EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 322
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On April 21 2017 23:31 bardtown wrote: Towns and cities, yes, but London is a world apart from, say, Middlesbrough or Harwich. They don't represent these people at all any more. Of course they don't. They are MP's of their constituencies, Just as the MP's of the constituencies that make up those town don't represent those people either. I don't really see the point you are making, unless somehow Conservative MP's from London represent people from outside their constituencies. On April 22 2017 03:59 Shield wrote: The Labour Party grew out of the Labour Union movement. Historically speaking, the millions who migrated enmass into urban areas to work during the industrial revolution were the unlanded poor and for the most part the well off stayed in the rural areas. It's been 200 years since the industrial revolution and smog filled factory cities so, nowadays that itsn't true, especially around London where house/rent prices are so high, that the well off who work in London tend to live within an area of an hour and a half commute time. Still, as of today, Labour's main support are in the northern urban centres, former industrial heartlands, and they lost a lot of seats during the rise of SNP, as Scotland used to be a Labour heartland, which rather ironically New Labour lost as part of Blairsm and rebranding into New Labour to gain Conservative voters in order to become more electable. Traditionally speaking, southern rural England tends to vote Conservative. London being both an Urban area and located in South England is a curiosity in itself. The richer surburbian areas (and Westminster) tend to vote Conservative, whilst the poorer more urbanised tend to vote Labour. Note that richer and poorer refers to the voters, not to land prices or gross economic activity, and that even the poorest part of London have average wage than the mean.Why is this so? I don't live in city anymore because of my job, but I still earn a decent salary considering my age and education. If anything, the "working man" would want to spend less money so they can have more for themselves, while the unemployed people would want more money for them. Why would a working man vote for Labour then? Of course, NHS is nice. Paid leave and maternal leave are also nice, but that's about it. Edit: Yeah, also cheaper higher education. However, left wing isn't necessarily known for spending money well in the long run.  "Working man" is a euphemism for "working class" a euphemism for those of a lower social class, which no longer truly exists and so is a euphemism for the lower paid. This would most likely exclude you (Shield) from counting as a "working man". It doesn't literally mean those who work as that would mean 99% of 24-60 years olds. Simply put bardtown is saying that Labour MP's don't represent the poor and vulnerable anymore. Whether they should as part of the Labour party as opposed to London MP's is another question, but it is without question that both the Conservative Party and the Conservative London MP's don't either. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42719 Posts
On April 24 2017 22:57 bardtown wrote: How can you not see a problem with all of the key cabinet members being Londoners when they are supposed to be the party that represents the working people of the country? The Tories are, ironically you might think, much more diverse. Let's not go crazy bardtown. Theresa May - Oxford Michael Gove - Oxford George Osborne - Oxford David Cameron - Oxford Phillip Hammond - Oxford Jeremy Hunt - Oxford Nicky Morgan - Oxford Liz Truss - Oxford Mark Harper - Oxford Matthew Hancock - Oxford Boris Johnson - Oxford Damian Green - Oxford David Gauke - Oxford | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-28953881 ... The commission says its findings are based on one of the most detailed analyses of its type ever undertaken. It found that those who had attended fee-paying schools included: 71% of senior judges 62% of senior armed forces officers 55% of permanent secretaries (the most senior civil servants) 53% of senior diplomats. Also privately educated were 45% of chairmen and women of public bodies, 44% of the Sunday Times Rich List, 43% of newspaper columnists and 26% of BBC executives. In sport, 35% of the England, Scotland and Wales rugby union teams and 33% of the England cricket team also went to private schools. In politics, half the House of Lords attended independent schools, along with 36% of the cabinet, 33% of MPs and 22% of the shadow cabinet. This compares with 7% of the UK population as a whole. Figures for top people who went to Oxford and Cambridge paint a similar picture. Some 75% of senior judges, 59% of the Cabinet, 57% of permanent secretaries, 50% of diplomats, 47% of newspaper columnists, 38% of the House of Lords, 33% of the shadow cabinet and 24% of MPs hold Oxbridge degrees. In contrast, less than 1% of the whole population are Oxbridge graduates while 62% did not attend university, says the study. The report describes the figures as "elitism so stark that it could be called social engineering". The authors recognise that many talented people attend independent schools and top universities, with 32% of those with AAA or better in last year's A-level results attending private schools. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9651 Posts
