Snap General Election called - The new UK Politics thread

[Puja]

Probably the next Tory leader:

I went to Handsworth in Birmingham the other day to do a video on litter and it was absolutely appalling. It’s as close as I’ve come to a slum in this country. But the other thing I noticed there was that it was one of the worst integrated places I’ve ever been to. In fact, in the hour and a half I was filming news there I didn’t see another white face.
That’s not the kind of country I want to live in. I want to live in a country where people are properly integrated. It’s not about the colour of your skin or your faith, of course it isn’t. But I want people to be living alongside each other, not parallel lives. That’s not the right way we want to live as a country.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... birmingham

It's more whistle than dog whistle. Maybe he'll bring some of the racists home from Reform.

He's done this kind of thing a few times and it's absolutely incredible:
Step 1: Say something negative referring to the colour of people's skin
Step 2: Say "It’s not about the colour of your skin, of course it isn’t."
Step 3: Continue on.

Rob, if it's not about the colour of the skin, why is you not seeing another white face the evidence you're raising? Why are majority black areas not "properly integrated", Rob? Why did you bring up faith? Can black faces not belong to native British, Christian people?

How integrated is the place where you live, Rob? Or is it only an issue when there's lots of brown people in one place?

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Probably the next Tory leader:

I went to Handsworth in Birmingham the other day to do a video on litter and it was absolutely appalling. It’s as close as I’ve come to a slum in this country. But the other thing I noticed there was that it was one of the worst integrated places I’ve ever been to. In fact, in the hour and a half I was filming news there I didn’t see another white face.
That’s not the kind of country I want to live in. I want to live in a country where people are properly integrated. It’s not about the colour of your skin or your faith, of course it isn’t. But I want people to be living alongside each other, not parallel lives. That’s not the right way we want to live as a country.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... birmingham

It's more whistle than dog whistle. Maybe he'll bring some of the racists home from Reform.

He's done this kind of thing a few times and it's absolutely incredible:
Step 1: Say something negative referring to the colour of people's skin
Step 2: Say "It’s not about the colour of your skin, of course it isn’t."
Step 3: Continue on.

Rob, if it's not about the colour of the skin, why is you not seeing another white face the evidence you're raising? Why are majority black areas not "properly integrated", Rob? Why did you bring up faith? Can black faces not belong to native British, Christian people?

How integrated is the place where you live, Rob? Or is it only an issue when there's lots of brown people in one place?

Puja

Clearly he gauges the level of 'integration' by the number of white faces he sees - low integration being where there are few (or, shock horror) no white faces.

Therefore he can live in an area where all the faces are white and be satisfied that it is maximally integrated, and very much the sort of country he'd like to live in.

I think we can just say Jenrick is a racist. I think we're there. Shame Badenoch doesn't think so, or didn't feel like taking him on (more likely the former, I think).

[Puja]

Shame Badenoch doesn't think so, or didn't feel like taking him on (more likely the former, I think).

You can't blame her. He said, specifically, that it wasn't about the colour of anyone's skin, so therefore how can it be racist?

I mean, he's probably got loads of black friend! Couldn't possibly be racist.

Puja

[Stom]

So, the Tory party, the biggest party in British politics. With £3m in donations. Is there to serve the people of Britian.

I mean...they're just a joke by now, aren't they...

[Son of Mathonwy]

Shame Badenoch doesn't think so, or didn't feel like taking him on (more likely the former, I think).

You can't blame her. He said, specifically, that it wasn't about the colour of anyone's skin, so therefore how can it be racist?

I mean, he's probably got loads of black friend! Couldn't possibly be racist.

Puja

The BBC reported this, and played the audio of his words. But they left out the 'That’s not the kind of country I want to live in' line.

Nice, tame reporting from the BBC. Get Jenrick's words out there in a form that sounds more like a statement of fact than racist aspiration.

[Danno]

This is amazing.

https://archive.ph/KZZC1

The bedwetter draped in a flag with a can of Dr Pepper slew me.

And a little titbit from the fellow pictured in the upper left

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/wha ... nderstand/

Absolutely astounding piece in general, but fuck me:
"After stonewalling me at dinner last night, my mum gave the same response to the same question"

Was the answer "stop trying to shag your sister you nasty little prick"?

