UK Politics Thread

[Pannonian]

And you are doing a pretty good with that.

So even though the stories I post are sourced in trustworthy media (The Times, FT, etc.) which can be corroborated by anyone who cares to do so, it is in the same category as the Momentum-Leave-generated memes that refuse to be cross-examined, and thus I am perpetuating lies like them. This is one of the versions of controlling communication, by painting empirical truth with the same brush as intentionally created lies, and using the core following to disseminate the latter whilst smearing the former.

Example 1: x is colluding with the EU against the interests of the UK, as raised by IA.

What he was referring to: A story in the Mail saying that police are investigating Remainers about collusion with the EU over the Benn Act.
Any corroboration: Only denials, most specifically by Dominic Grieve, who pointed to the likely source being Dominic Cummings, and that the story about police investigation likely being false because Cummings does not have the authority to order one.

Example 2: Boris Johnson is approaching certain EU countries, one of which is Hungary, about a veto to any British request for an extension. The story appeared in The Times.
Any corroboration: None specific so far, although other media have been pursuing it. Members of the Hungarian government have reiterated that they will not break with the 27, wondering what on earth the UK could offer that could tempt them to damage their relationship with the EU.

Example 3: Daniel Kawczynski asked the Polish government to veto PM May's request for an extension. This appeared in Kawczynski's twitter.
Any corroboration: It was announced by Kawczynski, and copies of his tweet can be found. The Polish government said no, it was not going against the common agreed line.

NB. IA referred to the first story, but did not specify his source. I named the sources for the second and third stories. What is the credibility of the respective stories?

[rory_20_uk]

So even though the stories I post are sourced in trustworthy media (The Times, FT, etc.) which can be corroborated by anyone who cares to do so, it is in the same category as the Momentum-Leave-generated memes that refuse to be cross-examined, and thus I am perpetuating lies like them. This is one of the versions of controlling communication, by painting empirical truth with the same brush as intentionally created lies, and using the core following to disseminate the latter whilst smearing the former.

Example 1: x is colluding with the EU against the interests of the UK, as raised by IA.

What he was referring to: A story in the Mail saying that police are investigating Remainers about collusion with the EU over the Benn Act.
Any corroboration: Only denials, most specifically by Dominic Grieve, who pointed to the likely source being Dominic Cummings, and that the story about police investigation likely being false because Cummings does not have the authority to order one.

Example 2: Boris Johnson is approaching certain EU countries, one of which is Hungary, about a veto to any British request for an extension. The story appeared in The Times.
Any corroboration: None specific so far, although other media have been pursuing it. Members of the Hungarian government have reiterated that they will not break with the 27, wondering what on earth the UK could offer that could tempt them to damage their relationship with the EU.

Example 3: Daniel Kawczynski asked the Polish government to veto PM May's request for an extension. This appeared in Kawczynski's twitter.
Any corroboration: It was announced by Kawczynski, and copies of his tweet can be found. The Polish government said no, it was not going against the common agreed line.

NB. IA referred to the first story, but did not specify his source. I named the sources for the second and third stories. What is the credibility of the respective stories?

Well done ignoring such statements as:

1) Pretending all Leavers are the same
2) Referring to Boris as somehow a person Leavers wanted.

So, do tell about controlling communication, bias and painting lies as the empirical truth.

[Idaho]

The Telegraph claims most Britons now just wants Brexit Delivered: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...eveals-public/

This includes 35% of Remainers and 54% of the population overall (a significant increase on the referendum result).

This is because everyone is utterly bored of a self defeating and expensive distraction that will cure no illness, prevent no crime, nor teach any child.

Alas whatever we do we will be eating Brexit for breakfast, lunch and dinner for the next decade as unraveling huge amounts of shared bureaucracy will be replaced by having to do it all in house.

[Beskar]

50/50 where this should go, but full credit to Matt Hancock this morning.