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ukip-glasgow-gorillas-gay_uk_58fcc13ee4b018a9ce5c09e0 she ventured to compare homosexuality to her experiences volunteering at Glasgow Zoo after her husband died. She said: “I am not anti-gay – but how can you call that a community? Sex life is everybody’s private affair. You do not come out and declare openly. Do you think I am going all over the city and saying my idea of a sexually-attractive creature is a gorilla? When I go to a zoo and I see a gorilla my hormones go absolutely crazy. I find a gorilla very attractive.” | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On April 24 2017 23:06 KwarK wrote: Let's not go crazy bardtown. Theresa May - Oxford Michael Gove - Oxford George Osborne - Oxford David Cameron - Oxford Phillip Hammond - Oxford Jeremy Hunt - Oxford Nicky Morgan - Oxford Liz Truss - Oxford Mark Harper - Oxford Matthew Hancock - Oxford Boris Johnson - Oxford Damian Green - Oxford David Gauke - Oxford I think that's a bit different, but point taken. As for that UKIP candidate, it almost makes you think it's an infiltration to make them look bad. But no, nobody would sacrifice their reputation like that to sabotage a party that is already dead on its feet. Since the election was announced kippers have finally started jumping ship. I think they've lost 5% in the polls already to the Tories. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Any deviation from that course and the party will build right back up though. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
Trump is already pretending to be supportive of the EU. France might finally get rid of Le Pen soon. No good news for euroskeptics. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21692 Posts
On April 25 2017 06:37 LegalLord wrote: UKIP is a single issue party and they are getting the hard Brexit they wanted. Of course the party is starting to recede. Any deviation from that course and the party will build right back up though. Populism will just find a new target to hate on. There will always be political parties making up non-existent enemies to direct peoples rage into giving them power. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11519 Posts
On April 25 2017 05:39 Jockmcplop wrote: People might say Corbyn's a bit nuts, but check out this candidate for UKIP: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ukip-glasgow-gorillas-gay_uk_58fcc13ee4b018a9ce5c09e0 https://twitter.com/SiobhanFenton/status/855715757983924225 Is that actually a relevant person saying those things, or just a case of "the craziest person somehow affiliated with a party i don't like"? Because we really shouldn't start doing the latter. You can always find crazy people. The question is whether the party itself is crazy, or majority crazy, or if it is just one outlier. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On April 25 2017 08:00 Simberto wrote: Is that actually a relevant person saying those things, or just a case of "the craziest person somehow affiliated with a party i don't like"? Because we really shouldn't start doing the latter. You can always find crazy people. The question is whether the party itself is crazy, or majority crazy, or if it is just one outlier. To judge by that little article she is not even a councillor, she's just a candidate to be a councillor, which is about as irrelevant as you can possibly be. If anything UKIP is too moderate now and struggles to hold onto its radical voter base. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On April 24 2017 22:57 bardtown wrote: Are you honestly saying that the Conservative party represents "the working people of the country"?How can you not see a problem with all of the key cabinet members being Londoners when they are supposed to be the party that represents the working people of the country? The Tories are, ironically you might think, much more diverse. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On April 25 2017 19:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Are you honestly saying something that you didn't say? I think we can safely say that no, I'm not. Interesting. Brexit saved the union, etc etc. https://twitter.com/afneil/status/856564040050626560 | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9651 Posts
On April 25 2017 08:00 Simberto wrote: Is that actually a relevant person saying those things, or just a case of "the craziest person somehow affiliated with a party i don't like"? Because we really shouldn't start doing the latter. You can always find crazy people. The question is whether the party itself is crazy, or majority crazy, or if it is just one outlier. No not relevant, but that doesn't mean not worth talking about. These sorts of people DO gain power over the lives of the public. If she gets the role she wants she will be able to access anyone's internet history in the country thanks to Theresa May's insane anti privacy laws. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11519 Posts
On April 26 2017 03:13 Jockmcplop wrote: No not relevant, but that doesn't mean not worth talking about. These sorts of people DO gain power over the lives of the public. If she gets the role she wants she will be able to access anyone's internet history in the country thanks to Theresa May's insane anti privacy laws. Hm, yes. But the main problem with this is that in any sufficiently large population, there are a bunch of really crazy and stupid people. I don't think spotlighting those and generalizing from there leads to anything useful, it just means everyone looks at the other sides crazies and laughs, while claiming that the whole other side consists of crazies. I know that it is fun to point at crazies and laugh, but this means that no one actually talks to people on the other side, because they just think that they are crazy. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On April 25 2017 20:05 bardtown wrote: I think we can safely say that no, I'm not. Interesting. Brexit saved the union, etc etc. https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/856651768838664192 https://twitter.com/afneil/status/856564040050626560 No, it didn't. Sturgeon only wanted a new referendum because of Brexit. No Brexit = no referendum. Also, you forget that people might be tired of the first referendum already. Wrong conclusion. If you want to prove your point, your desired poll in Scotland would be: "Do you approve Brexit?" or "Do you approve government's Brexit plans?" | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
I was joking. But let's be clear: Sturgeon's only reason for being in politics is to achieve Scottish independence. Brexit is just one more excuse to her. I'm just poking fun because after the referendum everyone was saying that the UK was over, but in reality support for independence keeps falling. | ||
| ||
