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.
The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked A shadowy global operation involving big data, billionaire friends of Trump and the disparate forces of the Leave campaign influenced the result of the EU referendum. As Britain heads to the polls again, is our electoral process still fit for purpose?
Has this already been discussed? It is relevant with regards to the article Danglars mentioned and made for a confusing read.
How is it relevant to the plight of Labour? You can't seriously believe Corbyn's in trouble because of shadowy hedge fund managers and psy-ops?
I was refering to this line in your post:
“If Trump can get in, if Brexit can happen, then why can’t Corbyn get in? Why can’t it be a landslide?” said Saran Cadwaladr, 34, a secondary school English teacher.
I haven't followed this thread in a while and am not up to date what exactly was discussed but as it has been said multiple times that data data data was the champion of Tump's ascend and the article supposes that the effectiveness of the brexit campaign based on a similar approach. Inasmuch as Corbyn wants to mimic their success, this article proposes a reason for exactly that.
All the jazz about how the UK's system not being fit for what the contracted agencys have done, no clue. But that was besides my point. And yes, I also wanted an opinion on the author.
On May 08 2017 04:30 Shield wrote: Le Pen lost. Not everyone hates the EU that much. Sorry guys, it's only you
You've got a fascist getting 33% of the vote in France seriously this is not good for the EU.
It's not, but it's still better than Brexit.
To clarify, Le Pen is now relatively harmless. She has no power. On the other hand, UKIP still have power - they just vote for Conservative at the moment. So, the hard Brexit agenda is still going on.
On May 08 2017 04:30 Shield wrote: Le Pen lost. Not everyone hates the EU that much. Sorry guys, it's only you
You've got a fascist getting 33% of the vote in France seriously this is not good for the EU.
It's not, but it's still better than Brexit.
To clarify, Le Pen is now relatively harmless. She has no power. On the other hand, UKIP still have power - they just vote for Conservative at the moment. So, the hard Brexit agenda is still going on.
Well for one UKIP are nothing like Le Pen they are typical traditional conservatives with one real agenda. Since brexit they have fallen apart with infighting and no real purpose anymore. They lost all over 130 council seats in the recent election and lost their only MP and will not get another any time soon.
The "hard" brexit stuff is just bullshit people voted to regain their sovereignty and freedom to strike trade deals with other countries. "Soft" brexit is just a sly maneuver to stay in the single market as an EU "lite" country thus still having no sovereignty and nullifying the point of brexit. UKIP were not the only party who wanted to leave the EU completely a significant part of the Labour party and hard left did too along with a very large part of the Conservative party especially in the grass roots.
Le Pen however is a fully fledged fascist much further to the right than UKIP or Trump and would hurt everyone around her if she got elected.
On May 08 2017 04:30 Shield wrote: Le Pen lost. Not everyone hates the EU that much. Sorry guys, it's only you
You've got a fascist getting 33% of the vote in France seriously this is not good for the EU.
It's not, but it's still better than Brexit.
To clarify, Le Pen is now relatively harmless. She has no power. On the other hand, UKIP still have power - they just vote for Conservative at the moment. So, the hard Brexit agenda is still going on.
What Power do UKIP have? They have never came close to being elected and now they just have lost the few seats they did have. Wouldn't surprise me if they just dismantle in the near future.
On May 08 2017 04:30 Shield wrote: Le Pen lost. Not everyone hates the EU that much. Sorry guys, it's only you
You've got a fascist getting 33% of the vote in France seriously this is not good for the EU.
It's not, but it's still better than Brexit.
To clarify, Le Pen is now relatively harmless. She has no power. On the other hand, UKIP still have power - they just vote for Conservative at the moment. So, the hard Brexit agenda is still going on.
What Power do UKIP have? They have never came close to being elected and now they just have lost the few seats they did have. Wouldn't surprise me if they just dismantle in the near future.
I've already explained what I meant. UKIP votes are going towards Conservative, and Conservative are pushing for hard Brexit. That's the most popular UKIP goal, isn't it?
On May 08 2017 04:30 Shield wrote: Le Pen lost. Not everyone hates the EU that much. Sorry guys, it's only you
You've got a fascist getting 33% of the vote in France seriously this is not good for the EU.
It's not, but it's still better than Brexit.
