UKBouldering.com

Tedious political thread, please ignore if you're above politics (Read 95058 times)

erm

Offline
  • **
  • player
  • Posts: 82
  • Karma: +2/-0
Ahh shit, a politician that didn't evade the question. What will they do next, keep their promises!  :spank:

Bonjoy

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Leafy gent
  • Posts: 9932
  • Karma: +561/-8
I dont understand your reply. You seem to be supporting the answer he gave  and the notion that he should do as he says, which would entail gratuitous mass murder. Or is it just facetious point scoring?

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
He gave a straight answer. If he supports having a nuclear deterrent then he has to support using it. Otherwise the deterrent is pointless. Asking the red button question - aiming to get the respondent to refusing to answer the question is an age old interviewers method of cornering labour leaders/candidates etc..

I think implying he is a murderer is going too far though - as to do that he'd have to (a) become party leader (b) be elected prime minister and (c) decide to randomly or with no justification decide to use the nukes whilst being prime minister. And its pretty unlikely that A, B and C will all happen... (take your pick)....

I'd also point out that being a candidate to lead a political party - who may possibly one day have access to a nuclear deterrent, with the significant and many layered chains of command required to use it (e.g. you can't roll over in your sleep and accidentally set it off) is quite different from a dictator of half of Europe who developed a system that aimed (and nearly did) to systematically wipe out a race/religion over a number of years through forced labour and extermination camps - resulting in the deaths of many millions.

erm

Offline
  • **
  • player
  • Posts: 82
  • Karma: +2/-0
I dont understand your reply. You seem to be supporting the answer he gave  and the notion that he should do as he says, which would entail gratuitous mass murder. Or is it just facetious point scoring?

He answered directly and gave an answer that may damage him politically, this suggests he was being honest. A key criticisms of politicians is that they don't answer questions which are difficult, but instead try to evade them. You suggested he should "[refuse] to answer the question", I prefer it when a politician answers rather than evades.

Authorising a nuclear strike does does not make you into a genocidal manic, it is neither necessary nor sufficient. While there is now a big question mark over whether the use of nuclear weapons at the end of WW2 was justified (and it may well have been a war crime) it is not viewed as the beginning of an attempt by the allies to murder the entire Japanese population (genocide).


Bonjoy

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Leafy gent
  • Posts: 9932
  • Karma: +561/-8
Quote
He answered directly and gave an answer that may damage him politically, this suggests he was being honest.
Personally I put unwillingness to slaughter millions of innocents higher up the spectrum of commendability than giving a straight answer.

 
Quote
A key criticisms of politicians is that they don't answer questions which are difficult, but instead try to evade them. You suggested he should "[refuse] to answer the question", I prefer it when a politician answers rather than evades.
Yes in this case there is a good reason. I started from the assumption that nobody except an actual madman would authorize use of nuclear weapons. I can see no scenario where the actual use of them would save more innocent lives than it ended. Please feel free to give me some realistic hypothetical scenario which disproves this. Given my above assumption I surmised that he gave that answer in order to maintain the idea that the UK would use Nuclear weapons if provoked. I.e. it was a lie in order to maintain the notional deterrence value of the weapons. So it was my view that he wasn’t giving an honest answer to the question anyway, just going along with the conventional wisdom that you have to pretend you would use them. I find it gob smacking that you think he was honest and think the honesty outweighs the willingness to murder millions!
There are many possible instances where evasion is better than giving an honest answer in politics, it’s absurdly naïve and simplistic to think otherwise. What about if an interviewer asked a prime minister if he knew of any planned terrorist attacks coming up? Would it be better for him to compromise the work to foil such an attack by revealing that it was known about in advance, just so he could bask in the rosy glow of having given an honest answer?

Quote
Authorising a nuclear strike does not make you into a genocidal manic, it is neither necessary nor sufficient.
I don’t really know what legalistic type justification you are angling at there, but I doubt it would be of any consolation to the millions slaughtered or the people left behind in a ruined poisoned world. Statements like that just  emphasise how far the conventional wisdom has strayed from basic human sanity.

Quote
While there is now a big question mark over whether the use of nuclear weapons at the end of WW2 was justified (and it may well have been a war crime)
There’s little doubt from what I’ve read, it was an irrelevant act as far as ending the war goes. A giant act of murderous willy waving.