He was on BBC Breakfast News talking about Mental Health Funding and a New Campaign, then the presenters kept asking him about Brexit. He flipped his lid, paraphrasing from memory: "This is not what this interview is about. Nothing has changed with Brexit and the negotiations are on-going and not going to talk about them while they are. This is about Mental Health Funding. What is this obsession with Brexit, there is more to life. When I agreed to this interview, it was about Mental health funding, not bloody Brexit."

Oh, looks like he put it on his Twitter:
https://twitter.com/MattHancock/stat...7Ctwgr%5Etweet


As for the campaign: #EveryMindMatters https://www.nhs.uk/oneyou/every-mind-matters/

[Montmorency]

They're already familiar with it. See Jon Lansman (Momentum-Labour) and Dominic Cummings (Brexit). It's a matter of devising lies for the target audience and disseminating it via unmoderated and untracked social media. Once you have that, you'll have a core following that will do your bidding no matter what happens or what you say and do. They will always parrot the decisive argument, "the will of the people".

How cynical. Think of any social or political movement in British history whose results you approve of, and you'll find people doing the hard work of convincing citizens to vote, march, strike, petition, or what have you. The world we have today doesn't exist because some engineer willed it from nothing.

In unrelated news, supermajorities in the UK and Canada support a universal income program. The question, as always, is how to translate positive feeling into sausage.

(In before our replies aren't intelligble to one another because we're both actually talking to ourselves.)

This is because everyone is utterly bored of a self defeating and expensive distraction that will cure no illness, prevent no crime, nor teach any child.

Alas whatever we do we will be eating Brexit for breakfast, lunch and dinner for the next decade as unraveling huge amounts of shared bureaucracy will be replaced by having to do it all in house.

[Pannonian]

How cynical. Think of any social or political movement in British history whose results you approve of, and you'll find people doing the hard work of convincing citizens to vote, march, strike, petition, or what have you. The world we have today doesn't exist because some engineer willed it from nothing.

In unrelated news, supermajorities in the UK and Canada support a universal income program. The question, as always, is how to translate positive feeling into sausage.

(In before our replies aren't intelligble to one another because we're both actually talking to ourselves.)

Never before has there been such contempt of constitution nor such popular support for this nor such dismissal of evidence-based arguments. In the past, strong arguments, strong evidence, breaking of long established rules etc. would have drastic impact on political discourse. Now, you have political operatives openly ignoring Parliament, politicians ignoring the law, and backing it up, significant parts of the electorate ignoring concrete arguments if it counters the side they've chosen. What politicians have realised is that, if you mobilise enough of a core, and social media memes are an effective way of getting this done, then you can push the popular will argument to justify absolutely anything they wish to do. Democracy is such a sacred cow, and liberalism so ingrained in our societies, that this argument overrides any constitutional norms, the rule of law, etc. "It is the will of the people".

I was part of the previously biggest political movement in my lifetime prior to the Brexit referendum. We had people all over the country coordinating their efforts for one goal: to vote out the Tories. But the politicians never lied to the extent that the Brexiteers did (the Labour government famously kept many of its promises in its first 100 days in office), nor was there much debate that could not be backed by concrete arguments. It was a massive political movement, but it was based on what would now be termed moderate politics, but was then just part of the only politics we knew.

I know what a political movement is. I know that it need not require extremist politics that ignores societal norms. I know that it can be founded on what used to be taken for granted: sound, evidence-based arguments with respected input from experts. When these bounds are present as a matter of course, democracy is a great thing. When these things are deemed irrelevant, and the will of the majority is the only thing that matters, I have only one thing to say: this is stupid.

[Beskar]

So much for the Boris-Trump special relationship.

[Greyblades]

...because that guy clips his nails too short?

Links are your friend. Seemingly random images without context arent.

[Idaho]

So much for the Boris-Trump special relationship.

America never gives up it's spooks. But will go to war/assassinate/sanction other countries that do the same.

[rory_20_uk]

So much for the Boris-Trump special relationship.

Trump has never, ever had friends. He has transient associates who are viewed as winners and useful. This is true for decades - why would Boris think he's special?

