Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

Ubik said:
Her popularity isn't going to stay positive for that long, she has hordes of mad backbenchers and a tiny majority, and a high likelihood of an economic shock the year before the next election is due. If the 18% lead isn't a one-off, you have the chance to reduce Labour to their lowest parliamentary level for nearly 100 years and kill off UKIP in the process, I'm not sure why you wouldn't take it. Bird in the hand, etc.
Click to expand...

If I were her I'd probably go for an early election, so I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that if the Conservatives believe they can beat Corbyn's Labour no matter what then they should wait as long as possible, even to 2020.

The other risk she has to take into account is that the very act of calling a general election could turn the polls: It's a self-interested power play when the government should be focused on Brexit, etc. Her other alternative is to use an early election as a what-type-of-Brexit-do-you-want election, but that could also backfire given her current dedication to extreme-Brexit.
 
Kentonio said:
It's still a terrible call. There are so many totally unpredictable events between now and then (along with a couple of very predictable ones, like the possibility of an economic crash after Brexit actually happens) that just assuming you've got it in the bag this far ahead would be insane levels of overconfidence. If they had any sense, they'd have called the election for prior to Article 50 being invoked, ensuring they were in office with a big majority prior to any negative shockwaves, and giving them grounds to claim a nearly unshakable mandate for it so they can spread the blame if it all goes terribly wrong. Hard to blame the government if they were elected on the basis of doing that exact thing just a month or two earlier.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. Except at the moment the Conservatives seem utterly immune to the consequences of anything negative they do.
 
Untied said:
This is a good point. Except at the moment the Conservatives seem utterly immune to the consequences of anything negative they do.
Click to expand...
As a party, they are bomb proof at the moment and it's depressing.
 
The Labour membership has fecked the party royally. Very depressing.
 
Isn't there anybody in the damn party with good ideas and a bit of charisma?
 
Adisa said:
Isn't there anybody in the damn party with good ideas and a bit of charisma?
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem to be. It's easy to say the centre of the party should be in power and would give the Tories a stronger challenge, but even the more moderate ground of Labour just has feck all to say. Their beliefs kind of float around insofar as to where it's convenient to be in order to pose as being electable (this doesn't apply to everyone, of course), with the sole goal of trying to get the Tories out of power.

Which is a noble goal in itself, and one I can get behind on a certain level, but when the party has no real central message or central goal apart from being the token opponents to the Tories then you're always going to struggle to get into power. 2015's defeat was largely blamed on Ed, and he does have to take some blame, but the problems go far, far deeper than him...although part of Labour's problem is that they often like to find particular figures to blame after certain defeats, instead of acknowledging deficits within the party as a whole.
 
Sweet Square said:
Worth remembering this is the most read paper in the country



It's going to take a bit more than ''centrist'' with nice looking suit to get the Labour Party back in power.
Click to expand...


Indeed. I've said before that one of the problems with our media as a whole it's that it's largely Tory leaning by default. Figures like Blair may be able to tempt Murdoch and co over to Labour, but it's always going to be a temporary transfer of power for as long as our media remains like it is. The Mail is massively popular and will always be right-leaning: the Sun will at best switch for a winning Labour leader, but it'd take someone dominant like Blair for it to do so and even if Labour win an election, I struggle to see them ever trouncing the Tories again.

Ultimately sensationalism works in media and there's very little that can be done about it. That's why outlets like The Sun remain dominant.
 
Cheesy said:
Indeed. I've said before that one of the problems with our media as a whole it's that it's largely Tory leaning by default. Figures like Blair may be able to tempt Murdoch and co over to Labour, but it's always going to be a temporary transfer of power for as long as our media remains like it is. The Mail is massively popular and will always be right-leaning: the Sun will at best switch for a winning Labour leader, but it'd take someone dominant like Blair for it to do so and even if Labour win an election, I struggle to see them ever trouncing the Tories again.

Ultimately sensationalism works in media and there's very little that can be done about it. That's why outlets like The Sun remain dominant.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that guy pictured is a child? They actually have a point tbf- there are actually genuine children there in need of help. The DM is obviously right, but it wasn't exactly Cameron's friend during the Brexit campaign, nor was the Sun.
 
Sweet Square said:
Worth remembering this is the most read paper in the country



(By the way the former New Labour home secretary agrees with The Sun - http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/ex-...w-backs-age-checks-on-migrants-11364106697417)


It's going to take a bit more than ''centrist'' in a nice looking suit to get the Labour Party back in power.
Click to expand...

The only time I ever read a Sun headline is on here and its quite frequent, would it be fair to say most caf members are sun readers?
 
Jippy said:
Do you believe that guy pictured is a child? They actually have a point tbf- there are actually genuine children there in need of help. The DM is obviously right, but it wasn't exactly Cameron's friend during the Brexit campaign, nor was the Sun.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part where it was actually a photo of a home office translator?
 
The one that Lily? cried to looked between 15 - 20 to me and he was the youngest looking out of them all. If that guy isn't a translator it is laughable in the extreme as he is about 40.
 
When we've got orphaned young children and abused Yazidis struggling in camps back in the region, it is totally farcical for the Home Office to then select a a group of blokes from across the Channel in Calais.