Quote
…. it is not viewed as the beginning of an attempt by the allies to murder the entire Japanese population (genocide).
Mass murder is mass murder, that was the moral equivalence I was drawing. Whether it is directed at or intended to destroy any particular subset of humanity is of precious little consequence in the grand scheme of things. If someone threatened to shoot your family would you actually care if it was driven by racism or pragmatism?

tc

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 860
  • Karma: +73/-1
Oily Smith is just another clone to come out of the laboratories that produce the permanent political class. He claims to be "left of centre" but in reality it's just Tory Lite all over again. He:
1, Voted for Trident renewal despite have once been a member of CND.
2. Abstained from last year's vote on the Welfare Bill
3. Voted in favour of bombing Iraq.
4. Wasn't an MP at the time of the Iraq war but when asked if he would have voted against replied "I don't know."
5. Used to work for the huge pharmaceuticals company Pfizer and has hired a leading corporate lobbyist who works for Pfizer to run his campaign.
6. Reminds me of Tony Bliar (sic) in the way he presents himself. The press conference appearance was straight out of the Cameron/Bliar playbook, even down to the white shirt with rolled up sleeves and no tie.
7.Voted against holding an EU referendum then for it.
8. Is a dick head...sorry...I meant "ideologically suspect"...no...he really is a dick head. See, I can't make up my mind either...
« Last Edit: July 26, 2016, 04:17:32 pm by tc »

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
Owen Smith is just another clone to come out of the laboratories that produce the permanent political class. He claims to be "left of centre" but in reality it's just Tory Lite all over again. He:
1, Voted for Trident renewal despite have once been a member of CND.
2. Abstained from last year's vote on the Welfare Bill
3. Voted in favour of bombing Iraq.
4. Wasn't an MP at the time of the Iraq war but when asked if he would have voted against replied "I don't know."
5. Used to work for the huge pharmaceuticals company Pfizer and has hired a leading corporate lobbyist who works for Pfizer to run his campaign.
6. Reminds me of Tony Bliar (sic) in the way he presents himself. The press conference appearance was straight out of the Cameron/Bliar playbook, even down to the white shirt with rolled up sleeves and no tie.
7.Voted against holding an EU referendum then for it.
8. Is a dick head...sorry...I meant "ideologically suspect"...no...he is a dick head.

Its bizarre - I thought 1 was PLP policy, 2 no idea, 3 was a free vote, 4 - whats wrong with I don't know? 5 - so what? 6 - erm shirt and trousers that fit..? are you really saying thats a reason not to vote for someone - wasn't that the rather childish insult that DC lobbed at JC during one PMQ?, 7, 8 are your perception...

You describe him as Tory lite and a dick head - would you castigate the Daily Mail if one of their columnists described JC as a raving loony lefty and a dick head?

tc

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 860
  • Karma: +73/-1
I had no idea Jesus Christ was a raving loony lefty. Probably got radicalised when he organising that food bank thing.













« Last Edit: July 26, 2016, 04:49:06 pm by tc »

joeisidle

Offline
  • **
  • addict
  • Posts: 148
  • Karma: +6/-0
Oily Smith is just another clone to come out of the laboratories that produce the permanent political class. He claims to be "left of centre" but in reality it's just Tory Lite all over again. He:
1, Voted for Trident renewal despite have once been a member of CND.
2. Abstained from last year's vote on the Welfare Bill
3. Voted in favour of bombing Iraq.
4. Wasn't an MP at the time of the Iraq war but when asked if he would have voted against replied "I don't know."
5. Used to work for the huge pharmaceuticals company Pfizer and has hired a leading corporate lobbyist who works for Pfizer to run his campaign.
6. Reminds me of Tony Bliar (sic) in the way he presents himself. The press conference appearance was straight out of the Cameron/Bliar playbook, even down to the white shirt with rolled up sleeves and no tie.
7.Voted against holding an EU referendum then for it.
8. Is a dick head...sorry...I meant "ideologically suspect"...no...he really is a dick head. See, I can't make up my mind either...

On the subject of 2: he's obviously far from an idealist and has made a load of politically unsavoury decisions, but that's far from the only vote over the course of the Tory government that related to welfare spending: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24797/owen_smith/pontypridd/divisions?policy=6670

Personally I think the abstention from the welfare vote was one of the biggest collective lobotomies to hit the party since Iraq (as if half-heartedly tagging along with the Tories was going to precipitate a swing in favour of Labour). However, it seems wrong to hold it up as an example that there's no meaningful difference between the views of those who abstained from the vote and the government who proposed it - to me it just looks like an incredibly stupid PR decision. Just imagine how much of a meaningful difference to people's lives could have been made if Smith had got his way on all of the other welfare votes on the list in the link

tc

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 860
  • Karma: +73/-1
I'm sick to death of PR, even incredibly stupid PR, and sick to death of self-serving careerists in expensive suits. I want proper politics instead.