[Puja]

And a little titbit from the fellow pictured in the upper left

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/wha ... nderstand/

Absolutely astounding piece in general, but fuck me:
"After stonewalling me at dinner last night, my mum gave the same response to the same question"

Was the answer "stop trying to shag your sister you nasty little prick"?

So many things to deal with in that link. That person is allegedly 26, but his picture looks 40 and his writing style and debating technique looks 17. I have never seen such an incredible and incessant abuse of the slippery slope fallacy to try and claim that "the next logical step" is compulsory eugenics. The whole thing is like a guide to logical fallacies: false equivalences of "well, if you're against it because of the increased risk of birth defects then we should crack down on over-40s reproducing because that also has an increased risk", strawmen, begging the question, loaded questions - it's an absolute masterpiece of spurious word salad.

And let's finally deal with the actual meat of the thing, which is that all those words have been ejaculated onto the paper to defend the right to incest.

Fucking hell.

Weird hill to choose to die on, but at least you'll be dead.

Puja


ETA. Fuck me:

Charles Amos studied Political Theory at The University of Oxford

What the hells has happened to Oxford if that's the level of quality of argument that their alumni produce?! Mind, I note it doesn't explicitly say that "Charles Amos got a degree in Political Theory" so it's entirely possible he got in with money/connections/tutors and left after a short period of realising he wasn't as clever as he had always thought he was.

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is amazing.

https://archive.ph/KZZC1

The bedwetter draped in a flag with a can of Dr Pepper slew me.

And a little titbit from the fellow pictured in the upper left

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/wha ... nderstand/

Absolutely astounding piece in general, but fuck me:
"After stonewalling me at dinner last night, my mum gave the same response to the same question"

Was the answer "stop trying to shag your sister you nasty little prick"?

Unfortunately there was a link on that page to a Rod Liddle article where he opines that Robert Jenrick was right to say what he said. I got this much of the article before the paywall mercifully cut me off:

I’ve just got back from doing a spot of shopping in my local town – and do you know what struck me? How white it was. Absolutely heaving with ghostfaces. In fact, in the hour or so that I spent there I don’t think I saw a single non-white person, apart from some young ladies leaving the local tanning salon who were the colour of a glass of Tango and that doesn’t really count.

It is OK to say this, incidentally, if you then use it as a basis to attack the town’s lack of diversity and demand the government ship a few ethnics in, regardless of whether or not they fancy the idea. It is not OK if you are expressing happiness in the fact that the town is all white – if, for example, I had written the words ‘Thank the living Lord Jesus Christ!’ after my second sentence. That would be bad and I’d lose my job and all hope of employment anywhere else . . .

No Rod, you dumb racist, the point was that Jenrick didn't just say he saw no white faces the whole time he was there - he followed it immediately with a statement of unhappiness about that state of affairs ie that he wouldn't want to live in a country like that. That is the point, that's why it wasn't just a statement of (alleged) fact, that's why it was racist.

[Son of Mathonwy]

And a little titbit from the fellow pictured in the upper left

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/wha ... nderstand/

Absolutely astounding piece in general, but fuck me:
"After stonewalling me at dinner last night, my mum gave the same response to the same question"

Was the answer "stop trying to shag your sister you nasty little prick"?

So many things to deal with in that link. That person is allegedly 26, but his picture looks 40 and his writing style and debating technique looks 17. I have never seen such an incredible and incessant abuse of the slippery slope fallacy to try and claim that "the next logical step" is compulsory eugenics. The whole thing is like a guide to logical fallacies: false equivalences of "well, if you're against it because of the increased risk of birth defects then we should crack down on over-40s reproducing because that also has an increased risk", strawmen, begging the question, loaded questions - it's an absolute masterpiece of spurious word salad.

And let's finally deal with the actual meat of the thing, which is that all those words have been ejaculated onto the paper to defend the right to incest.

Fucking hell.

Weird hill to choose to die on, but at least you'll be dead.

Puja


ETA. Fuck me:

Charles Amos studied Political Theory at The University of Oxford

What the hells has happened to Oxford if that's the level of quality of argument that their alumni produce?! Mind, I note it doesn't explicitly say that "Charles Amos got a degree in Political Theory" so it's entirely possible he got in with money/connections/tutors and left after a short period of realising he wasn't as clever as he had always thought he was.

