UK Politics Thread (Part 4)

[Noo_Noo]

[SBYM]

Nah…

You should.

Don’t let the irretrievably thick win.

[SBYM]

So if London is, as I and most sane people who live here would contend, more or less okey-dokey, it must be shown to be otherwise. And in the absence of genuine facts and figures, or genuine footage of skirmishes in an ongoing race-war, or genuine viral engagement with the claims, those troll farms are going to have to go to work with botnets and AI. And so they do. But, like, wouldn’t it be better just to get a hobby?

Did lol at this part…almost like the author is aware of recent converstaions on TAN…

[Basankayis]

How did that make it to print?
Then again, he did once describe himself as
“this magazine’s token wishy-washy centre-left liberal”

[koptician]

769K views · 25K reactions | "If you were born poor you will die poor and if...

[Bekloppt]

Fucking Mandelson. What a complete tossknob.
And fuck anyone who ever trusted him.

[Noo_Noo]

Got to be the end of Starmer now surely?

Meanwhile that utter turd, Farage now calling Olly Robbins a very professional civil servant after calling him the “enemy within” in 2018.

What an utter mess UK politics has become.

[Lynch04]

@RedWhippet

What was vague about their facts? They used actual statistics in the article. What it did indicate is that there is a disconnect between perceived crime and actual crime. That in itself is worth investigating.

I used to work in government, producing stats for elected officials and occasionally the public. The reason that these are used is because policy has to be based on things that are true.

I can recall people becoming critical because the statistics didn’t match their hypothesis. That is because either their hypothesis was wrong, or they were asking the wrong question.

Evening,

Please take my response as discussing rather than arguing. I actually appreciate that you engage rather than shut down.

I know the article used stats. I referred to that in my response.

My initial response was to SYBM because his usual response ‘not a direct quote’ was to suggest the RWNJ are just making baseless facts, proven to be wrong.

What I was trying to highlight is that the joy in both the article and posters responses because it had a stat that proved Rupert Lowe wrong was the wrong way of looking at it. Whether crime with a sharp object - or however it was described - has fallen by a minimal figure does not mean London is a safe place to live. Nor is justifying it by comparing it to a similar city.
If people want to go by Stats, the Statistics show you that since Sadiq Khan became Mayor, Knife crime has continually increased. It dropped during Covid and then climbed again to record levels year before last.

I am not taking a dig at SK - I understand this would be a challenge to any Mayor/Government/unlimited finances - I just feel it is important to hold him, or another to account rather than excuse them because of political point scoring.

So, I stand by my comment of it being a pathetic way of looking at things, that is my opinion. I also find it pathetic (not directed at you) and again it being my opinion that posters are all too eager to shut down someone’s view because it doesn’t align with theirs.

[Lynch04]

@Lynch04

You can provide me with stats to support the point of serious crime falling, stats mean fuck all.

This is really not a great look for you.
[/quote]

Why because you say so?

@Mascot

@Lynch04

Crime and disorder across the UK is as bad as it has ever been.

@Lynch04

People are scared and do not feel safe, irrelevant of any political party.

Point two is not proof of point one.

People are scared and do not feel safe because social media algorithms are pumping select stories at them that make them feel unsafe. And certain parties lean into that for political gain (which makes it absolutely a party political issue).

Meanwhile independent crime surveys do not tally with public perception. In a lot of areas crime is actually falling.

Who said point two was proof of point one apart from you? why didn’t you quote the full sentence for context? It would have been easier for sure but I suppose it didn’t suit your narrative.

Why are you so obsessed with trying to prove people who have a different view to your own wrong. My response was very neutral, questioned why people took such joy in proving someone with opposing views wrong. Why is it that yourself and others are so focused on proving any statement you consider RW incorrect and are happy to accept the current situation??
Just because someone has an opinion different to your own, doesn’t mean they are RW and furthermore If they have a different view why don’t you ask questions and try to understand why?

On another note:
If you are going to pull me up on my questioning of Stats, please support your point.
I mean you refer to independent crime surveys but fail to provide any supporting evidence.
You suggest that the reason people are scared is because of algorithms on social media (this did make me chuckle), please provide supporting stats.
You state that in a lot of areas crime is falling but yet again, fail to provide stats.

Also, I had you down as being more intelligent than trying to portray my statement of ‘people being scared irrelevant of political party’ under a different context.