To clarify, Le Pen is now relatively harmless. She has no power. On the other hand, UKIP still have power - they just vote for Conservative at the moment. So, the hard Brexit agenda is still going on.
What Power do UKIP have? They have never came close to being elected and now they just have lost the few seats they did have. Wouldn't surprise me if they just dismantle in the near future.
I've already explained what I meant. UKIP votes are going towards Conservative, and Conservative are pushing for hard Brexit. That's the most popular UKIP goal, isn't it?
Votes are going towards Conservative from all over right now considering there is no real competition at the moment (maybe Lib Dems will suprise us) UKIP wants hard Brexit yes but i'm not sure how that will give them any power apart from tooting their own horn, they are still a seatless party that are barely relevant today.
On May 05 2017 23:19 bardtown wrote: He's right not to answer that question. Can you imagine them asking that to Sadiq Khan?
On Brexit, he claims to want a 'soft' Brexit (which would mean the UK being in the same situation as before but with no voice), but what he really wants is to block the whole process. His policy is to have a second referendum on the deal once it has been negotiated. That would mean the EU would know that if they offered the worst possible terms then the public would have no choice but to vote against them and remain in the EU. Nobody would vote in favour of a 100 billion euro settlement.
It's weird because I would consider myself a liberal democrat but they are the last party I would vote for. Some of their speeches in the lords were incredibly anti democracy.
That is not the case. If public would have vote against the deal there would be no deal, but Brexit would proceed, as article 50 is already invoked. Withdrawal of article 50 would have to be accepted by all 27 EU members
No it wouldn't. There is nothing written about reversing a decision to leave, but the EU have already stated it would be no problem in order to encourage Remain to continue trying. You're just plain wrong. A vote between the deal negotiated and no deal is already on the cards for parliament. What they want is vote between the deal negotiated and remaining in the EU.
The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked A shadowy global operation involving big data, billionaire friends of Trump and the disparate forces of the Leave campaign influenced the result of the EU referendum. As Britain heads to the polls again, is our electoral process still fit for purpose?
Has this already been discussed? It is relevant with regards to the article Danglars mentioned and made for a confusing read.
It's ridiculous. They always neglect to mention that until the last month the government was campaigning for Remain. Their involvement is worth an incalculable sum of money and made the referendum inherently unfair. That is one reason why needing 66% to change the status quo is ridiculous. You already have to overcome the vested interests of everybody in any position of power to create a substantial change. Both sides used analysis of huge amounts of data to target voters, too. It's the future of campaigning, but its impact is being overestimated hugely at the moment. Shadowy hackers are not mind controlling the population. They're just sending them shitty leaflets that probably have very little impact on their decision anyway.
As for France: in the first round over 40% of the population voted for extreme eurosceptic candidates.
On May 05 2017 23:19 bardtown wrote: He's right not to answer that question. Can you imagine them asking that to Sadiq Khan?
On Brexit, he claims to want a 'soft' Brexit (which would mean the UK being in the same situation as before but with no voice), but what he really wants is to block the whole process. His policy is to have a second referendum on the deal once it has been negotiated. That would mean the EU would know that if they offered the worst possible terms then the public would have no choice but to vote against them and remain in the EU. Nobody would vote in favour of a 100 billion euro settlement.
It's weird because I would consider myself a liberal democrat but they are the last party I would vote for. Some of their speeches in the lords were incredibly anti democracy.
That is not the case. If public would have vote against the deal there would be no deal, but Brexit would proceed, as article 50 is already invoked. Withdrawal of article 50 would have to be accepted by all 27 EU members
No it wouldn't. There is nothing written about reversing a decision to leave, but the EU have already stated it would be no problem in order to encourage Remain to continue trying. You're just plain wrong. A vote between the deal negotiated and no deal is already on the cards for parliament. What they want is vote between the deal negotiated and remaining in the EU.
The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked A shadowy global operation involving big data, billionaire friends of Trump and the disparate forces of the Leave campaign influenced the result of the EU referendum. As Britain heads to the polls again, is our electoral process still fit for purpose?
Has this already been discussed? It is relevant with regards to the article Danglars mentioned and made for a confusing read.