And especially now, Trump needs both new news as well as to look strong and to beef up his base - and telling the UK to go jump and that he'll not give up a US Citizen.

The UK government won't push it since killing some pleb isn't really going to bother the Foreign Office.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump's base are largely patriots, American apologists, and a smattering of out and out nationalists (along with the racist nationalists and reactionary loons that he seems content on keeping near if not 'officially' in the tent). They more or less expect him to champion a US citizen over any non-citizen at all times.

[Beskar]

...because that guy clips his nails too short?

Links are your friend. Seemingly random images without context arent.

Those are Trump's finger nails.
That is Trump's card.
If you read the details and followed any recent news, it was possible to realise what it was referring to.

But here is your link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-49995867
Also a tweet without the picture close-up. https://twitter.com/jabinbotsford/st...50611392585728

The USA won't be handing over the diplomats wife to the UK after she drove on the wrong side of the road and killed a guy on a bike. After the incident, she got on the first plane out of dodge back to the United States.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is unfortunate as we must now expel her husband.

[Beskar]

This is unfortunate as we must now expel her husband.

I feel Rory's read is closer on this.

[InsaneApache]

Isn't her husband the type of 'diplomat' that ends up playing roulette and drinking dry martinis?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I feel Rory's read is closer on this.

I imagine he will, at best, be "forcibly reassigned".

[Greyblades]

Some good news at last!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Funnily enough, one of the guys at work predicted this.

At the end of the day, if you want to block certain content in the UK it needs to be done at the ISP level in the first instance - it shouldn't be done at the end-user level.

[Beskar]

Funnily enough, one of the guys at work predicted this.

At the end of the day, if you want to block certain content in the UK it needs to be done at the ISP level in the first instance - it shouldn't be done at the end-user level.

It is already blocked at the ISP level. You got to opt-out of the filter.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is already blocked at the ISP level. You got to opt-out of the filter.

Everybody opts out, though.

The point is that the rhetoric was very much like the sort of thing that comes out of Iran or China

[Pannonian]

How many times has Johnson faced direct scrutiny so far? In the UK system, we're supposed to be able to interrogate the PM once a week in PMQs. He became PM on 24th July. It's now more than 3 months since he became PM. He faced his second PMQ this week. And he's also cried off a meeting with a Commons committee.

Boris Johnson turned up at PMQs, but how do you interrogate someone who's not even pretending to tell the truth?

It’s all just noise and shouting. Say whatever you like in the hope that someone’s listening. Doesn’t matter that none of it’s true because the person who hears it probably won’t know that.

There will be a general election, at some point, and we know that this will be the strategy. Dominic Cummings has done it before and he’ll do it again. Already we have seen the Conservatives’ posters, pumped out on Facebook on Tuesday night and already shared 17,000 times.

“Boris’s Brexit deal has passed parliament, but Labour have now voted to delay it,” it says.

It is painful to have to point out that if it had passed parliament, it would already be law. It hasn’t even come close to passing parliament. They know it, but they also know the people they want to lie to don’t.

It’s clear, right now, in late 2019, that big electoral events in big democratic countries happen at the mercy of social media, which nobody has yet worked out how to regulate or control.

[Furunculus]

The bill has to be paused as a consequence of legislation passed in the new labour era, which the wab falls foul of as a consequence of the failure of the timetabling motion for said WAB bill.

Therefore is seems like a perfectly saleable message on the doorstep that labour have voted for the bill then voted to delay it.

Politics is cruel; every time parliament refuses to vote for an election we can mentally delete another labour mp from whatever total arrives when the GE finally happens.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The bill has to be paused as a consequence of legislation passed in the new labour era, which the wab falls foul of as a consequence of the failure of the timetabling motion for said WAB bill.

Therefore is seems like a perfectly saleable message on the doorstep that labour have voted for the bill then voted to delay it.

Politics is cruel; every time parliament refuses to vote for an election we can mentally delete another labour mp from whatever total arrives when the GE finally happens.