tc

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 860
  • Karma: +73/-1
Oily Smith is just another clone to come out of the laboratories that produce the permanent political class. He claims to be "left of centre" but in reality it's just Tory Lite all over again. He:
1, Voted for Trident renewal despite have once been a member of CND.
2. Abstained from last year's vote on the Welfare Bill
3. Voted in favour of bombing Iraq.
4. Wasn't an MP at the time of the Iraq war but when asked if he would have voted against replied "I don't know."
5. Used to work for the huge pharmaceuticals company Pfizer and has hired a leading corporate lobbyist who works for Pfizer to run his campaign.
6. Reminds me of Tony Bliar (sic) in the way he presents himself. The press conference appearance was straight out of the Cameron/Bliar playbook, even down to the white shirt with rolled up sleeves and no tie.
7.Voted against holding an EU referendum then for it.
8. Is a dick head...sorry...I meant "ideologically suspect"...no...he really is a dick head. See, I can't make up my mind either...

9. Voted against greater restrictions on fracking in National Parks

seankenny

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1007
  • Karma: +114/-11
I'm sick to death of PR, even incredibly stupid PR, and sick to death of self-serving careerists in expensive suits. I want proper politics instead.


But you've got a leading politician who is shit at PR and wears cheap suits.

Not quite sure he's doing proper politics, but at least you've got what you wanted.

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
I'm sick to death of PR, even incredibly stupid PR, and sick to death of self-serving careerists in expensive suits. I want proper politics instead.

Fair enough. How do you define proper politics?

webbo

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5028
  • Karma: +141/-13
I'm sick to death of PR, even incredibly stupid PR, and sick to death of self-serving careerists in expensive suits. I want proper politics instead.

Fair enough. How do you define proper politics?
John Lilburne

tc

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 860
  • Karma: +73/-1
I'm sick to death of PR, even incredibly stupid PR, and sick to death of self-serving careerists in expensive suits. I want proper politics instead.

Fair enough. How do you define proper politics?

Tall order, but this'll do for starters:

Public confidence in politicians' integrity needs to be restored. At the moment the behaviour of our elected officials resembles an organised crime syndicate. They buy (or lie for) our votes, extract money from us and line their own, and their associates', pockets. We have a permanent political class, funded and controlled by big business.
"There is a big gap between politicians' understanding of integrity and that of the public, and disillusionment with the behaviour of politicians matters in terms of democratic engagement." (Gerry Stoker, University of Southampton)






seankenny

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1007
  • Karma: +114/-11
I'm sick to death of PR, even incredibly stupid PR, and sick to death of self-serving careerists in expensive suits. I want proper politics instead.

Fair enough. How do you define proper politics?

Tall order, but this'll do for starters:

Public confidence in politicians' integrity needs to be restored. At the moment the behaviour of our elected officials resembles an organised crime syndicate. They buy (or lie for) our votes, extract money from us and line their own, and their associates', pockets. We have a permanent political class, funded and controlled by big business.
"There is a big gap between politicians' understanding of integrity and that of the public, and disillusionment with the behaviour of politicians matters in terms of democratic engagement." (Gerry Stoker, University of Southampton)

This does raise some questions.... How do they "buy votes" in the UK? How have Labour politicians bought by vote over the last twenty years? "Extracting money" - exactly how is this done? My local MP lives on a perfectly ordinary road in suburban London, the same one as my father-in-law who is a bus driver. It's not oligarch land.

I think there's some truth in your comment about a "permanent political class" but surely that's part of a broader problem - it's quite hard to get high-level jobs in the UK without a particular background. If you do want to enter that class, there are far easier ways to do so than becoming an MP: it's insecure, under a high level of public scrutiny and really doesn't pay that well. (I assume that "MPs are overpaid/have their noses in the trough" type comments are simply different ways of saying "I have no idea how much top level corporate jobs in the capital actually pay".) But "big business" isn't really a monolithic block is it - there are competing interests who want different things, and I'm fairly certain they don't feel they "control" politicians all that much.

TL;DR - it's more complicated than you might think.

tc

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 860
  • Karma: +73/-1
How do they "buy votes" in the UK?

> Pledge to cut higher rate of income tax for those earning £150,000+ = attempt by the Tories to buy votes
> Extension of high-interest-earning bonds for pensioners = attempt by the Tories to buy votes


I'm fairly certain they don't feel they "control" politicians all that much

> Rupert Murdoch might be inclined to disagree (off the record, of course)
> Then there are the paid lobbyists whose job it is to influence the government on everything from opening up the countryside to fracking to pushing through HS2.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2016, 08:52:54 pm by tc »

Offwidth

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1767
  • Karma: +57/-13
    • Offwidth

benno

Offline
  • **
  • menacing presence
  • Posts: 191
  • Karma: +15/-0
How do they "buy votes" in the UK?

