The Politics Thread

[Hoboh]

To paraphrase Mencken:

As democracy develops high office will represent ever closer the muddled opinions of the people. At some point the people's vote will achieve it's wish and Downing Street will be adorned by a downright moron.

Well, we've already recently been given an idiot (Cameron), and are now suffering an imbecile (May), so the next step downwards almost certainly features a moron.

Well, they are clearly becoming more intelligent if I understand the definitions correctly.

Idiot, imbecile, and moron were, not so long ago, used in a psychological classification system, and each one was assigned to a fairly specific range of abilities.


Idiots.—Those so defective that the mental development never exceeds that or a normal child of about two years.
Imbeciles.—Those whose development is higher than that of an idiot, but whose intelligence does not exceed that of a normal child of about seven years.
Morons.—Those whose mental development is above that of an imbecile, but does not exceed that of a normal child of about twelve years.

3x2's would be more accurate a description.

[TANGODANCER]

Ha, dust off the gunboats. Theresa is giving ultimatums about trespassing in our territorial waters to the French Connection....apparently...
They must have forgotten it's the English Channel.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

To paraphrase Mencken:

As democracy develops high office will represent ever closer the muddled opinions of the people. At some point the people's vote will achieve it's wish and Downing Street will be adorned by a downright moron.

Well, we've already recently been given an idiot (Cameron), and are now suffering an imbecile (May), so the next step downwards almost certainly features a moron.

Well, they are clearly becoming more intelligent if I understand the definitions correctly.

Idiot, imbecile, and moron were, not so long ago, used in a psychological classification system, and each one was assigned to a fairly specific range of abilities.


Idiots.—Those so defective that the mental development never exceeds that or a normal child of about two years.
Imbeciles.—Those whose development is higher than that of an idiot, but whose intelligence does not exceed that of a normal child of about seven years.
Morons.—Those whose mental development is above that of an imbecile, but does not exceed that of a normal child of about twelve years.

Well there we go then. I was taught the mnemonic Id-i-om (to remember idiot, imbecile, moron), but had forgotten it was in ascending not descending order. More fool me.

[BWFC_Insane]

"Short of viable candidates"

I'd say "complete absence of viable candidates" applies to the Tories - Not so much Labour, who have a few, but due to the current thirst for extreme leftism the viable ones won't be on the table

I'd probably say there are more viable Tory leaders given as you say they aren't hamstrung by their leadership selection process as much.

Frankly there aren't good options in either party.

It comes to something when you look at Vince Cable and think - "Christ he's dull but hes a billion times better than the other two".

Most students wouldn't agree. Even the leaders of the Green party are pretty damned turgid. I doubt even the most swivel-eyed of SNP supporters could argue that Sturgeon would make a better MP and a potential PM.
I think we can say that there are absolutely zero good options in any political party in the UK right now to make being PM a success. We're stuck with a cast of 650+ fourth division politicians, some of whom shouldn't even be allowed into the political non-league ranks.

Not just about personality though. More about conviction and credibility and even stability. Cable will never be PM and rightly so - but he's certainly more stable than the other big two.

Sturgeon is a better politician than May and Corbyn - she's a good Scottish leader to be fair.

There are very few people in politics I'd trust to run this country and the few I would are without any chance of ever doing so.

[Hoboh]

"Short of viable candidates"

I'd say "complete absence of viable candidates" applies to the Tories - Not so much Labour, who have a few, but due to the current thirst for extreme leftism the viable ones won't be on the table

I'd probably say there are more viable Tory leaders given as you say they aren't hamstrung by their leadership selection process as much.

Frankly there aren't good options in either party.

It comes to something when you look at Vince Cable and think - "Christ he's dull but hes a billion times better than the other two".

Most students wouldn't agree. Even the leaders of the Green party are pretty damned turgid. I doubt even the most swivel-eyed of SNP supporters could argue that Sturgeon would make a better MP and a potential PM.
I think we can say that there are absolutely zero good options in any political party in the UK right now to make being PM a success. We're stuck with a cast of 650+ fourth division politicians, some of whom shouldn't even be allowed into the political non-league ranks.

