The Politics Thread 3.0

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Hexx » Sat Aug 05, 2017 4:38 pm

It's very simple.

Anyone who cares that much (Lodi g sleep!) about being forced to wear a Rainbow is a banana split and should have been ignored.

User avatar
Denster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Denster » Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:25 am

The Conservative Manifesto changes should surprise no one and are actually changes that there was a clamour for.
The manifesto was predicated on a majority (large one) being obtained. Now this hasn't been achieved - changes had to be made to allow for the fact that several unpopular facets of the manifesto would simply not have been passed or been practical/workable. It seems strange to me that those who have such a dislike for the very Tory policies they opposed are now complaining that they have had to change them. The election results moved the goalposts. The Tories have had to accept this new reality and what it entails.
Criticising Corbyn for something he alluded to is perfectly legitimate. Did he say explicitly that he would remove all Student debt. No.
Did he allude to the fact that he would attempt to do so or at least look at this issue - possibly.

Has he now backtracked a little. Yes he has.

But let's face it - it's not about that. Manifesto promises are often broken or changed as and when the governing party see fit. labour have done it and so have the Tories. That is how the world works. But that's not what people are bothered about. It's just another stick to beat the Tories with.

We'll never know how costed and wondrous the Labour Manifesto promises were because labour didn't win. Thankfully.

Photek wrote:In Chicago just seen the results! :lol: :lol: :lol:


:nod:
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:46 am

Denny, nobody was criticising the broken Tory promises until the right wing Tory supporting press started going on about Labour's so called promises regarding student debt.

It's actually amazing to see you trying to justify the two things when you have such Tory lenses in your glasses.

So actual written promises in an election manifesto from the party in power can be ignored because they were based on the party thinking they'd have a majority.

But a few comments (that were never made by the leader) made by supporters or low ranking MPs that were never ever put in the manifesto are worth commenting on?

You are looking in the wrong place for who is beating who with a stick, the Tories made written commitments that they are breaking, Labour didn't do this. And, again, all of this was only raised when Tory supporters thought it'd be a good idea to use pre-election comments as sticks to beat Corbyn with.

I'm bloody glad the Tories are not following through on the majority of their promises. But the point is that they have broken pretty much every promise they made. If we are talking about broken promises then the Tories are by far the biggest offenders here.

User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Rocsteady » Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:31 pm

Denster wrote:The Conservative Manifesto changes should surprise no one and are actually changes that there was a clamour for.
The manifesto was predicated on a majority (large one) being obtained. Now this hasn't been achieved - changes had to be made to allow for the fact that several unpopular facets of the manifesto would simply not have been passed or been practical/workable. It seems strange to me that those who have such a dislike for the very Tory policies they opposed are now complaining that they have had to change them. The election results moved the goalposts. The Tories have had to accept this new reality and what it entails.
Criticising Corbyn for something he alluded to is perfectly legitimate. Did he say explicitly that he would remove all Student debt. No.
Did he allude to the fact that he would attempt to do so or at least look at this issue - possibly.

Has he now backtracked a little. Yes he has.

But let's face it - it's not about that. Manifesto promises are often broken or changed as and when the governing party see fit. labour have done it and so have the Tories. That is how the world works. But that's not what people are bothered about. It's just another stick to beat the Tories with.

We'll never know how costed and wondrous the Labour Manifesto promises were because labour didn't win. Thankfully.

:lol:

What a joke. I'm sure you'd have said the same had Labour got elected and proceeded to break many of their manifesto pledges within a few months.

Many of the manifesto pledges were popular (eg. The energy cap) yet have been quietly cast aside all the same.

You don't write a manifesto based on a large majority, you write it based on being the governing party. A few DUP MPs doesn't mean you can all of a sudden justify scrapping swathes of your pledges.

Image
User avatar
Lagamorph
Member ♥
Joined in 2010

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Lagamorph » Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:26 pm

Rocsteady wrote:A few DUP MPs doesn't mean you can all of a sudden justify scrapping swathes of your pledges.

Got to pay the bribes somehow.

Lagamorph's Underwater Photography Thread
Zellery wrote:Good post Lagamorph.
Turboman wrote:Lagomorph..... Is ..... Right
User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by KK » Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:49 pm

Some new figures about the juggernaut that is Mail Online have been released for the month of July.

NewsWhip reports show that, for the first time, MailOnline is now the number 1 publisher in the entire world for number of engagements it generates on Facebook alone, registering more than 26 million reactions (comments, shares, likes).

MailOnline saw its daily audience in the UK reach 15.3m (up 6 per cent over 2016), and it's worldwide audience exceed 230 million, not including social media.

For the Quarter ending 30th June, Daily Mail & General Trust reported advertising revenues for MailOnline grew by 28%, an increase of £6m, offsetting a decline of 9%, or £3m, at the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday.

As the newspapers fold, the website skyrockets. But the internet is a fickle beast...

As it stands though, London is setting the news agenda across multiple countries.

