The UK political thread (formerly independence thread)

[Metalchemyst]

I don't like any party's key policies enough to vote for any of them, but the Cons are the least worst. Labour are being too ambitious economically and they are borderline loony on defence and immigration.

It's been pointed out that Labour have only ever been elected when they've moved to the centre.

[kanet666]

I don't like any party's key policies enough to vote for any of them, but the Cons are the least worst. Labour are being too ambitious economically and they are borderline loony on defence and immigration.

It's been pointed out that Labour have only ever been elected when they've moved to the centre.

Are these the key policies that they have already lied about repeatedly? For example the "40 new hospitals" that is actually at most 6, the "50,000 new nurses" which actually just double counts 19,000 existing ones and the "20,000 new police" which doesn't even make up for the ones taken off the streets by the Tories in the first place?And that's before we get into the Boris' amazing Brexit deal.

They can say what they want but Boris has a track record of lying and lying and lying yet the more he lies the more people seem to adore him. It beggars belief!

[houston4044]

They can say what they want but Boris has a track record of lying and lying and lying yet the more he lies the more people seem to adore him. It beggars belief!

Totally agree. It's much the same with the anti-elitist sentiment that's come to the fore in recent years; seen Javid and Rees-Mogg of all people co-opt it in speeches and people lap it up. How the hell people think Rees-Mogg isn't an elitist I'll never understand

[Metalchemyst]

I don't like any party's key policies enough to vote for any of them, but the Cons are the least worst. Labour are being too ambitious economically and they are borderline loony on defence and immigration.

It's been pointed out that Labour have only ever been elected when they've moved to the centre.

Are these the key policies that they have already lied about repeatedly? For example the "40 new hospitals" that is actually at most 6, the "50,000 new nurses" which actually just double counts 19,000 existing ones and the "20,000 new police" which doesn't even make up for the ones taken off the streets by the Tories in the first place?And that's before we get into the Boris' amazing Brexit deal.

They can say what they want but Boris has a track record of lying and lying and lying yet the more he lies the more people seem to adore him. It beggars belief!

I'm not saying any party is reliable with their promises. I was assuming Labour were going to scrap our nukes but apparently not.

In the letters page of the Daily Mail yesterday (2nd Dec) there is a lot of serious criticism of all parties on their records of cutting down trees.

[kanet666]

I don't like any party's key policies enough to vote for any of them, but the Cons are the least worst. Labour are being too ambitious economically and they are borderline loony on defence and immigration.

It's been pointed out that Labour have only ever been elected when they've moved to the centre.

Are these the key policies that they have already lied about repeatedly? For example the "40 new hospitals" that is actually at most 6, the "50,000 new nurses" which actually just double counts 19,000 existing ones and the "20,000 new police" which doesn't even make up for the ones taken off the streets by the Tories in the first place?And that's before we get into the Boris' amazing Brexit deal.

They can say what they want but Boris has a track record of lying and lying and lying yet the more he lies the more people seem to adore him. It beggars belief!

I'm not saying any party is reliable with their promises. I was assuming Labour were going to scrap our nukes but apparently not.

In the letters page of the Daily Mail yesterday (2nd Dec) there is a lot of serious criticism of all parties on their records of cutting down trees.

But isn't this the whole problem? The Tories in particular from what I've seen (though not just them) are seeding the population with such a vast amount of misinformation due to social media that they're likely to win an election based on what they've managed to make the population assume about other parties because people are too lazy to actually pay any real attention to what they have actually done over the past 9 years. Project Fear, if you will.

[Metalchemyst]

There probably is more distortion of 'Corbynism' than against the Tories, especially all this 'Venezuela' stuff. But Labour don't help their own cause. If they limited their renationalisation programme to, say, water and prisons, scrapped plans to give back power to unions and matched the Tory immigration policy (which is actually a bit soft) then more voters would warm to them.

[Black Wizard]

No response to the election result then? I'm assuming you're all still in shock or in a state of depression.

It looks like the Labour/Green coalition predicted by this forum's voting intentions was way off the mark.

[bloodofthekings]

No response to the election result then? I'm assuming you're all still in shock or in a state of depression.

It looks like the Labour/Green coalition predicted by this forum's voting intentions was way off the mark.

I'm not particularly shocked. In hindsight, Labour's brexit message should have been to officially support upholding the result of the referendum but to renegotiate to ensure any withdrawal agreement benefited the majority of the public, rather than an elite few whose primary concern is not paying their fair share of tax. That way, they may not have lost so many of their previous safe seats.

Or at the very least to say that they would take their renegotiated deal to a 2nd referendum with the option of remain but as a party they would remain neutral, reiterating that Cameron should have adopted that position originally.

Either of those messages would have cut through to the electorate much better than the message they eventually ended up with.

There's no doubt the perception of Corbyn as an individual and a leader was an issue as well - what proportion of that is rooted in fact and what proportion is down to a mostly right-wing media vehemently going after him like they haven't done to other Labour leaders in the past, is another conversation.

Having said all that, I don't believe that voters in these Northern & Midlands constituencies have voted for Boris because they've suddenly adopted Tory values across the board. Boris should be self-aware enough to release these are lent votes that are conditional. If he doesn't deliver on their expectations in 5 years and the brexit golden goose doesn't start laying its eggs in these towns, then they will not be so quick to vote for him again.

