[DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread

Shut up Meep.

[iup=3518151]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3518148]TigaSefi[/iup] wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28539331

Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and 2008 US vice-presidential candidate, has launched a subscription-based online television channel.

It features a countdown to the end of Barack Obama's presidency and promises to go ''beyond the soundbites'' of mainstream media.

I really wonder if these people actually believe what they say or if it's all just some large con to pull in large amount of cash from gullible people.

It has to be a mixture of delusional demagogues who believe all the gooseberry fool they spout, and cynical people who say whatever they have to to bring in the controversy and therefore the money.

Meanwhile in Argentina...

Argentina has fallen into default for the second time since 2001 after last-minute talks with "vulture" bondholders in New York failed to produce a deal overnight.

At a dramatic press conference in New York on Wednesday night, Argentinian finance minister Axel Kicillof declared that Argentina would not be held to ransom by the holdout bondholders, who are demanding to be paid in full on debt which the country defaulted on in 2001.

Kicillof said: "We're not going to sign an agreement that jeopardises the future of all Argentines. Argentines can remain calm because tomorrow will just be another day and the world will keep on spinning."

Shortly before the deadline, Daniel Pollack, the court-appointed mediator, confirmed that the talks had broken down. "Unfortunately, no agreement was reached and the Republic of Argentina will imminently be in default."

Earlier, the credit rating firm Standard & Poor's declared that Argentina was now in "selective default". The default comes two months after a US court ruled that Argentina must pay the holdout bondholders in full, saddling it with a bill of more than $1.5bn.

The vast majority (more than 90% of bondholders) agreed to restructure debts in 2005 and 2010, taking a big "haircut" – a reduction of more than 70% in the value of their investments in return for regular interest payments.

Argentina's last default, in late 2001, came after a major political and economic crisis; scores were killed in riots, and both the president and the economy minister resigned. But there was little sign of a panic in global financial markets this time, as the default was widely expected. However, it could add more pain for Argentinians, with the economy already in recession.

Pollack said: "The full consequences of default are not predictable, but they certainly are not positive."

The holdouts – branded "vulture funds" by Argentinian president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner – are US hedge funds spearheaded by the billionaire Paul Singer's NML Capital, an affiliate of Elliott Management, and Aurelius Capital Management.

Steve Ellis, portfolio manager at Fidelity emerging market debt fund, said: "We expect contagion to other markets to be fairly limited. This is a highly technical legal case and a selective default.

"Argentina was isolated from international capital markets for years so we don't expect the default to distort any global capital flows. However, there will be remaining risks around a longer term default which would have negative impacts on the Argentine economy. At this stage, the market will likely price in a delay of payments should the government continue to deposit coupon payments until they can reach a deal with the holdouts in 2015."

Expect more QQ from them about the Falkland Islands shortly to try to distract their populace from this.

[iup=3520456]Delusibeta[/iup] wrote:Expect more QQ from them about the Falkland Islands shortly to try to distract their populace from this.

I doubt they'll dare after the giant fine they received.

Although, even though I'm being sarcastic of course, I guess twenty grand is harder to pay off when you're in default...

Argentina keep defaulting and they wonder why people in the Falklands want nothing to do with them.

de Kirchner's an asshole, but so what? Argentina's still getting strawberry floated by grotesque hedge fund bullshittery.

Would it be a long-term advantage for BRICS to take Argentina on?

Mass immigration into Britain could lead to failing hospitals, overcrowded classrooms, water shortages and the need for hundreds of new cities, a new report warns.

The report by think-tank Civitas found that heavy immigration will have an overall negative impact in living standards as any economic benefits will be outweighed by extreme pressures on amenities. Written by Robert Rowthorn, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Cambridge, the report says that particular strain will be placed on schools, housing and hospitals. The report also found that while overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could rise, the effects on GDP Per Capita would be minimal. Mr Rowthorn said: "Unrestrained population growth would eventually have a negative impact on the standard of living through its environmental effects such as overcrowding, congestion and loss of amenity," he writes. "Such losses would ultimately outweigh the small gain in average wages apparently resulting from mass immigration."

Figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest that the UK population will grow by 20 million over the next 50 years, and 29 million over the next 75 – and that is from immigration alone.

To some of us, this report merely confirms what we have long suspected - if anything it could be just a statement of the perfectly obvious. Uncontrolled mass immigration ('open door' EU immigration, specifically) is a real problem that none of the 3 main political parties seem to want to tackle head-on. However, it's very hard to argue that EU immigration is necessarily a 'bad thing' because for such a long time we have been repeatedly told by our political masters that it isn't. Many here have time and again pointed out to me that there seems to be very little (if any) evidence that immigration has been anything but 'good for the country' and I've even been forced to reluctantly agree, since up to now I've found it very hard to find any evidence to support my misgivings.

This report goes some way to addressing those misgivings and finally lends some weight to the wider perceptions among the public (away from the Westminster bubble of political correctness and dogmatic adherence to the approved narratives on immigration) that this rapid increase in the country's population and the strain upon the country's infrastructure it presages amounts to a problem slowly accumulating for the not too distant future.

I'm not sure if the report is an argument against unrestrained immigration or unrestrained population growth. Perhaps it means both - because both surely combine to amount to the same net result. I didn't vote UKIP in the EU elections because I think all immigration is a bad thing: I voted UKIP, as did so many others, because of precisely the very anxieties this report highlights.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... ed-Schools

It's fair to say that there's now conflicting evidence on the economic benefits of immigration. Do immigrants bring in more than they take out? The narrative so far has said yes, so this is an interesting report. However, I'm much more interested in the cultural impact of immigration. There's no doubt that immigration has enriched our culture and our understanding of the world. There is no comparison between the Britain I grew up in and the one that exists now, in terms of how much of other people's culture is on display across our towns and cities to see, celebrate and enjoy. Music, food, film, art, fashion - Britain is now a melting pot of this culture, and it will influence the direction of our children's tastes in the future.

However (and I would say this is also indisputable, but maybe some would disagree), not enough thought has been given to proper integration of immigrants into British society, and this is leading to some pretty entrenched problems when it comes to the effect of MASS immigration concentrated in certain areas. To use a food analogy, immigration used to be a light seasoning of yummy ingredients, which added to the flavour of Britain as I indicated in the first paragraph. But if you douse the entire food in this seasoning, yummy though it is, you risk overpowering the dish, and this is what has happened in some inner-city areas where communities have effectively sectioned themselves off from the rest of society. This is a problem that could have been foreseen. Maybe it was, and was simply ignored for political reasons. But whatever the cause of this oversight, we're here now and we need to figure out how to sort it out. We shouldn't have community ghettos in this country but we do. I think that's much more of a worry than the sideshow of economics.

Culturally, there is also arguably a point where mass immigration has the effect of diluting British culture itself. Maybe some want this to happen. I don't.

On the cultural side, it's been a strawberry floating boon - it's great! Economically I am not so sure. Everyone says that wages are still too low generally. Is this because the "immigrants" are accepting jobs that "British workshy workforce" won't do for less money thus no incentives to bring up the wages level?

[iup=3521254]TigaSefi[/iup] wrote:On the cultural side, it's been a strawberry floating boon - it's great! Economically I am not so sure. Everyone says that wages are still too low generally. Is this because the "immigrants" are accepting jobs that "British workshy workforce" won't do for less money thus no incentives to bring up the wages level?

There has definitely been downward pressure on wages. However, there are many jobs that unemployed British people simply won't do. Every so often there is an investigation on Channel 4 News or the like, and they always find some farmer who is offering seasonal fruit picking work. A physically demanding job for minimum wage. The immigrants practically bite the farmer's hand off for the chance of earning some money. The British, though, refuse the opportunity and choose to stay on benefits. There seriously is a big problem with the third generation workshy underclass in this country. Good luck with sorting that one out, it's waaaaay too entrenched now. Anyone who has worked in social services or has any affiliation with the NHS knows that this subset of society actually exists - it's not just a myth propagated by the likes of the Daily Mail, much as many who are on the left of politics would like to ignore the issue and keep giving these people money for nothing. There's a tendency to laugh at DM headlines or criticise the demonising of the people involved (you know the sort: 28 year GRANDFATHER, never worked in his life!), but in every one of these stories, there are actual people living this way, cast adrift from what should be the reality of living in our society.

[iup=3521244]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:However (and I would say this is also indisputable, but maybe some would disagree), not enough thought has been given to proper integration of immigrants into British society, and this is leading to some pretty entrenched problems when it comes to the effect of MASS immigration concentrated in certain areas ... But whatever the cause of this oversight, we're here now and we need to figure out how to sort it out. We shouldn't have community ghettos in this country but we do. I think that's much more of a worry than the sideshow of economics.

Culturally, there is also arguably a point where mass immigration has the effect of diluting British culture itself. Maybe some want this to happen. I don't.

At this point I'd suggest UKIP are your only hope, but I know you're not prepared to entertain the party and its policies. I see UKIP as the only party of radical - truly radical - change on the UK scene. None of the others would propose taking us out of Europe, none of the others want to grasp the tricky issue of immigration quite so determinedly as UKIP: in effect, all the three main parties want to maintain the status quo, with perhaps a little fiddling around the edges.

But immigration and low-level, largely hidden popular dissatisfaction with the way things currently are in many areas of the country, will combine to keep this issue on the table. None of the main three parties shows any intention of properly addressing the disquiet of the electorate; instead we are told again and again that to express dissent for government (and EU) immigration policy is at best wrong-headed, at worst racist and bigoted. Thus, the issue is eternally (and perhaps intentionally) subsumed with controversy and thus lack of proper debate.