I think I'd agree that there isn't a moral argument against it as such, if it's consensual, but there are very good practical arguments for it to be illegal, particularly that it puts a big barrier against dodgy parents grooming their own kids and waiting till they're 16, and all the genetic risks. And it's very very rarely a problem because we are predisposed not to fancy people we grew up very close to. But in cases where long lost siblings (who did not grow up together) meet and like each other, I have a bit of sympathy .

But my god, not a hill to die on.

[Puja]

And a little titbit from the fellow pictured in the upper left

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/wha ... nderstand/

Absolutely astounding piece in general, but fuck me:
"After stonewalling me at dinner last night, my mum gave the same response to the same question"

Was the answer "stop trying to shag your sister you nasty little prick"?

So many things to deal with in that link. That person is allegedly 26, but his picture looks 40 and his writing style and debating technique looks 17. I have never seen such an incredible and incessant abuse of the slippery slope fallacy to try and claim that "the next logical step" is compulsory eugenics. The whole thing is like a guide to logical fallacies: false equivalences of "well, if you're against it because of the increased risk of birth defects then we should crack down on over-40s reproducing because that also has an increased risk", strawmen, begging the question, loaded questions - it's an absolute masterpiece of spurious word salad.

And let's finally deal with the actual meat of the thing, which is that all those words have been ejaculated onto the paper to defend the right to incest.

Fucking hell.

Weird hill to choose to die on, but at least you'll be dead.

Puja


ETA. Fuck me:

Charles Amos studied Political Theory at The University of Oxford

What the hells has happened to Oxford if that's the level of quality of argument that their alumni produce?! Mind, I note it doesn't explicitly say that "Charles Amos got a degree in Political Theory" so it's entirely possible he got in with money/connections/tutors and left after a short period of realising he wasn't as clever as he had always thought he was.

The rule of reading any political news on the internet should always be that, if it makes you go, "What the fuck?! That's ridiculous!", then the first thing you should do is ask why they're trying to make you angry.

Shared this with a few people and someone noted the following:

...the NHS recently published some guidance material around managing the issue of cousin marriages such as providing genetic counselling and public health campaigns as well as the need to tackle the subject sensitively to avoid further stigmatising certain communities such as Pakistani communities where it's more commonplace. It unfortunately was stumbled upon by right wing media outlets such as the Daily Mail where it has been jumped upon and they've led with the line of "the woke left are promoting inbreeding". Now I fear that people like this guy are being deliberately given a platform in order to stir this up even further. I feel like it's obvious that it's rage bait to most but I worry about where that resulting rage may be directed.
...
the headline in the image that the debate is around a Conservative MP campaigning to ban cousin marriage and they're trying to paint any opposition to this as pro inbreeding rather than people just attempting to point out that banning cousin marriage is an overly simplistic idea that could actually make the issue of forced marriage worse rather than preventing it.

I did wonder why GBeebies would interview him and Spectator host his risible rebuttal, but I thought it was about allowing a Tory councillor to humiliate himself, as I assumed anything with a Tory in it wouldn't be about anti-woke culture-war bullshit. Unfortunately, everything they do is about anti-woke culture-war bullshit, in this case simplifying a complicated issue into, "Look at the guy who wants to shag siblings."

Gods, can't we just enjoy laughing at a Tory ineptly promoting incest anymore? Why can we not have nice things?

Puja

[Danno]

I really thought I had seen it all, but promoting a "debate" over this is absolutely incredible to me. Why do you want to fuck your sister when, from the look of you, she forced your head down the toilet every day?

[Son of Mathonwy]

Looks like Starmer will be powering on to the right in order to continue his successful leadership of the country.

However, the moves have led to the departures of Carys Roberts and Muneera Lula, whom allies describe as two of the more leftwing members of the policy unit. Though both were offered jobs in the overhauled unit, friends say they felt their expertise would not be as highly valued after the changes.

Recent appointments to that unit include Axel Heitmueller, a former senior associate at the Tony Blair Institute, while Harvey Redgrave, another TBI alumnus, has been put in day-to-day charge of the team. Toby Lloyd, a former adviser to Theresa May, is understood to be joining to advise on housing and infrastructure policy.

The Tony Blair institute will have even more influence over government policy in future. Splendid news, onwards and upwards.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... 0-shake-up

[Puja]

Looks like Starmer will be powering on to the right in order to continue his successful leadership of the country.

However, the moves have led to the departures of Carys Roberts and Muneera Lula, whom allies describe as two of the more leftwing members of the policy unit. Though both were offered jobs in the overhauled unit, friends say they felt their expertise would not be as highly valued after the changes.