Not just about personality though. More about conviction and credibility and even stability. Cable will never be PM and rightly so - but he's certainly more stable than the other big two.

Sturgeon is a better politician than May and Corbyn - she's a good Scottish leader to be fair.

There are very few people in politics I'd trust to run this country and the few I would are without any chance of ever doing so.

credibility just went out the door there mate, the SNP are in decline and facing a lot of 'issues' up there from people who now realise they were a one trick pony, much the same as UKIP.

[BWFC_Insane]

"Short of viable candidates"

I'd say "complete absence of viable candidates" applies to the Tories - Not so much Labour, who have a few, but due to the current thirst for extreme leftism the viable ones won't be on the table

I'd probably say there are more viable Tory leaders given as you say they aren't hamstrung by their leadership selection process as much.

Frankly there aren't good options in either party.

It comes to something when you look at Vince Cable and think - "Christ he's dull but hes a billion times better than the other two".

Most students wouldn't agree. Even the leaders of the Green party are pretty damned turgid. I doubt even the most swivel-eyed of SNP supporters could argue that Sturgeon would make a better MP and a potential PM.
I think we can say that there are absolutely zero good options in any political party in the UK right now to make being PM a success. We're stuck with a cast of 650+ fourth division politicians, some of whom shouldn't even be allowed into the political non-league ranks.

Not just about personality though. More about conviction and credibility and even stability. Cable will never be PM and rightly so - but he's certainly more stable than the other big two.

Sturgeon is a better politician than May and Corbyn - she's a good Scottish leader to be fair.

There are very few people in politics I'd trust to run this country and the few I would are without any chance of ever doing so.

credibility just went out the door there mate, the SNP are in decline and facing a lot of 'issues' up there from people who now realise they were a one trick pony, much the same as UKIP.

I didn't say that wasn't the case. Nobody can do it forever. She's an impressive speaker and politician and leader of Scotland. I don't have to agree with everything she says to think that. Also, given some of the SNP policies I'd say they are far from a one trick pony. They did of course, rather shoot their bolt in the independence referendum. Sturgeon does at least go into bat for the people she represents...unlike our current leader!

[Hoboh]

"Short of viable candidates"

I'd say "complete absence of viable candidates" applies to the Tories - Not so much Labour, who have a few, but due to the current thirst for extreme leftism the viable ones won't be on the table

I'd probably say there are more viable Tory leaders given as you say they aren't hamstrung by their leadership selection process as much.

Frankly there aren't good options in either party.

It comes to something when you look at Vince Cable and think - "Christ he's dull but hes a billion times better than the other two".

Most students wouldn't agree. Even the leaders of the Green party are pretty damned turgid. I doubt even the most swivel-eyed of SNP supporters could argue that Sturgeon would make a better MP and a potential PM.
I think we can say that there are absolutely zero good options in any political party in the UK right now to make being PM a success. We're stuck with a cast of 650+ fourth division politicians, some of whom shouldn't even be allowed into the political non-league ranks.

Not just about personality though. More about conviction and credibility and even stability. Cable will never be PM and rightly so - but he's certainly more stable than the other big two.

Sturgeon is a better politician than May and Corbyn - she's a good Scottish leader to be fair.

There are very few people in politics I'd trust to run this country and the few I would are without any chance of ever doing so.

credibility just went out the door there mate, the SNP are in decline and facing a lot of 'issues' up there from people who now realise they were a one trick pony, much the same as UKIP.

I didn't say that wasn't the case. Nobody can do it forever. She's an impressive speaker and politician and leader of Scotland. I don't have to agree with everything she says to think that. Also, given some of the SNP policies I'd say they are far from a one trick pony. They did of course, rather shoot their bolt in the independence referendum. Sturgeon does at least go into bat for the people she represents...unlike our current leader!