Despite the above, I genuinely believe Keir Starmer is Labour's best hope of regaining ground in 5 years and pushing to win in 10 years, provided he owns and then effectively distances himself from his previous pro-Remain position and changes the conversation to be about protecting the rights of ordinary citizens, which I believe he's good enough to do. I just hope that the ridiculous identity politics being pushed by the Guardian and Momentum don't throw away a chance at a Starmer-led Labour party, just because he's not a woman or he's a London-based MP.

If he's hounded out because of this, or because he's not 'Left-wing enough' for some members of the party then I would genuinely despair at who to vote for the next time round as it will be difficult to vote for a party that will have shot themselves in the foot so badly, just to appease an angry, woke mob of Twitter shouters.

[Awesome Metal Bands]

As long as metal bands are freely able to get into the UK to play gigs and festivals then I have no problem with brexit.

PS I have a brexit 1 to 2 times a day.

[slayerslays]

As long as metal bands are freely able to get into the UK to play gigs and festivals then I have no problem with brexit.

PS I have a brexit 1 to 2 times a day.

(Metal bands from the UK have been moving freely into non-EU countries for years without visas.) There could be a problem if an individual member has a serious criminal record as has always been the case anyway. There could be a problem where a band has European members who have not applied for residency as they could be removed from the UK. We shall see....

[someone else]

There could be issues with import duties and tax on goods, which would include bands merch. Bands would have paperwork.on all their gear and t-shirts etc, then account for sales to pay tax at the border. I was chatting to the German CD stall boss, and he said Norway is fairly easy, you do a sales print out and pay tax as you cross. Switzerland they avoid as the paperwork on imports and sales is horrendous. Just depends on what deal we strike with EU.

[slayerslays]

I have bought merch at gigs from USA bands in the past few years and the price is no different from European bands or UK bands. But if you buy merch (or anything) directly from the USA then the tax is high due to the EU surcharge. Also, I bought something from Nuclear Blast in Germany and because they posted it out with their mag (all in German so no good to me) it incurred about £8 in postage charges.
One of those EU bureaucrats (salary £25,000 a MONTH btw) said that any deal, other than a very basic deal, that we have with the EU must include freedom of movement- which is what a lot of people do not want....especially as the EU do not think that, for example, a convicted rapist should be denied free-movement http://immigration-appeals.icslegal.com ... o-romania/

[houston4044]

It'll be the UK scene that suffers rather than the EU if a good (i.e. not a basic one) deal isn't struck. Remove freedom of movement and place tariffs/taxes then any band who isn't firmly established/profitable is going to be screwed. The cost and opportunities to grow in a large nearby market rise and they are undercut by EU bands in cost. You'll just end up with the larger EU bands doing the odd UK date with smaller/medium ones not bothering and EU bands getting the better offers of tours etc as it'll be easier and cheaper for them to do a European than a UK tour which is vital for them to grow.

Not saying all UK bands are doomed but it'll just make it harder in an already struggling profession to succeed.

I have bought merch at gigs from USA bands in the past few years and the price is no different from European bands or UK bands. But if you buy merch (or anything) directly from the USA then the tax is high due to the EU surcharge.

Yes, because we are still part of the EU, for a US business there is currently no distinction between EU/UK; at the end of 2020 (currently) is when that will change.

A great deal with the US won't replace EU ties or bring down costs at all. Given most merch sellers are based in the EU it'll just raise costs for us as no merch seller is going to forgo a far larger EU market to set up shop in the UK. Even if they open a UK branch they'll either have swallow the costs of moving stock between the UK/EU or pass it on to the customer. For that reason a US company will base itself in the EU over the UK as well, even with the tariffs etc it'll still be far more profitable given their customer base is far, far larger.

[someone else]

especially as the EU do not think that, for example, a convicted rapist should be denied free-movement http://immigration-appeals.icslegal.com ... o-romania/

Did you just swallow the headline without burping? The EU agreement states the opposite - a member state can deport someone if they are a danger to the public - and they don't have to have convictions. It was a BRITISH judge that decided that the man didn't pose a threat as the conviction was over 20 years before so allowed him to stay. Bit like the nonsense Teresa May spouted about not being able to deport a criminal because he had a cat ("..and I'm not making it up", turned out she was, as was Farage who she nicked the speech from)

[slayerslays]

especially as the EU do not think that, for example, a convicted rapist should be denied free-movement http://immigration-appeals.icslegal.com ... o-romania/

Did you just swallow the headline without burping? The EU agreement states the opposite - a member state can deport someone if they are a danger to the public - and they don't have to have convictions. It was a BRITISH judge that decided that the man didn't pose a threat as the conviction was over 20 years before so allowed him to stay. Bit like the nonsense Teresa May spouted about not being able to deport a criminal because he had a cat ("..and I'm not making it up", turned out she was, as was Farage who she nicked the speech from)

The bloke only got picked up because he was a drunk driver (a threat in itself imo) AND if it wasn't for the free movement thingy anyway and the ignorant stupidity of the judiciary in the UK he would have been deported.
And don't forget the Latvian convicted murderer- again lax behaviour because of the free movement - I suspect they are just told to wave them through!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... derer.html