UKIP aren't radical though Cal. They are Tories with added racism.

[iup=3521305]Cal[/iup] wrote:But immigration and low-level, largely hidden popular dissatisfaction with the way things currently are in many areas of the country, will combine to keep this issue on the table. None of the main three parties shows any intention of properly addressing the disquiet of the electorate; instead we are told again and again that to express dissent for government (and EU) immigration policy is at best wrong-headed, at worst racist and bigoted. Thus, the issue is eternally (and perhaps intentionally) subsumed with controversy and thus lack of proper debate.

I did find myself checking my words to make sure they couldn't be construed as racist by any fair-minded individual! Like I've been programmed to do so! We do need to be careful about how we express any unease, because I agree that there has been a tendency to play the race card to shut down debate on these issues. Which has allowed racists to present an 'under siege' victim mentality, unfortunately. Ultimately self-defeating.

[iup=3521311]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:UKIP aren't radical though Cal. They are Tories with added racism.

I have to ignore the racist slur as I'm on Skarjo's watch list, so I'll just answer with this:

Which other mainstream UK political party (with a realistic chance of getting anyone into Parliament at the next general election) will be campaigning on a manifesto promise to take us completely out of the EU? That's the difference that genuinely does make UKIP radical, when compared to LibLabCon.

[iup=3521395]Cal[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3521311]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:UKIP aren't radical though Cal. They are Tories with added racism.

I have to ignore the racist slur as I'm on Skarjo's watch list, so I'll just answer with this:

Which other mainstream UK political party (with a realistic chance of getting anyone into Parliament at the next general election) will be campaigning on a manifesto promise to take us completely out of the EU? That's the difference that genuinely does make UKIP radical, when compared to LibLabCon.

The Green Party, who can actually be described as radical. Only they actually propose a replacement rather than HURR DURR KEEP JOHNNY FORIGNER OUT.

UKIPs anti-immigration stance is probably one of the better things about that god-awful political party, though.

This isn't a debate we need to have again, but their climate change scepticism - completely ignoring a scientific theory for one reason or another - is enough to deter most people from the issue. Whilst I consider myself pro-immigration, I would find it fair to say that the anti-immigration debate is understandable on some levels, and that some arguments are very convincing I definitely find it hard to make an informed decision, what with different groups of people claiming vastly different things, and all having "evidence" to back it up.

I don't think climate change equates to that, though. No matter how much I disagree with the philosophies on which UKIP base their immigration views on, it isn't a science, and immigration of course needs to be controlled to a level - which UKIP have stated the level should be high, with the belief that it will make the quality of life of people of the UK better (I would hope that's why they hold their stances, anyway). I personally disagree with them, and seeing it as a merely populist stance; the only quality of life that will improve is of those who have an irrational fear of different cultures. That's how I see the issue, but not others.

The reason I really can't ever support UKIP, however, is in a similar vein to why I couldn't vote Greens. The Greens really haven't convinced me on their anti-nuclear and anti-GM crop, because (the nuclear in particular) flies in the face of all that is logical. If done properly (and there's many ways to do nuclear, and some of them are a little more effective on the waste, but don't happen because it isn't in private interest) it is not only clean, but our only realistic view to solving the climate change issue. I can't see the Greens as a serious political contender because of this, even if I do agree with most of their economic and social views. And I can't support UKIP as a reasonable political contender because of ludicrous views such as theirs on climate change. Not that I'd ever support a far right populist party, but even anyone who has a soft spot for the far right (or even populism) should see that a basic denial in scientific fact just cements them as lunatics.

I know this is an issue that is brought up a lot, but climate change is completely independent of political views. When any party in any position of the spectrum dismisses theories that are strongly supported by the scientific community to further their campaign, it should always be met with extreme scepticism. I'd rather vote for a party that has a grounding in reality and doesn't quite support me views, than a party who does share similar ideals as me, but live in a magical mystical land where they ignore the scientific community.

Even though I hate everything about UKIP, that is the one thing for me that makes me secure in the fact that they really are not a party which should be in power.

edit: that went off into a climate change rant, so i also want to add that their proposals for massive tax cuts and cuts in public spending are absurd, and i'd hope that those who vote UKIP fully understand what awful ideas they are voting for

[iup=3521478]tweep[/iup] wrote:
This isn't a debate we need to have again, but their climate change scepticism - completely ignoring a scientific theory for one reason or another - is enough to deter most people from the issue.

Above all, let us not discuss climate change!

(they have discussed it)

[iup=3521478]tweep[/iup] wrote:I know this is an issue that is brought up a lot, but climate change is completely independent of political views.

I could not disagree with you more. CAGW is all about politics - it's even written into the name of the world's foremost 'authority' on the subject - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The clue really is in the name! The main job of the IPCC is to produce 'summaries for policy makers'. Again, they're kinda giving the game away there, don't you think?