[DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread

The fact is that if he returned hope he would not be afforded a fair trial and the trial would not be public, no one but those privileged in the establishment would be able to see or assess proceedings and make a judgement on their validity. Statutes forbid him from defending his actions on a public interest platform (despite the fact that said statures were drafted in clear violation of the US constitution). He would be locked up away from view and only be allowed to make statements that are agreed on by the government.

In short, in order to remain a voice for reform and avoid injustice he cannot possibly return to the US. Calls for him to return and defend his actions in court are astoundingly naive. Those making such calls are either painfully unaware of the decline of liberty and democracy within America or willing conspirators in the aforesaid.

Interesting article on statistics and the Tory plan for change the rules on legal strikes.

Whatever your thoughts on the legalities on strikes, I thought that article made a good point when it comes to elections. If people can't strike without a minimum of a 50% turnout, how can a government govern with such low proportions bothering to vote?

[iup=3512292]Moggy[/iup] wrote:Interesting article on statistics and the Tory plan for change the rules on legal strikes.

Whatever your thoughts on the legalities on strikes, I thought that article made a good point when it comes to elections. If people can't strike without a minimum of a 50% turnout, how can a government govern with such low proportions bothering to vote?

You're comparing apples and oranges?

One is to elect a representative out a large potential field, and there has to be a representative (short of doing re-runs until sufficient numbers vote). You can't just say "Not enough people in Dorchester voted, so they don't get an MP this Parliment"

The other is to determine is a binary position and the burden should be on those changing the status quo?

Not saying I agree, but surely that's the argument

Answer me this - why are the Unions so angry? Given how they present their membership, the strength of feeling etc - surely they response should be "Over 50%? Lolwhatever. Easy mate!"

[iup=3512777]Hexx[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3512292]Moggy[/iup] wrote:Interesting article on statistics and the Tory plan for change the rules on legal strikes.

Whatever your thoughts on the legalities on strikes, I thought that article made a good point when it comes to elections. If people can't strike without a minimum of a 50% turnout, how can a government govern with such low proportions bothering to vote?

You're comparing apples and oranges?

One is to elect a representative out a large potential field, and there has to be a representative (short of doing re-runs until sufficient numbers vote). You can't just say "Not enough people in Dorchester voted, so they don't get an MP this Parliment"

The other is to determine is a binary position and the burden should be on those changing the status quo?

Not saying I agree, but surely that's the argument

Answer me this - why are the Unions so angry? Given how they present their membership, the strength of feeling etc - surely they response should be "Over 50%? Lolwhatever. Easy mate!"

I'm not comparing, the article was comparing and I thought it was an interesting point.

Personally I think I'm against more strike legalisation. The strength of a strike depends on turnout of members so if there's not consensus behind a strike the strike wont work. There is also the case though when it comes to certain public services ( the LU) springs to mind, that considering the monopolistic nature of the asset and how much of the work is performed by metal and electricity rather than manpower that the amount of disruption that can be caused is unreasonable. Though I think that's probably better addressed through minimum service requirements rather than additional strike law.

In the last general election the turnout was over 50% wasn't it? It sounds paranoid, but you should always worry when a government attacks the unions and the right to protest.

I do think a minimum turnout should be enforced, but that should be enforced through the unions themselves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28416532

An inquiry will be held into the death of the Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko, the Home Secretary Theresa May is expected to announce.

Mr Litvinenko, a former KGB officer, died in 2006 in a London hospital after he was allegedly poisoned with radioactive polonium.

The investigation is set to examine whether the Russian state was behind his death.
...

Whitehall sources say that the timing of an announcement of a public inquiry into whether the Russian state was responsible for the murder of the dissident Andrei Litvinenko is pure coincidence.

Whitehall sources say that the timing of an announcement of a public inquiry into whether the Russian state was responsible for the murder of the dissident Andrei Litvinenko is pure coincidence.

Ahahahahaha

Less funny is the logical conclusion that the home office declined to investigate & prosecute a brazen murder to avoid offending the Russians.

Nick Griffin ousted as BNP leader

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/07/21/nick-griffin-ousted-as-bnp-leader

Surprised they didn't do it any earlier, not like it matters to them they are pretty much finished.

[iup=3513782]Cyburn2[/iup] wrote:Nick Griffin ousted as BNP leader

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/07/21/nick-griffin-ousted-as-bnp-leader

Surprised they didn't do it any earlier, not like it matters to them they are pretty much finished.

I saw this on Twitter earlier:

Nick Griffin quits and Alastair Cook stays. It's a great time to be an Indian in the UK

[iup=3513782]Cyburn2[/iup] wrote:Nick Griffin ousted as BNP leader

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/07/21/nick-griffin-ousted-as-bnp-leader

Surprised they didn't do it any earlier, not like it matters to them they are pretty much finished.

Apparently, the new leader is a former teacher who got a lifetime ban for teaching because he was an unabashed racist.

But yeah, the BNP is done. UKIP's managed to take their remit and made it socially acceptable, but I'd imagine they're going to follow suit in collapsing sooner rather than later.

UKIP are not a racist party.

Their immigration policy is the least racist. They don't favour EU immigration over non EU immigration. It's a points based Australia system. Take the most skilled immigrants only, regardless of skin colour. As opposed to allowing unlimited (generally white) white Europeans and limiting (generally black and Asian) non white non Europeans.

The net immigration figure needs to be much lower. 100,000 moving to London each year every year for the next 20 years is unsustainable, rent is too damn high and purchasing houses is too damn high already, London is a finite space and unless we build on the green belt (which we absolutely should but probably won't) we're just going to prevent young people from ever being able to buy a home whilst paying increasing rents for the same properties.

