that plant growth could change in reaction to certain sounds, but this is the first instance we've seen of a plant actually protecting itself from a predator's chomping, specifically.

They don't want to get eaten alive either!

[Beskar]

Got to admit, I do like these corrected Daily Mail. A shame it has a large Conservative readership who gobbles everything up from it.

https://i.imgur.com/K891LJg.jpg

[Beskar]

https://i.imgur.com/CMzmriV.jpg

[Idaho]

So, you mean if everyone is to die sooner or later, why bother about someone getting killed?

I'm saying that a sheep farm is in the business of killing lambs. Hating foxes because they kill lambs seems odd.

[Greyblades]

Is this bait or do you actually not understand what sheep are raised for other than meat.

[Idaho]

To relieve your sexual urges?