Everything Sturgeon touches has the independence issue lurking in the background, most of what the SNP does in terms of other policies is out of necessity, a necessity to keep Labour, her biggest threat, on the sideline.
Impressive speaker? Droning donkey springs to mind or one of the little nodding dogs that used to populate the parcel shelf of cars.
Oh and clearly like May she does not represent the majority of those who voted

[TANGODANCER]

Everything Sturgeon touches has the independence issue lurking in the background,

You mean a sort of Wilomena Wallace without the sword?..Oh, sorry, that was Mel Gibson who's a Yank..

[BWFC_Insane]

"Short of viable candidates"

I'd say "complete absence of viable candidates" applies to the Tories - Not so much Labour, who have a few, but due to the current thirst for extreme leftism the viable ones won't be on the table

I'd probably say there are more viable Tory leaders given as you say they aren't hamstrung by their leadership selection process as much.

Frankly there aren't good options in either party.

It comes to something when you look at Vince Cable and think - "Christ he's dull but hes a billion times better than the other two".

Most students wouldn't agree. Even the leaders of the Green party are pretty damned turgid. I doubt even the most swivel-eyed of SNP supporters could argue that Sturgeon would make a better MP and a potential PM.
I think we can say that there are absolutely zero good options in any political party in the UK right now to make being PM a success. We're stuck with a cast of 650+ fourth division politicians, some of whom shouldn't even be allowed into the political non-league ranks.

Not just about personality though. More about conviction and credibility and even stability. Cable will never be PM and rightly so - but he's certainly more stable than the other big two.

Sturgeon is a better politician than May and Corbyn - she's a good Scottish leader to be fair.

There are very few people in politics I'd trust to run this country and the few I would are without any chance of ever doing so.

credibility just went out the door there mate, the SNP are in decline and facing a lot of 'issues' up there from people who now realise they were a one trick pony, much the same as UKIP.

I didn't say that wasn't the case. Nobody can do it forever. She's an impressive speaker and politician and leader of Scotland. I don't have to agree with everything she says to think that. Also, given some of the SNP policies I'd say they are far from a one trick pony. They did of course, rather shoot their bolt in the independence referendum. Sturgeon does at least go into bat for the people she represents...unlike our current leader!

Everything Sturgeon touches has the independence issue lurking in the background, most of what the SNP does in terms of other policies is out of necessity, a necessity to keep Labour, her biggest threat, on the sideline.
Impressive speaker? Droning donkey springs to mind or one of the little nodding dogs that used to populate the parcel shelf of cars.
Oh and clearly like May she does not represent the majority of those who voted

Labour their biggest threat? Not anymore - more Tory seats in Scotland as far as I know than Labour ones. Independence aside the SNP are the pragmatic and sensible face of moderate socialism.

She's better at holding the Tories to account than Corbyn (though that's not hard). It is a shame as you say that the independence issue is never going away and is at the forefront of their work.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

May, Putin, Macron, all enthusiastically shook the murdering bastard Mohammed bin Salman's hand.
Then again, Putin is a murdering bastard, and May and Macron would love to have the balls to be murdering bastards instead of mere incompetent bastards.
Politics, uh!?

[Hoboh]

Well, well, well.It seems that some people were completely right when having a go at the ex roly poly leader of Bolton council over its asylum program.

Chew on this liberal deniers, remember it's all made up and not true, well in your simple minds anyway.

BOLTON supports 1,012 asylum seekers, more than any other town in the UK.

Only five major cities support more asylum seekers who account for 0.36 per cent of the borough's population.

How many other things are being hidden from Joe public by the menace to a stable society liberals?

Where is silly lilly and jug ears lineker and the rest taking them in to relive pressure on the system?
Oh, probably away for Christmas in some exotic climate.

[Prufrock]

A THIRD OF A PERCENT?! Woe, woe, woe. How will we cope?

Taking in asylum seekers, whatever will these liberal maniacs think of next?

[Hoboh]

A THIRD OF A PERCENT?! Woe, woe, woe. How will we cope?

Taking in asylum seekers, whatever will these liberal maniacs think of next?

Bolton has quite a number of homeless mate, see them everyday, wonder what they make of paid for rooms being taken up?