Read a Guardian piece that suggested that a December election would work to the overall advantage of Labour (though most Labour MPs favor delaying elections for about half a dozen different reasons -- though these seem to be disparate groups, not a case where all of those favoring delay share their rationale) by placing Johnson's government under election scrutiny and election laws regarding media access. What say you lot?

[Furunculus]

Not sure why the scrutiny matters.
The only thing happening is brexit and that has been under intense scrutiny for three years now.
It sounds to me like more of the in-crowd narrative the remain-left tell themselves about the 'congenital liar' we have for a prime minister...

early december means agreeing it now, which does minimise tje damage of holding up brexit while refusing an election.
but what happens in the next six weeks on the WAB and how does that reflect on labour... lots of imponderbles!

[Idaho]

Politics is cruel; every time parliament refuses to vote for an election we can mentally delete another labour mp from whatever total arrives when the GE finally happens.

There certainly is that dynamic from labour brexiteers. However clipping the Tory wings by ruling out no deal will have all the Uber brexiteers frothing and ukip/Brexit/other loons will split the Tory vote - and that will sting a lot more.

[rory_20_uk]

Read a Guardian piece that suggested that a December election would work to the overall advantage of Labour (though most Labour MPs favor delaying elections for about half a dozen different reasons -- though these seem to be disparate groups, not a case where all of those favoring delay share their rationale) by placing Johnson's government under election scrutiny and election laws regarding media access. What say you lot?

Most politicians view politics as a career - as can be seen whenever there is a challenge to an incumbent.

Ergo, scrutiny of the government is of much lesser import than loosing one's seat, especially when one can keep it warm for at least another couple of years under the Fixed Term Act.

The Tory vote tends to not be split in meaningful elections since anything is better than supporting Corbyn.

[Pannonian]

Most politicians view politics as a career - as can be seen whenever there is a challenge to an incumbent.

Ergo, scrutiny of the government is of much lesser import than loosing one's seat, especially when one can keep it warm for at least another couple of years under the Fixed Term Act.

The Tory vote tends to not be split in meaningful elections since anything is better than supporting Corbyn.

It's a bit hard to scrutinise the PM when he keeps evading formal occasions for scrutiny. PMQs are supposed to be every week. He's faced 2 PMQs in 3 months, and has also cancelled a meeting with a Commons committee. Will you be voting for him in the next GE?

[rory_20_uk]

It's a bit hard to scrutinise the PM when he keeps evading formal occasions for scrutiny. PMQs are supposed to be every week. He's faced 2 PMQs in 3 months, and has also cancelled a meeting with a Commons committee. Will you be voting for him in the next GE?

You do realise I don't vote for him, I vote for my local representative in Parliament - an MP? Unlike the USA?

Rather concerning if you aren't aware of this.

[Pannonian]

You do realise I don't vote for him, I vote for my local representative in Parliament - an MP? Unlike the USA?

Rather concerning if you aren't aware of this.

Does the prospect of having Corbyn in number 10 stop you from voting Labour?

[rory_20_uk]

Does the prospect of having Corbyn in number 10 stop you from voting Labour?

Hell yes. His plans are so half baked and unfunded I wonder how much damage he'd cause before he was stopped. Barring a significant war, few other events would have quite such catastrophic effects to the UK. His front bench appears to be selected for their slavish devotion to him rather than their ability (a trait increasingly shared with all major parties). He is far and away (for me) the best reason to vote for a Conservative candidate with the resigned view of "lesser of two evils".

It is not specifically his vision of the future I have issue with, it is the complete lack of any practical ways of getting there. Presidential candidates in the USA are advocating wealth taxes that would cause a slow transfer of money from the rich to the state. Corbyn appears to want to Nationalise half a dozen industries, increase taxes, take shares from the FTSE 100 and also massively increase borrowing - almost all of this as an opening gambit. And unlike the USA, if he had a majority of one vote in the Commons he could get that lot into law extremely quickly.