Recent appointments to that unit include Axel Heitmueller, a former senior associate at the Tony Blair Institute, while Harvey Redgrave, another TBI alumnus, has been put in day-to-day charge of the team. Toby Lloyd, a former adviser to Theresa May, is understood to be joining to advise on housing and infrastructure policy.

The Tony Blair institute will have even more influence over government policy in future. Splendid news, onwards and upwards.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... 0-shake-up

Allies of the prime minister say he has not abandoned his progressive ideals, pointing to his recent conference speech, during which he forcefully rebutted the arguments of Nigel Farage and Reform UK.

"Progressive ideals" to this government now officially means "not agreeing with Farage on some issues". Cool cool cool, good to hear that actually said out loud.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Looks like Starmer will be powering on to the right in order to continue his successful leadership of the country.

However, the moves have led to the departures of Carys Roberts and Muneera Lula, whom allies describe as two of the more leftwing members of the policy unit. Though both were offered jobs in the overhauled unit, friends say they felt their expertise would not be as highly valued after the changes.

Recent appointments to that unit include Axel Heitmueller, a former senior associate at the Tony Blair Institute, while Harvey Redgrave, another TBI alumnus, has been put in day-to-day charge of the team. Toby Lloyd, a former adviser to Theresa May, is understood to be joining to advise on housing and infrastructure policy.

The Tony Blair institute will have even more influence over government policy in future. Splendid news, onwards and upwards.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... 0-shake-up

Allies of the prime minister say he has not abandoned his progressive ideals, pointing to his recent conference speech, during which he forcefully rebutted the arguments of Nigel Farage and Reform UK.

"Progressive ideals" to this government now officially means "not agreeing with Farage on some issues". Cool cool cool, good to hear that actually said out loud.

Puja

The Tories are Reform, Labour are the Tories, the Greens and Corbyn's Socialist Utopia are Labour.

LibDems are still LibDems, just to the left of the Tories (ie Labour).

[Sandydragon]

If the Green Party are the new Labour, then it’s early 1980s vintage.

[Puja]

Meanwhile, the latest opinion polls have the Greens at 15%, with Labour at 17%

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

If the Green Party are the new Labour, then it’s early 1980s vintage.

There was a time before Thatcher, you know. Now everyone except the Greens and Corbyn/Sultana are thatcherites but didn't use to be that way.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Meanwhile, the latest opinion polls have the Greens at 15%, with Labour at 17%

Puja

This graph says Starmer and Badenoch have to go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

Farage's FPTP dream: he's in the thirties all the others are in the teens.

[Sandydragon]

Meanwhile, the latest opinion polls have the Greens at 15%, with Labour at 17%

Puja

Protest bounce. Over three years to the next election. Plenty of time for people to consider what they feel is important.

You should be more worried that the apparent popularity for the Greens new approach on the left fuels support for Farage from voters who feel their choice is a binary one.

[Sandydragon]

If the Green Party are the new Labour, then it’s early 1980s vintage.

There was a time before Thatcher, you know. Now everyone except the Greens and Corbyn/Sultana are thatcherites but didn't use to be that way.

Really? Wow, never realised this country existed before the 1970s!!!

But seriously, the Green sound like Corbyn, or indeed Foot, and that will play well with the disenfranchised and perpetual student union political types. It will scare the shit out of many voters in the general election.

[Sandydragon]

Meanwhile, the latest opinion polls have the Greens at 15%, with Labour at 17%

Puja

This graph says Starmer and Badenoch have to go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

Farage's FPTP dream: he's in the thirties all the others are in the teens.

Badenoch has had a decent week or two. She’s safe until May. Her economic announcements forces Farage to tow back from unfunded promises and the Conservatives are trusted more on the economy than Reform. The likely alternative is Jenrick. Might as well merge with reform in that case and accept their fate.

The push to replace Starmer has been relentless and the bloke isn’t a talented politician. But do we really want to remove a PM so soon? Sends a great message that Britain is ungovernable. And Labour can kiss goodbye to being a major power at the next election.

[Son of Mathonwy]

If the Green Party are the new Labour, then it’s early 1980s vintage.

There was a time before Thatcher, you know. Now everyone except the Greens and Corbyn/Sultana are thatcherites but didn't use to be that way.

Really? Wow, never realised this country existed before the 1970s!!!

