[DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread

[iup=3576518]Tineash[/iup] wrote:Cameron's newest wheeze: No housing benefit & no JSA if you're 18-21.

erm. no words. Who is this for? To impress old grumpy UKIP voters?

Ah that wonderful time, the run up to an election where all policy seems to be determined by a combination of Murdoch and the Daily Mail.

Vote UKIP and we will claim fishing rights in the rivers of Paris and into northern Morocco!

We will assert a 200 mile maritime exclusion zone, known in the business as an Exclusive Economic Zone and no one will take resources from it without our agreement be they fishing, mining the ocean floor or drilling beneath it. The zone will be 200 miles from all our coastline, the Falkland Islands as much as Norfolk, Tristan da Cunha as much as Cornwall, Ascension island as much as Aberdeen. Also including Gibraltar.

http://www.ukip.org/news

They must be using one of those Victorian maps where Britain is about 3x bigger than it actually is. And everywhere else is just labelled 'foreign'.

[iup=3576659]Moggy[/iup] wrote:Vote UKIP and we will claim fishing rights in the rivers of Paris and into northern Morocco!

We will assert a 200 mile maritime exclusion zone, known in the business as an Exclusive Economic Zone and no one will take resources from it without our agreement be they fishing, mining the ocean floor or drilling beneath it. The zone will be 200 miles from all our coastline, the Falkland Islands as much as Norfolk, Tristan da Cunha as much as Cornwall, Ascension island as much as Aberdeen. Also including Gibraltar.

http://www.ukip.org/news

I think the zone around the Falkland Islands would would be quite an interesting as it would touch Brazil and Argentina.

[iup=3576518]Tineash[/iup] wrote:Cameron's newest wheeze: No housing benefit & no JSA if you're 18-21.

erm. no words. Who is this for? To impress old grumpy UKIP voters?

A man who's lived such an institutionalised life that he has no grip on reality.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have rich and supportive parents to fall back on.

[iup=3576636]Cal[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3576527]Skarjo[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3576507]Cal[/iup] wrote:
Mods: how does posting that kind of thing, with just a LOLface by way of comment, constitute a valid post under the terms of the [DISCUSSION] title? Or is it okay to do it, as long as it's yet another cheap shot at UKIP? Is that how this [DISCUSSION] thing rolls..?

5. No single emoticon/gif/picture replies [Update - 31/07/2014] - to imply or suggest disagreement with or dismissal of the post being replied to. If you have an issue with the argument being presented then engage it properly.

There's nothing in the rules to say it can't be used to mock an external source.

I should know, I wrote 'em.

Okay, that sounds slippery enough. Just so you know, Skarjo: I will take that reply as gospel. So don't ban me when I choose to 'reply' in this or any other [DISCUSSION] topic with just a single image and an emote or two and don't allow other regs to suggest I should be banned for having done so instead of providing by way of reply the usual essay they seem to consider they are entitled to.

I'm very glad we could get some clarity on the issue - thank you.

Well, I can't ban you at all, but again; the key issue is that no other poster was involved or mentioned. Someone posted an article on silly things they found at a UKIP conference and supported this silly list with a silly emoticon to highlight what a silly list it was. No one's point or opinion was being dismissed or denigrated (apart from Farage who I think still browses as a guest), nor was the the emoticon used to mock an actual forumite. As such, I don't see any breach of the rules.

Though be clear; if you choose to reply to your OWN source with a smiley then it's unlikely to incur action, but if you dismiss someone else's source with the same, that will be interpreted as trolling.

That you have decided that a slight against UKIP represents a slight against you is an issue you need to deal with without mod intervention. Now kindly return to avoiding questions about why anyone would want to vote for a party that gives platforms to fundamentalist Christian scumbags who want to rewrite and reverse equality for homosexuals.

[iup=3576651]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:To be fair, it's easy to find ridiculous fringe stuff at any party conference. The Labour one always has meetings that are so far left wing and out of touch with reality it's hilarious, and the Conservative one doubtless has some Thatcher-revering knees-up. That being said, those UKIP examples are kerrazee.