For your information this merely highlights the lies that were being sprung at the time by BMBC and its leader at the time about Bolton having no more than anywhere else. Might have expected that from someone in lives in a foreign city I guess

[Harry Genshaw]

Asylum seekers are dispersed to wherever the Govt decides to send them. At that stage it's nothing to do with the local authority and Cliff was right. Proportionately, no more were dispersed to Bolton than anywhere else.

[Hoboh]

Asylum seekers are dispersed to wherever the Govt decides to send them. At that stage it's nothing to do with the local authority and Cliff was right. Proportionately, no more were dispersed to Bolton than anywhere else.

Not trying to pick an argument Harry but how come there are more than any other town then? BTW it is not the government they are dispersed by private contractors and you surely don't expect anyone to believe BMBC is not aware of these people?

[Prufrock]

A THIRD OF A PERCENT?! Woe, woe, woe. How will we cope?

Taking in asylum seekers, whatever will these liberal maniacs think of next?

Bolton has quite a number of homeless mate, see them everyday, wonder what they make of paid for rooms being taken up?

For your information this merely highlights the lies that were being sprung at the time by BMBC and its leader at the time about Bolton having no more than anywhere else. Might have expected that from someone in lives in a foreign city I guess

And the reason people are homeless is we're looking after a third of an asylum seeker between a hundred of us?

Presumably given your care so much about the homeless you're giving all of your disposable income to help them?

Call me a hopeless romantic about the capabilities of a first world country, but I think we could probably look after the homeless AND 1,000 asylum seekers if we wanted to.

[Harry Genshaw]

Asylum seekers are dispersed to wherever the Govt decides to send them. At that stage it's nothing to do with the local authority and Cliff was right. Proportionately, no more were dispersed to Bolton than anywhere else.

Not trying to pick an argument Harry but how come there are more than any other town then? BTW it is not the government they are dispersed by private contractors and you surely don't expect anyone to believe BMBC is not aware of these people?

Private contractors disperse them on behalf of the home office.

As to why there's more, I don't know. I'd hazard a guess that it's that smaller proportion of asylum seekers who don't present at the port of entry. They tend to present after being in the UK a while e.g students who haven't returned, extended family members over for a holiday etc. Bolton, having a large population of people of Indian/Pakistani heritage will get more applicants than say Cheltenham.

I'm surprised we have more than any other town in the UK but as Pru says, we're not exactly talking loads here

[Hoboh]

A THIRD OF A PERCENT?! Woe, woe, woe. How will we cope?

Taking in asylum seekers, whatever will these liberal maniacs think of next?

Bolton has quite a number of homeless mate, see them everyday, wonder what they make of paid for rooms being taken up?

For your information this merely highlights the lies that were being sprung at the time by BMBC and its leader at the time about Bolton having no more than anywhere else. Might have expected that from someone in lives in a foreign city I guess

And the reason people are homeless is we're looking after a third of an asylum seeker between a hundred of us?

Presumably given your care so much about the homeless you're giving all of your disposable income to help them?

Call me a hopeless romantic about the capabilities of a first world country, but I think we could probably look after the homeless AND 1,000 asylum seekers if we wanted to.

OK,
hopeless romantic

[BWFC_Insane]

Privatisation everyone .....pay more for a worse service because you have no choice!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46731749

FailingGrayling and the abominable train companies should be sacked immediately. What a disaster our railways have become.

[malcd1]

Privatisation everyone .....pay more for a worse service because you have no choice!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46731749

FailingGrayling and the abominable train companies should be sacked immediately. What a disaster our railways have become.

You must have forgotten how bad British Rail was before privatisation. How dirty the carriages were, how they were often late and how the workers were poorly paid (in relative terms). I am not sticking up for the railways but not everything was rosy before privatisation. Plus, why do you think re-nationalising the railways will be better? Putting the entire railways and rolling stock in the hands of MP's doesn't seem a great idea to me.

With reference the cost, at least you can get a discount rail card if you are under 30 years of age. Those geriatric losers over 30 get feck all.