> Pledge to cut higher rate of income tax for those earning £150,000+ = attempt by the Tories to buy votes
> Extension of high-interest-earning bonds for pensioners = attempt by the Tories to buy votes

Out of interest, would a pledge to plough loads of extra funding into the NHS be an attempt to buy votes by this logic? Or into schools? I don't agree with either of the policies you mentioned, but it's hard to imagine a world where political parties don't appeal to the section of the population that votes for them by doing things with public money to benefit those voters.

tc

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 860
  • Karma: +73/-1
No. The two policies I mentioned appeal to a specific demographic. With the Pensioner Bonds, for example, the Tories were desperate to win back the older voters. At the last general election, three-quarters of 60-year-olds turned out to vote, the huge majority of them for the Tories, compared with fewer than half of first-time voters (aged 18 to 24). This was a cynical attempt to bribe these voters.

johnx2

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 353
  • Karma: +18/-0

> Pledge to cut higher rate of income tax for those earning £150,000+ = attempt by the Tories to buy votes

...and what proportion of the electorate would this be?

Will Hunt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma: +631/-115
    • Unknown Stones
No. The two policies I mentioned appeal to a specific demographic. With the Pensioner Bonds, for example, the Tories were desperate to win back the older voters. At the last general election, three-quarters of 60-year-olds turned out to vote, the huge majority of them for the Tories, compared with fewer than half of first-time voters (aged 18 to 24). This was a cynical attempt to bribe these voters.

STOP PRESS: POLITICIANS APPEAL TO VOTERS BY DOING THING THAT THOSE VOTERS WILL LIKE. CIVIL SOCIETY EXPECTED TO END BY TEA TIME

tc, I mean this in the nicest possible way, but you sound like you've lost the plot, mate. Cutting tuition fees (students), or improving access to benefits (unemployed or low-income people) are both policies that would appeal to a specific demographic of voters by spending public money. Do I take it that these hypothetical policies would be cynical attempts to bribe those voters?

tc

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 860
  • Karma: +73/-1
(sigh)...yeah, you're right -- I've lost the plot. It's all cool really, the politicians are all working selflessly to represent the interests of the poor and disenfranchised, Labour represents a credible opposition to those nice Conservatives, corporate influence is merely a conspiracy theory I came up with during a particularly vibrant acid flashback, we can trust the system implicitly and I'm looking forward to celebrating the birthday of our Glorious New Leader, Kim-jong May. I'm all better now, nurse.

(warning: the above post may contain traces of sarcasm) 

Fultonius

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4315
  • Karma: +138/-3
  • Was strong but crap, now weaker but better.
    • Photos
How do they "buy votes" in the UK?

> Pledge to cut higher rate of income tax for those earning £150,000+ = attempt by the Tories to buy votes
> Extension of high-interest-earning bonds for pensioners = attempt by the Tories to buy votes

Out of interest, would a pledge to plough loads of extra funding into the NHS be an attempt to buy votes by this logic? Or into schools? I don't agree with either of the policies you mentioned, but it's hard to imagine a world where political parties don't appeal to the section of the population that votes for them by doing things with public money to benefit those voters.

No, because improving schools and improving the NHS benefits everyone. Those two above only help those who are:

a) Already quite well off
b) Don't give much of a fuck about the rest of society

Therefore a clear bribe for votes...

Will Hunt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma: +631/-115
    • Unknown Stones
How do they "buy votes" in the UK?

> Pledge to cut higher rate of income tax for those earning £150,000+ = attempt by the Tories to buy votes
> Extension of high-interest-earning bonds for pensioners = attempt by the Tories to buy votes

Out of interest, would a pledge to plough loads of extra funding into the NHS be an attempt to buy votes by this logic? Or into schools? I don't agree with either of the policies you mentioned, but it's hard to imagine a world where political parties don't appeal to the section of the population that votes for them by doing things with public money to benefit those voters.

No, because improving schools and improving the NHS benefits everyone. Those two above only help those who are:

a) Already quite well off
b) Don't give much of a fuck about the rest of society

Therefore a clear bribe for votes...


Oo oo! Do mine! Do mine!

Cutting tuition fees (students), or improving access to benefits (unemployed or low-income people) are both policies that would appeal to a specific demographic of voters by spending public money. Do I take it that these hypothetical policies would be cynical attempts to bribe those voters?

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal