• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Direction of Political Travel

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
tenor-2.gif
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Here's what Perfidious Albion is up to:

Passed a law to break a law, only signed into law recently by the same government. The EU has commenced legal proceedings against the government.

Schools shall not be permitted to (any longer?) offer reading materials to children of an "extremist" nature. An example given is anti-capitalism. Perhaps Nazism is OK, that's not mentioned. Presumably the unwelcome books would be given to charity shops. Or would it be quicker to burn them?

Looking to pass a law that makes it legal for an undercover police officer to commit a criminal offence. Yes, legal to act illegally.

Now then, in what direction is Britain going?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Boring, mostly.
We'll never have politics as entertaining as the US. They really know how to create drama.

Well, your country's politics were interesting back in the 1920s and 30s. But as they say, too much excitement is not necessarily a good thing.

One thing that I've noticed about U.S. politics is that most of it focuses on the seamy side of things, much like celebrity gossip and fluff. Either that, or it's just a bunch of mindless prattle.

Very rarely is there any kind of deep discussion on the issues facing the country.

Our politics consists of soundbites and gossip.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
What do you reckon as to Labour's stance on the proposed undercover law?
Tactical.

Bozo - or rather Rumpelstiltskin, more likely - is digging elephant traps all over the place for Starmer. The hope is to trap Starmer into espousing "leftie" views that can make him seem unacceptable to the new Red Wall constituency voters who are where Bozo' s new look Tory party sees its future. The idea is to recast British politics along US-stye "culture war" lines. This law, Patel's silly ideas about where to hold immigrants, parachuting ludicrously opinionated old rightwingers into the BBC and Ofcom...all of this stuff is a pattern, to make Starmer and Labour scream, so that they can be portrayed as extreme in some way. It's Trump-lite.

But Starmer is not playing. He is clearly determined not to be outmanoeuvred on these issues into a caricature "Leftie London Lawyer" position, because he is determined to win the Red Wall back again!

As it happens, I can perfectly well see the argument that undercover security agents may sometimes have to take part in certain sorts of illegality, in order to infiltrate criminal and terrorist groups. This has always been done in the past and in principle a new law that makes this explicit is an improvement on the current hypocritical practice of turning a blind eye and pretending it doesn't happen. Where I part from the government proposal is that I see no reason why certain sorts of extremes of criminal activity (murder, rape, torture etc) shouldn't be explicitly ruled out. I have not followed Labour's line on this but if that is what they are arguing for I think I would support it.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Tactical.

Bozo - or rather Rumpelstiltskin, more likely - is digging elephant traps all over the place for Starmer. The hope is to trap Starmer into espousing "leftie" views that can make him seem unacceptable to the new Red Wall constituency voters who are where Bozo' s new look Tory party sees its future. The idea is to recast British politics along US-stye "culture war" lines. This law, Patel's silly ideas about where to hold immigrants, parachuting ludicrously opinionated old rightwingers into the BBC and Ofcom...all of this stuff is a pattern, to make Starmer and Labour scream, so that they can be portrayed as extreme in some way. It's Trump-lite.

But Starmer is not playing. He is clearly determined not to be outmanoeuvred on these issues into a caricature "Leftie London Lawyer" position, because he is determined to win the Red Wall back again!

As it happens, I can perfectly well see the argument that undercover security agents may sometimes have to take part in certain sorts of illegality, in order to infiltrate criminal and terrorist groups. This has always been done in the past and in principle a new law that makes this explicit is an improvement on the current hypocritical practice of turning a blind eye and pretending it doesn't happen. Where I part from the government proposal is that I see no reason why certain sorts of extremes of criminal activity (murder, rape, torture etc) shouldn't be explicitly ruled out. I have not followed Labour's line on this but if that is what they are arguing for I think I would support it.

It never ends well in Line of Duty. Just look at Stephen Graham. :dizzy:

I concur with you. But I do wonder what the Labour party must look like in order to get the Red Wall back. Any different than UKIP? I live in Red Wall Central and canvas for the party. A lot of folk would only vote Labour if it was headed by Farage. And changed its name. And banned beards, blacks and guacamole.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Boring, mostly.
We'll never have politics as entertaining as the US. They really know how to create drama.
Cliff hangers and such. This is focused on Canada but applies. Think of the villain tying democracy to the tracks to be destroyed and the hero overcoming the villain in the nick of time while the horse gets democracy's thanks and you'll be close.

 
Top