Look, you can bury your head in the sand, try and undermine any statement questioning the current Government. You can sit happy believing the UK is this peaceful Isle, where any suggestion that it is other is RW.
Of course, the fault lies with the RW media, algorithms from the RW social media, yet anything LW is true and should be trusted. I mean, there is no way the Left would use algorithms to support their views!
Again, I stand by my view that this is all pathetic.

The World is in the place where it is, purely because of Human Nature and irrelevant of its political leaning.

[Lynch04]

@Bekloppt

Your responses have been to put words in my mouth and to wildly misrepresent what I’ve said. I don’t consider that respectful at all.

I disagree, I may have been flippant at times, yes.
However, if this is how you feel then I do apologise, that was not my intention.

[Mascot]

@Lynch04

If you ask someone to prove a view and begin with saying stats mean fuck all and you won’t be taking them on board, you have already lost the argument and proved yourself to be a bad faith debater. You are essentially saying there is nothing you can be presented with that with change your mind. It’s an incredible way to go about a discussion and staggering that in this context you accuse me of lacking intelligence and burying my head in the sand.

[Noo_Noo]

Starmer should be toast.

That said, I’m glad they’re looking seriously at this. How far they take it will be interesting. If it’s directly related to the price of generation then good. If it’s another fudge between all forms of generation then they can take a hike.

Electricity bills targeted in planned shakeup to energy pricing

[Arminius]

I am not sure that a reform that decreases the profitability of non-fossil fuels in order to subsidize consumer use of fossil fuels is going to be much help in the long-term. There are sound reasons why energy markets operate on a marginal cost of generation basis. Reducing that average by securing baseload at a fixed price in exchange for guaranteed delivery quantity (i.e. for nuclear that needs to place a floor amount into the market) doesn’t disrupt this signal. But this reform would take directly away from wind and solar to reduce the average price to consumers, while the marginal cost generator (combined cycle gas turbines, almost always) would continue to reap the actual market price. Not hard to figure out which direction investment will go.

[Noo_Noo]

Yeah, admittedly I hadn’t thought of the loss to renewables as a factor. Shame we farmed it out to the private sector again. (Cheeky socialist stab)

That said, something needs to change. UK energy prices are a factor behind low investment, and it’s a major issue for household budgets.

Speaking of which, I still haven’t had my oil delivery either. But that’s a different story.

[odin_telamon]

Ridiculous that you have not had your oil delivery, Donald has heard you on this , and will liberate Cuba next as per your non stated non suggestion.

[Arminius]

@Noo_Noo

Yeah, admittedly I hadn’t thought of the loss to renewables as a factor.

In Canada, we have recently seen the gasoline excise tax (Federal) suspended in order to address rising gas prices. I find that infuriating, especially when I walk by a school parking lot and see 3-4 F-150s (15L/100km city) driven by teachers who seem to feel they need a massive vehicle in order to ‘carry their hockey gear’. We are in a deficit spending situation, so every cut in revenue is a transfer of the tax burden elsewhere. Why exactly are we providing a subsidy that disproportionately awards a disregard for efficiency by taking tax dollars from those that have invested in electrical vehicles?

That is exactly the logic of what the UK is proposing - no one seriously thinks the CCGT operators will see less revenue, by definition they won’t, they don’t generate if the peak offer price doesn’t reach their breakeven.

[Bekloppt]

UK has quietly regained its position as the world’s 5th largest economy

[Noo_Noo]

@Arminius

3-4 F-150s (15L/100km city) driven by teachers who seem to feel they need a massive vehicle in order to ‘carry their hockey gear’.

On a lighter note, I lived an worked near Basingstoke for a while. They had a hockey team, which was a mix of UK players and imports. One player was 6’10" tall. Lord knows how long his hockey stick was and of course their kit bag can hide bodies.

As part of a sponsorship deal, they were given Smart cars. That brought a bit of a chuckle.

On a sadder note I saw Graham Belak play a few times. Wade’s younger brother.

Way off topic sorry, but kind of important as a potential detour to Canadian infrastructure.

[Redbj]

isnt that to assist the supply chain though? i dont think they are doing it to assist the local math teacher.

the issue is that suppliers are putting up the prices regardless, quoting the issues in the strait… like Covid, never look a gift horse in the mouth

[Arminius]

I think they are doing it precisely to help the local math teacher. There aren’t really supply chain issues here, just high prices (and windfall profits) as the price per barrel is pushed upwards. The pressures are around ‘affordability’ and the resultant political heat. I understand the pressures some are feeling, but eliminating a per litre excise tax rewards per-unit inefficiency