But seriously, the Green sound like Corbyn, or indeed Foot, and that will play well with the disenfranchised and perpetual student union political types. It will scare the shit out of many voters in the general election.

Well, you sounded like you had forgotten that even the Tories built social housing and ran nationalised industries before Thatcher.

If it plays well with the disenfranchised then it should get a lot of votes in today's Britain. Reform scare the shit out of many voters too but that doesn't seem to disqualify them from government, god help us.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Meanwhile, the latest opinion polls have the Greens at 15%, with Labour at 17%

Puja

This graph says Starmer and Badenoch have to go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

Farage's FPTP dream: he's in the thirties all the others are in the teens.

Badenoch has had a decent week or two. She’s safe until May. Her economic announcements forces Farage to tow back from unfunded promises and the Conservatives are trusted more on the economy than Reform. The likely alternative is Jenrick. Might as well merge with reform in that case and accept their fate.

The push to replace Starmer has been relentless and the bloke isn’t a talented politician. But do we really want to remove a PM so soon? Sends a great message that Britain is ungovernable. And Labour can kiss goodbye to being a major power at the next election.

Brave words.

Re Starmer: yes, 15 months is time enough to show if he has any skills, and sorry, all he knows is steering right (often far right) and losing popularity.

Getting rid of him now (well, it will be more like 2 years because he's bound to survive till May-June) would send all sorts of messages eg we want a competent PM, Labour wants a leader who can win votes, continuing to run the country in the same way as the Tories despite promising change might have been a bad idea.

If Labour continue as they are they can kiss goodbye to being a major power at the next general election.

[Puja]

Meanwhile, the latest opinion polls have the Greens at 15%, with Labour at 17%

Puja

Protest bounce. Over three years to the next election. Plenty of time for people to consider what they feel is important.

You should be more worried that the apparent popularity for the Greens new approach on the left fuels support for Farage from voters who feel their choice is a binary one.

I think you might be overestimating just how terrifying the British electorate finds ideas like, "Nationalise water companies," "tax billionaires and massive corporations", and "fund public services properly". Regardless on whether you agree with the efficacy of them in practice, those are some pretty populist campaign promises - I'm not worried about voters being driven into the arms of the fascists by "let's give money to the NHS".

I'd actually say three years to the next election makes thst poll more likely to occur in practice. You are correct that, right now, it's a protest bounce and, were there an election tomorrow, a lot of those polling Green would hold their nose and vote Labour. However, Polanski now has that most valuable of commodities in modern politics - attention. At the last election, the Greens couldn't buy a spot on Question Time, while Farage et al got on every other week - the Greens might've won 4 MPs, but that was by concerted local effort (and Starmer doing his absolute best to drive the left away, while also being on course for a landslide so people felt safe voting elsewhere), rather than because the populace at large knew or cared who they were.

If Polanski can keep this spurt of attention up and become a regularly talked about and quoted public figure, like Farage did, then he could very easily convert 'attention' into 'credibility as a genuine option for your vote'. If he can do that, then all bets are off.

Won't happen quickly, but it might have by 3 years' time.

Puja

[Stom]

If the Green Party are the new Labour, then it’s early 1980s vintage.

There was a time before Thatcher, you know. Now everyone except the Greens and Corbyn/Sultana are thatcherites but didn't use to be that way.

Really? Wow, never realised this country existed before the 1970s!!!

But seriously, the Green sound like Corbyn, or indeed Foot, and that will play well with the disenfranchised and perpetual student union political types. It will scare the shit out of many voters in the general election.

More people voted for Corbyn than voted for Starmer. More people voted for Corbyn than voted for Cameron or even for Blair twice.

Corbyn's policies were not a problem in and of themselves. Corbyn the man was. Polanski is a bit different from Jeremy. He's a lot brighter, for one.

"Left wing" policies. Or as I like to call them, normal policies, consistently poll extremely well in isolation. The problem is that the right wing Thatcherist press consistently drive the conversation by basing it on "fiscal responsibility" and "social issues". Fiscal responsibility has led to the crisis young people find themselves in today.

The world, not just the UK, needs a massive break from neo-capitalism. It needs a wealth tax. It needs to take back services and assets into governmental control, so that the country actually has wealth to use, because otherwise it will just end up bankrupt, no matter what. Because, get this...a country is not a home. You cannot run its economy like you would the home of a petite boulanger.