Well, you do still have the trade unions and the parts of Labour's past, but a big part of it is also a right wing neoliberal playground:

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/solomon- ... erence-104

[iup=3576681]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3576651]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:To be fair, it's easy to find ridiculous fringe stuff at any party conference. The Labour one always has meetings that are so far left wing and out of touch with reality it's hilarious, and the Conservative one doubtless has some Thatcher-revering knees-up. That being said, those UKIP examples are kerrazee.

Well, you do still have the trade unions and the parts of Labour's past, but a big part of it is also a right wing neoliberal playground:

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/solomon- ... erence-104

Those right-wing bastards

*votes UKIP*

[iup=3576518]Tineash[/iup] wrote:Cameron's newest wheeze: No housing benefit & no JSA if you're 18-21.

erm. no words. Who is this for? To impress old grumpy UKIP voters?

They can move in to the guest house at mummy and daddy's estate. What's your problem, old chum?

That UKIP stuff is mental. As Eighthours says it undoubtedly exists in the extremities of all parties.

What happens to people that reach a point where rational, objective reasoning is replaced by blind faith?

[iup=3576660]Rex Kramer[/iup] wrote:They must be using one of those Victorian maps where Britain is about 3x bigger than it actually is. And everywhere else is just labelled 'foreign'.

Only 3x? Didn't we own a 1/4 of the worlds landsurface or something at one point?

[iup=3576728]Qikz[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3576660]Rex Kramer[/iup] wrote:They must be using one of those Victorian maps where Britain is about 3x bigger than it actually is. And everywhere else is just labelled 'foreign'.

Only 3x? Didn't we own a 1/4 of the worlds landsurface or something at one point?

He means Britain was not drawn to scale.

[iup=3576724]Hime[/iup] wrote:That UKIP stuff is mental. As Eighthours says it undoubtedly exists in the extremities of all parties.

What happens to people that reach a point where rational, objective reasoning is replaced by blind faith?

Usually, a politically extreme party gets voted in with the hope that they will do something, anything, to fix our woes and, historically, some of the worst atrocities in history quickly follow.

But I'm pretty sure that if we ignore history then we'll get it right this time because that's what tends to happen.

Barnett formula will be cut according to William Hague.

No extra powers, no respect towards pledges made to their own people - Westminster is full of wonderful people. Cuts to Scotland, whilst it's poorest are using foodbanks, to ensure we can drop bombs on another nation's poor.

Thanks everyone. We did it!

[iup=3576518]Tineash[/iup] wrote:Cameron's newest wheeze: No housing benefit & no JSA if you're 18-21.

erm. no words. Who is this for? To impress old grumpy UKIP voters?

They get the JSA equivalent for 6 months. I would like to think that it wouldn't just stop without some decision being made on their efforts to look for work, much like migrants after 6 months (soon to be three months if I heard right).

I don't see how any good will come of this.

If we just bombed Scotland's poor we'd save a fortune in fuel costs.

Incidentally, six months is about the average length of JSA claim so this is not going to just effect people who are long term claimants. Setting it at close to the average means they are not actually targeting people who are not doing enough but rather just ordinary people struggling to find work. Disgusting.

What do you expect from people who think getting a job is as easy as asking a relative to put the right words in someone's ear?

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/28/6856621/ho ... -share-top

International Politics. It's all kicking off in HK. I got a taste of this when I was watching English language HK TV over there. Things were surprisingly political, more so than here and way more than Mainland China. From what I could understand Mainland China wants to reduce democracy and HKers don't like this, especially after having things (pretty much) their own way under British rule.

*edit*

Actually the article explains exactly what it's all about

[iup=3576663]Prototype[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3576518]Tineash[/iup] wrote:Cameron's newest wheeze: No housing benefit & no JSA if you're 18-21.

erm. no words. Who is this for? To impress old grumpy UKIP voters?

A man who's lived such an institutionalised life that he has no grip on reality.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have rich and supportive parents to fall back on.

I don't think that 18-21 year olds should get housing benefit. If they can't afford to move out of home, they should continue to live with their parents. JSA, however - they should definitely get that.

One thing that's never mentioned is the minimum wage for apprentices. It's absolutely pathetic: £2.68 an hour.