Image
User avatar
Denster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Denster » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:26 pm

Rocsteady wrote:
Denster wrote:The Conservative Manifesto changes should surprise no one and are actually changes that there was a clamour for.
The manifesto was predicated on a majority (large one) being obtained. Now this hasn't been achieved - changes had to be made to allow for the fact that several unpopular facets of the manifesto would simply not have been passed or been practical/workable. It seems strange to me that those who have such a dislike for the very Tory policies they opposed are now complaining that they have had to change them. The election results moved the goalposts. The Tories have had to accept this new reality and what it entails.
Criticising Corbyn for something he alluded to is perfectly legitimate. Did he say explicitly that he would remove all Student debt. No.
Did he allude to the fact that he would attempt to do so or at least look at this issue - possibly.

Has he now backtracked a little. Yes he has.

But let's face it - it's not about that. Manifesto promises are often broken or changed as and when the governing party see fit. labour have done it and so have the Tories. That is how the world works. But that's not what people are bothered about. It's just another stick to beat the Tories with.

We'll never know how costed and wondrous the Labour Manifesto promises were because labour didn't win. Thankfully.

:lol:

What a joke. I'm sure you'd have said the same had Labour got elected and proceeded to break many of their manifesto pledges within a few months.

Many of the manifesto pledges were popular (eg. The energy cap) yet have been quietly cast aside all the same.

You don't write a manifesto based on a large majority, you write it based on being the governing party. A few DUP MPs doesn't mean you can all of a sudden justify scrapping swathes of your pledges.


The Tories have removed policies that were both unpopular and unworkable. That is a fact.
its not a joke. Your response is exactly the sort of response I'm referring to.
The Tories strawberry floated up and their arrogance has forced them to make changes but those changes should be made. In some cases.


As for the energy cap? What has that ever done except encourage companies to raise the prices beforehand.

Photek wrote:In Chicago just seen the results! :lol: :lol: :lol:


:nod:
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:29 pm

Denster wrote:
Rocsteady wrote:
Denster wrote:The Conservative Manifesto changes should surprise no one and are actually changes that there was a clamour for.
The manifesto was predicated on a majority (large one) being obtained. Now this hasn't been achieved - changes had to be made to allow for the fact that several unpopular facets of the manifesto would simply not have been passed or been practical/workable. It seems strange to me that those who have such a dislike for the very Tory policies they opposed are now complaining that they have had to change them. The election results moved the goalposts. The Tories have had to accept this new reality and what it entails.
Criticising Corbyn for something he alluded to is perfectly legitimate. Did he say explicitly that he would remove all Student debt. No.
Did he allude to the fact that he would attempt to do so or at least look at this issue - possibly.

Has he now backtracked a little. Yes he has.

But let's face it - it's not about that. Manifesto promises are often broken or changed as and when the governing party see fit. labour have done it and so have the Tories. That is how the world works. But that's not what people are bothered about. It's just another stick to beat the Tories with.

We'll never know how costed and wondrous the Labour Manifesto promises were because labour didn't win. Thankfully.

:lol:

What a joke. I'm sure you'd have said the same had Labour got elected and proceeded to break many of their manifesto pledges within a few months.

Many of the manifesto pledges were popular (eg. The energy cap) yet have been quietly cast aside all the same.

You don't write a manifesto based on a large majority, you write it based on being the governing party. A few DUP MPs doesn't mean you can all of a sudden justify scrapping swathes of your pledges.


The Tories have removed policies that were both unpopular and unworkable. That is a fact.
its not a joke. Your response is exactly the sort of response I'm referring to.
The Tories strawberry floated up and their arrogance has forced them to make changes but those changes should be made. In some cases.


As for the energy cap? What has that ever done except encourage companies to raise the prices beforehand.


The point isn't that the Tories changed or removed manifesto pledges. The point is Labour were criticised for pledges that they didn't make when the Conservatives dropped pledges that they made and put in a manifesto.

User avatar
Denster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Denster » Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:35 pm

Labour's claims of having a fully costed manifesto received a lot of scrutiny and disbelief. Any 'perceived' backtracking on their part was going to attract criticism.
That's what happens when you make claims that your manifesto is fully costed and will solve all the financial ills of the country whilst being safe and fair to the majority of people. But you can do that when you know you're not going to have to prove it.
It would have been interesting if they had won so we could see how that all would have panned out. Let's face it though - there just aren't enough Studemts available to commit electoral fraud for that to happen.

Photek wrote:In Chicago just seen the results! :lol: :lol: :lol:


:nod:
User avatar
Tineash
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Tineash » Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:47 pm

Denster wrote:Labour's claims of having a fully costed manifesto received a lot of scrutiny and disbelief. Any 'perceived' backtracking on their part was going to attract criticism.
That's what happens when you make claims that your manifesto is fully costed and will solve all the financial ills of the country whilst being safe and fair to the majority of people. But you can do that when you know you're not going to have to prove it.
It would have been interesting if they had won so we could see how that all would have panned out. Let's face it though - there just aren't enough Studemts available to commit electoral fraud for that to happen.