Still totally okay with Ali G In Da House immigration policy "only allow the fit bitches in". Brilliant idea.

[iup=3513849]Grumpy David[/iup] wrote:UKIP are not a racist party.

They've taken the racist voters

[iup=3513849]Grumpy David[/iup] wrote:UKIP are not a racist party.

Their immigration policy is the least racist. They don't favour EU immigration over non EU immigration. It's a points based Australia system. Take the most skilled immigrants only, regardless of skin colour. As opposed to allowing unlimited (generally white) white Europeans and limiting (generally black and Asian) non white non Europeans.

What gives me the right to live in this country? The fact that I was born here? Personally I find it bit of a gooseberry fool excuse. All this stuff about wanting to only bring 'skilled immigrants' into the country, conveniently ignoring the fact that the immigrants as a whole add value to our economy and ignoring the fact that many British people would not even qualify to enter this country under a points system is utter tripe. It's partly their own fault, because lets face it, there are some right worthless gooseberry fools out there, but most of it is down to successive governments not doing enough to help the most disadvantaged people in our country. Blocking EU immigration will not magically make the government start supporting these people, in fact it would probably make matters worse due to that loss of surplus income immigration brings.

Oh and UKIP is a racist party. If several of its members make public comments which are racist and are not punished or thrown out, the party clearly supports racism. Also standing alongside clearly racist parties in the EU? Yeah, not racist (or at least supporting racism) at all.

Oh and your point on London? Nothing to do with EU immigration. It's where all the work is because again, successive governments have not done enough to invest in other parts of the country where there is a potentially large workforce with no where else to go for work.

I'm not by any means a nationalist, but I do get a pang of pride - no doubt misplaced, but still there! - when I think about the fact that people from all over the world want to come to my country to study, work and live. I am also grateful that so many other countries across Europe have opened their borders to me - it means I can visit and stay in (and I have done!) beautiful cities like Paris, Munich, Venice, Barcelona and Vienna without being subject to visa applications and potential deportation should my stay overrun. As one of the richest countries in the world there is no reason that we should not make it a top priority to host anyone who wishes to share this country with us. Immigrants (and, clearly, tourists) tend to add value to the economy in the long-term anyway - studies in the States (where unskilled immigration is a bigger problem than it is here) suggest that even unskilled or low-skilled migrants add value to an economy. I would support fully open borders, so long as it was implemented by a progressive government who would reshape our spending away from things like military endeavour and towards public services and affordable housing. At the moment I agree that public services are struggling to handle the load of the population - but I would argue that has everything to do with them being grossly underfunded and less to do with any perceived weight of immigration.

I missed a part of Grumpy David's post. I think I could be convinced about the greenbelt land issue - I don't really know enough about it - what are the main arguments for it, David?

The greenbelt land near me was half crap fields that no-one would want to visit, and half nice, well-maintained parkland - the council bulldozed the fields and kept the park. I thought that was probably fair enough. Are greenbelts in general more "wild" or more nice areas to walk? I would be cautious about removing usable public green spaces from near cities, at least.

Just read that the minutes from the latest bank of england meeting show that they were still keeping rates at 0.5 because they were concerned at the suprising low wage rises. How can they expect overall wages to rise when public sector wages have been frozen for years and now a 1% rise. Regardless of any private sector average rises it must be a big factor.

[iup=3513382]Tineash[/iup] wrote:

Whitehall sources say that the timing of an announcement of a public inquiry into whether the Russian state was responsible for the murder of the dissident Andrei Litvinenko is pure coincidence.

Ahahahahaha

Less funny is the logical conclusion that the home office declined to investigate & prosecute a brazen murder to avoid offending the Russians.

I hate the way they seem to think everyone is so strawberry floating stupid that we would not have realised this before. If you a suppress an investigation when it is politically convenient and let it rise again as soon as the winds change people are going to add two and two together.

[iup=3514725]Lucien[/iup] wrote:Mind you, economists don't half miss obvious things.

Bloomberg even reported rising food prices in the US as a good thing!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-1 ... -year.html

"Prices paid to American factories and service producers rose in April by the most in more than a year, indicating a diminishing risk of deflation as demand improves."

A diminishing risk of falling food prices.

They're a business news company.

[iup=3514785]Lucien[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3514780]Stugene[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3514725]Lucien[/iup] wrote:Mind you, economists don't half miss obvious things.

Bloomberg even reported rising food prices in the US as a good thing!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-1 ... -year.html

"Prices paid to American factories and service producers rose in April by the most in more than a year, indicating a diminishing risk of deflation as demand improves."

A diminishing risk of falling food prices.

They're a business news company.

I get what you're saying; for some businesses that's good.

It's further into the article when they show they're lost on the economics of it all:

The 0.6 percent increase in the producer price index was the biggest since September 2012 and exceeded all estimates in a Bloomberg survey of economists, figures from the Labor Department showed today. Over the past 12 months, costs climbed 2.1 percent. Food prices surged by the most in three years.

The gain in April was broad-based -- from goods such as poultry and trucks to services like transportation -- and indicates a rebound in pricing power could be taking shape as the world economy improves.

In other words food prices are increasing in the US because the economy is getting better! People weren't eating before, but now things have picked up the weekly shopping is back on and demand is raising the price of food... Or could it be that people are just paying more for their food/most things because of all the money printing!

Its an article for the attention of people working in, or looking to invest in, the industry which it describes. The moral ramifications of the price of food doesn't effect it's usefulness as a commodity. The article has no place in a thread about politics.