It's ridiculous. They always neglect to mention that until the last month the government was campaigning for Remain. Their involvement is worth an incalculable sum of money and made the referendum inherently unfair. That is one reason why needing 66% to change the status quo is ridiculous. You already have to overcome the vested interests of everybody in any position of power to create a substantial change. Both sides used analysis of huge amounts of data to target voters, too. It's the future of campaigning, but its impact is being overestimated hugely at the moment. Shadowy hackers are not mind controlling the population. They're just sending them shitty leaflets that probably have very little impact on their decision anyway.
As for France: in the first round over 40% of the population voted for extreme eurosceptic candidates.
On May 05 2017 23:19 bardtown wrote: He's right not to answer that question. Can you imagine them asking that to Sadiq Khan?
On Brexit, he claims to want a 'soft' Brexit (which would mean the UK being in the same situation as before but with no voice), but what he really wants is to block the whole process. His policy is to have a second referendum on the deal once it has been negotiated. That would mean the EU would know that if they offered the worst possible terms then the public would have no choice but to vote against them and remain in the EU. Nobody would vote in favour of a 100 billion euro settlement.
It's weird because I would consider myself a liberal democrat but they are the last party I would vote for. Some of their speeches in the lords were incredibly anti democracy.
That is not the case. If public would have vote against the deal there would be no deal, but Brexit would proceed, as article 50 is already invoked. Withdrawal of article 50 would have to be accepted by all 27 EU members
No it wouldn't. There is nothing written about reversing a decision to leave, but the EU have already stated it would be no problem in order to encourage Remain to continue trying. You're just plain wrong. A vote between the deal negotiated and no deal is already on the cards for parliament. What they want is vote between the deal negotiated and remaining in the EU.
"The U.K. has drafted a two-page hit list of rights currently enjoyed by EU nationals in Britain -- covering their access to healthcare, social security, the rights of spouses, and travel rules, according to officials familiar with the matter. Each of these issues will need to be separately negotiated, they said."
Given repeated line that "EU citizens cant have better rights than British citizens" it seems that bolded will be severly hit once she gets her majority.
I've personally been a fan of Theresa May since she became PM and had quite a bit of admiration for her but this is just a step in the wrong direction for me personally.
To hunt animals for sport has got to be one of the most barbaric acts a human can do imo and i can only hope the ban will not be overturned. For the first time i am actually considering voting for the Lib Dems this year.
I cannot think of a sillier issue to peg the party as a whole to. It's such an incredibly niche issue that even if you don't give a shit you still have to ask yourself why the Tories are choosing to identify with the tiny segment of the country that actually want to wear silly waistcoats and chase foxes on horseback.
The welfare of animals is a huge issue for a lot of people, out of all the problems we face at the moment the Tories want to spend effort on overturning a 2004 ban that was backed by 84% of the British public.
On May 10 2017 02:48 Reaps wrote: The welfare of animals is a huge issue for a lot of people, out of all the problems we face at the moment the Tories want to spend effort on overturning a 2004 ban that was backed by 84% of the British public.
It's not really about animal welfare at all though. The foxes are getting shot, often not immediately fatally, and then being left to die. They're still killing foxes and even if they weren't, it's not like we're a nation of vegetarians, the British people aren't especially interested in animal welfare. The problem is the idea that someone might enjoy killing the animal for sport, not that the animal is tortured or killed.
On May 10 2017 02:48 Reaps wrote: The welfare of animals is a huge issue for a lot of people, out of all the problems we face at the moment the Tories want to spend effort on overturning a 2004 ban that was backed by 84% of the British public.
It's not really about animal welfare at all though. The foxes are getting shot, often not immediately fatally, and then being left to die. They're still killing foxes and even if they weren't, it's not like we're a nation of vegetarians, the British people aren't especially interested in animal welfare. The problem is the idea that someone might enjoy killing the animal for sport, not that the animal is tortured or killed.
I'm a meat eater, there is a difference between killing animals humanely for food and for sport though, there is nothing humane about fox hunting, the animals are literally being ripped apart by other animals, its a blood sport.
As for British people not being interested in animal welfare, i'd have to disagree, i will look into it a bit more but there has been a big increase in animal charity's and just support in general from my experience.
It's not a new policy and it's not that niche of an issue amongst their rural base. It's one of those issues that is entirely different in the public consciousness to in reality. Fox hunting is still legal, hunters are just limited in the number of dogs they can take. Can't see it passing a free vote anyway.
On the point of being interested in animal welfare, I think you would be hard pressed to find any country in the world that is more interested.
EPT