Oh man you tried so hard but all the bitterness leaked through anyway

"exceptionally annoying" - TheTurnipKing
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:52 pm

Denster wrote:Labour's claims of having a fully costed manifesto received a lot of scrutiny and disbelief. Any 'perceived' backtracking on their part was going to attract criticism.
That's what happens when you make claims that your manifesto is fully costed and will solve all the financial ills of the country whilst being safe and fair to the majority of people. But you can do that when you know you're not going to have to prove it.
It would have been interesting if they had won so we could see how that all would have panned out. Let's face it though - there just aren't enough Studemts available to commit electoral fraud for that to happen.


What's worse?

Option one: "Fully costed" manifesto that you stick to.

Option two: Being too arrogant to even bother trying to cost your manifesto, dropping entire manifesto when you find out you're not as popular as you thought you were.

User avatar
Denster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Denster » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:01 pm

Tineash wrote:
Denster wrote:Labour's claims of having a fully costed manifesto received a lot of scrutiny and disbelief. Any 'perceived' backtracking on their part was going to attract criticism.
That's what happens when you make claims that your manifesto is fully costed and will solve all the financial ills of the country whilst being safe and fair to the majority of people. But you can do that when you know you're not going to have to prove it.
It would have been interesting if they had won so we could see how that all would have panned out. Let's face it though - there just aren't enough Studemts available to commit electoral fraud for that to happen.


Oh man you tried so hard but all the bitterness leaked through anyway


I know!

Photek wrote:In Chicago just seen the results! :lol: :lol: :lol:


:nod:
User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Rocsteady » Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:23 pm

Denster wrote:
Rocsteady wrote:
Denster wrote:The Conservative Manifesto changes should surprise no one and are actually changes that there was a clamour for.
The manifesto was predicated on a majority (large one) being obtained. Now this hasn't been achieved - changes had to be made to allow for the fact that several unpopular facets of the manifesto would simply not have been passed or been practical/workable. It seems strange to me that those who have such a dislike for the very Tory policies they opposed are now complaining that they have had to change them. The election results moved the goalposts. The Tories have had to accept this new reality and what it entails.
Criticising Corbyn for something he alluded to is perfectly legitimate. Did he say explicitly that he would remove all Student debt. No.
Did he allude to the fact that he would attempt to do so or at least look at this issue - possibly.

Has he now backtracked a little. Yes he has.

But let's face it - it's not about that. Manifesto promises are often broken or changed as and when the governing party see fit. labour have done it and so have the Tories. That is how the world works. But that's not what people are bothered about. It's just another stick to beat the Tories with.

We'll never know how costed and wondrous the Labour Manifesto promises were because labour didn't win. Thankfully.

:lol:

What a joke. I'm sure you'd have said the same had Labour got elected and proceeded to break many of their manifesto pledges within a few months.

Many of the manifesto pledges were popular (eg. The energy cap) yet have been quietly cast aside all the same.

You don't write a manifesto based on a large majority, you write it based on being the governing party. A few DUP MPs doesn't mean you can all of a sudden justify scrapping swathes of your pledges.


The Tories have removed policies that were both unpopular and unworkable. That is a fact.
its not a joke. Your response is exactly the sort of response I'm referring to.
The Tories strawberry floated up and their arrogance has forced them to make changes but those changes should be made. In some cases.


As for the energy cap? What has that ever done except encourage companies to raise the prices beforehand.

I know that you're a big fan of the tories but the issue remains that the Tories had unworkable, unpopular policies in their manifesto that either should never have been there or should be getting implemented. Either way, it's hardly a stunning endorsement of the current government.

I'm not deadset opposed to the Tories as a party but this is not an impressive incarnation. Unfortunately the same can be said for Labour.

And if you're genuinely interested in energy caps Clements' Inequality and Fiscal Policy has a good chapter on the benefits of government intervention in the energy sector. I concede it remains a contentious issue though.

Image
User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by KK » Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:17 pm

What with this revelation that Charles exchanged dirty talk on the phone with Camilla while on the toilet, how on earth have none of the tabloids gone with the headline "Throne Sex"?

Epic fail.

Image
User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Preezy » Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:21 pm

Jezza was in Crawley today apparently, if I'd known I'd have gone and thrown one of my daughter's full nappies at him.

Ah well, you can't live a life of regret :(

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:40 pm

Preezy wrote:Jezza was in Crawley today apparently, if I'd known I'd have gone and thrown one of my daughter's full nappies at him.

Ah well, you can't live a life of regret :(


All that natural organic fertiliser? He'd strawberry floating love it.

Think things through Preezy. :x

User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by KK » Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:46 pm

I thought he was in Croatia. In green shorts.

Image
User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by KK » Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:36 pm

Talking of which, Jeremy "Dialogue" Corbyn out in full force today in regards to Venezuela, before his usual deflection tactic of 'yeah, but both sides...'

All he has to do is condemn President Nicolas Maduro in no encertain terms, but he just can't do it. We've been here countless times before on a multitude of subjects and it's now beyond frustrating.

Image
User avatar
Hyperion
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Beyond the wall

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Hyperion » Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:41 pm

Why is this even a thing?

Image Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:00 pm

Corbyn is an old school socialist who had previously voiced support of Venezuela. It's not exactly a shock he wouldn't outright condemn their leader.


Return to “Stuff”