• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Definitely emphasises how much the Tories control the narrative
All of these failings came under Tory rule but the buck just gets passed to people who haven't been in charge for over a decade


I think it also shows the lack of political education in this country - I don't mean that in a condescending "all these voters are dumb" way, but we are never taught how our government actually functions, from parliament down to local councils - and unless you go off and do your own research (which most people aren't going to do, because it's dull as dishwater) you're never going to find out.
It then allows people, like the above, to look at their labour MP and blame him for the failings of the Tory government without realising how hamstrung he is by their budget cuts etc.

The first time I came across how out parliamentary system works was when I was 16 and that was because I did A-level politics. So not sure But yes it's a big failing of our education system. Keep the young oblivious unless they are interested and seek out how it all works.

But only realise when I have got older that until you've had some life experience of how life and decisions are made in this country then it is difficult to really get that interested. So don't really blame a lot of young people under 18. Doesn't help they can't vote until they are 16.
 
Finally a politician we can get behind:



Also Irish politicians asked about the border issue and helped clear the issue up completely:

 
Hey what happened to those Navy ships we sent out to deal was those nasty French fishermen?

Oh election over?
 
Hey what happened to those Navy ships we sent out to deal was those nasty French fishermen?

Oh election over?
Pretty sure they ran away no? You can't seriously be suggesting that we would risk a major international conflict for some council elections that the Tories were going to win anyway?
 
Pretty sure they ran away no? You can't seriously be suggesting that we would risk a major international conflict for some council elections that the Tories were going to win anyway?
You thought we were risking a major international conflict?
 
Sending military boats is always running that risk, even by accident
It would of been the most stupid thing possible. Those two ships are regularly used to handle fishing disputes form what I read (rarely have to go into port, more out at sea), yet suddenly last week front page news. So I wasn't suggesting we'd risk a conflict more what was happening was vastly over reported.

A bit like how Khan loss was so terrible (wins by 10%, swing less than Johnsons's second term, still has higher vote share than Johnson ever managed)
Or Starmer's entire reshuffle has be blown out proportion now called chaotic as it looks like he never intended to change much but as one element got leaked and everyone went nuts.
The Hartlepool result being a big deal.


Yet what isn't being reported is probably the more interesting results in council's in the south of England, we spoke of Gloucestershire yesterday, Kent, Sussex, Oxfordshire all had similar results. Where conservative support isn't quite as strong as it once was with strong second place finishes compared to previous results not held during a general election.
Or how it looks like Brexit voting areas are still as entrenched as they were in 2018/2019


Its a comment on what is decided to be reported on and what isn't. Local elections are less about the big name items and more looking at the ways things are shifting in demographics that can lead to longer term ideas of where to target.
 

Companies in freeports will not get to enjoy the full benefits of the tax-efficient zones if they export to certain countries including Canada, Norway, Switzerland and Singapore, the government has admitted.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Chancellor Rishi Sunak have declared that eight new English freeports — announced in the Budget — will be a "transformational" benefit from Brexit.

But officials disclosed on Sunday that recent post-Brexit trade agreements with 23 different countries included clauses that specifically prohibit manufacturers in freeport-type zones from benefiting from the deals.

So those freeports, which were apparently a benefit of Brexit (even though there are many in the EU), are not fully freeports.

Oh Brother Reaction GIF by reactionseditor


Wonder if that would change the mind of the Hartlepool voters?
 
It would of been the most stupid thing possible. Those two ships are regularly used to handle fishing disputes form what I read (rarely have to go into port, more out at sea), yet suddenly last week front page news. So I wasn't suggesting we'd risk a conflict more what was happening was vastly over reported.

A bit like how Khan loss was so terrible (wins by 10%, swing less than Johnsons's second term, still has higher vote share than Johnson ever managed)
Or Starmer's entire reshuffle has be blown out proportion now called chaotic as it looks like he never intended to change much but as one element got leaked and everyone went nuts.
The Hartlepool result being a big deal.


Yet what isn't being reported is probably the more interesting results in council's in the south of England, we spoke of Gloucestershire yesterday, Kent, Sussex, Oxfordshire all had similar results. Where conservative support isn't quite as strong as it once was with strong second place finishes compared to previous results not held during a general election.
Or how it looks like Brexit voting areas are still as entrenched as they were in 2018/2019


Its a comment on what is decided to be reported on and what isn't. Local elections are less about the big name items and more looking at the ways things are shifting in demographics that can lead to longer term ideas of where to target.
Think they are used for cadet training and checking fish quoters. Its not like a rerun of the cod wars in the 70s
 
Starting it the 2023 Local Elections, the government plans to force every UK voter to present ID upon voting. This is a grave breach of the democratic process and will make it harder for those on lower incomes and people of colour to vote, as these groups are less likely to possess an official ID.

There were 34 allegations of voter fraud in the 2019 election, and one case of proven fraud. Out of 48 million registered voters. There is no need for us to add an extra layer of bureaucracy and complexity to the voting process. Our elections are the only thing which allow us a true say in our government; voting should be the most open and inclusive process possible.
 
Is there also one for the FPTP changes on the Mayor elections as well?
 
Why are people against voter ID btw? It seems like a perfectly reasonable requirement to me and would genuinely like to hear some thoughts rather than the half baked conspiracies on twitter.

(Arguments that aren't inherently racist /based on half truths preferred. That's what most of them seem to be)
 
Last edited:
Why are people against voter ID btw? It seems like a perfectly reasonable requirement to me and would genuinely like to hear some thoughts rather than the half baked conspiracies on twitter.

(Arguments that aren't inherently racist /based on half truths preferred. That's what most of them seem to be)

I was under the impression that Voter ID (driving licence and passport) is considered elitist because not everyone can afford them in the first instance or renewing them.
 
Why are people against voter ID btw? It seems like a perfectly reasonable requirement to me and would genuinely like to hear some thoughts rather than the half baked conspiracies on twitter
Its a financial and bureaucratic blocker to voting (even if government provides the ID) I saw stats somewhere that ~75% of people have Driving Licenses or Passports.

Basically it disenfranchises far more people than it solves fraudulent voting cases and we shouldn't be blocking people to vote on that basis.
 
I was under the impression that Voter ID (driving licence and passport) is considered elitist because not everyone can afford them in the first instance or renewing them.
Voter ID would be free though? Which lots of Labour MPs are either lying about or genuinely just haven't researched it at all
 
Why are people against voter ID btw? It seems like a perfectly reasonable requirement to me and would genuinely like to hear some thoughts rather than the half baked conspiracies on twitter.
It adds an extra barrier that wasn't there before/removes impulse votes(/impulse registrations) etc.

As above: There's a cost element associated to it that wasn't there before - if you're from a low income family and have no need for a drivers license/passport then it's a significant sum just to be able to vote

I believe they're intending on implementing a free photo card - which does solve these issues, but I'll believe it when I see it.
A country-wide rollout would be a significant undertaking, and if its opt in then you go back to the initial point of it being something you've got to think about months in advance of voting. Obviously in an ideal world everyone is chomping at the bit to get out and vote every time and would have everything in order for it, but in reality that's not the case.

Plus then there's the cost of the country-wide ID scheme - millions upon millions of pounds to counter...34 (alleged) incidents of voter fraud?


TBH I've always thought turning up and just giving your address is a bit....weird, for voting.
I'd be in favour of needing some sort of ID/proof (even if it's just taking the poll card that they post to you, in with you)
 

Latest posts

Top