The views of those who frequent comment sections aside, i think people just want out assistance to make the biggest possible impact, and to the most needy people/families.
 
Last edited:
DfID's has pumped billions into humanitarian programmes related to the Syrian conflict. How is to so difficulty to set up a processing centre in Jordan/Lebanon/Iraq and fly them over. There are NGOs on the ground who can even point Rudd in the right direction when seeking out needy persons.
 
Shamwow said:
Their "computer age analysis" was in actuality using https://how-old.net/
Click to expand...

Microsoft says its only a fun app but we're going to use it extensively throughout this article.

I feel sad that papers like the Daily Mail are so popular. I'm pretty sure a UK version of Trump would be supported by them, heck this country would probably elect him.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
DfID's has pumped billions into humanitarian programmes related to the Syrian conflict. How is to so difficulty to set up a processing centre in Jordan/Lebanon/Iraq and fly them over. There are NGOs on the ground who can even point Rudd in the right direction when seeking out needy persons.
Click to expand...

How does that solve the problem? It just means people will lie about their age in Jordan/Lebanon/Iraq rather than in Calais and get a cushy plane ride rather than risk the migrant trails. Thats obviously preferable, but the danger of the journey isn't what the right are complaining about. The obvious solution is to take age out of the equation, to recognise that all asylum seekers are in their own way desperate and to do a damn sight more to help than we have done so far. Its just sad that in this political climate the only group who can apparently be helped without people moaning are little kids.


Smores said:
Microsoft says its only a fun app but we're going to use it extensively throughout this article.

I feel sad that papers like the Daily Mail are so popular. I'm pretty sure a UK version of Trump would be supported by them, heck this country would probably elect him.
Click to expand...

Whats worse is that they've also written an article before about how unreliable this very same website is.
 
I also liked the threat to our children angle at the end. Because no one is going to question a dodgy 40 year old bloke in Year 9 :lol:
 
Coxy said:
Um, no he wasn't.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ais-confesses-course-majority-lie-age-UK.html
Click to expand...

Nope you're right, looks like they screwed up on that one. Doesn't change the fact though that printing childrens faces in national media and speculating based on exactly zero evidence that they are adults who are lying is grossly irresponsible and should be a criminal offense. What happens if some nutjob decides to attack one of these refugees and then it turns out he's a 14 year old kid after all? Both the Mail and the Sun have confirmed exactly what a bunch of immoral, repulsive bastards they are with this.
 
NinjaFletch said:
How does that solve the problem? It just means people will lie about their age in Jordan/Lebanon/Iraq rather than in Calais and get a cushy plane ride rather than risk the migrant trails. Thats obviously preferable, but the danger of the journey isn't what the right are complaining about. The obvious solution is to take age out of the equation, to recognise that all asylum seekers are in their own way desperate and to do a damn sight more to help than we have done so far. Its just sad that in this political climate the only group who can apparently be helped without people moaning are little kids.
Click to expand...

Given the number involved, there are a great many children though, or other vulnerable persons. Even if the UK were committed to taking in double the present figure (which i think should do if properly), some level of prioritisation would have to be in effect.

Granted, it is easy for me to say this sitting here in London, but single blokes should not be at the top of our list. Orphaned children, victims of abuse or escapees, displaced and vulnerable family groups, unaccompanied teens but particularly young women (for they are at greatest risk of exploitation), members of persecuted communities, these should be our focus IMO.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Given the number involved, there are a great many children though, or other vulnerable persons. Even if the UK were committed to taking in double the present figure (which i think should do if properly), some level of prioritisation would have to be in effect.

Granted, it is easy for me to say this sitting here in London, but single blokes should not be at the top of our list. Orphaned children, victims of abuse or escapees, displaced and vulnerable family groups, unaccompanied teens but particularly young women (for they are at greatest risk of exploitation), members of persecuted communities, these should be our focus IMO.
Click to expand...

Without doubt, but the current system of only taking kids - and only taking kids with ties to the UK at that (although I understand the plan is to extend that) - leaves it incredibly vulnerable to abuse of this kind and almost certainly means genuinely more vulnerable people getting left in the jungle. If we need to limit numbers, I think its far better to take all sorts of people weighted in favour of the most needy without completely shutting the door on a whole group (or groups). Otherwise you get these situations where people who may well be 30 or 40 years old have absolutely nothing to lose by pretending to be children which, long term, is only going to harm the child who they denied a place the most. Of course, there'll still be abuse of any system, but I think there's certainly a better way to do it than this.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I was just being pedantic.

Using sports teams as an example is a little bit misleading though. Early developers tend to excel at sports and athletes have higher testosterone levels than most people.
Click to expand...

Perhaps early developers are also better at escaping from war zones?
 
Kentonio said:
Perhaps early developers are also better at escaping from war zones?
Click to expand...

It's possible but are you really saying that you don't think there are some ringers in that group?

Personally I don't appreciate the hysterical right wing reaction or the hysterical left wing reaction. Neither are helpful to solving the problem in my opinion.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
It's possible but are you really saying that you don't think there are some ringers in that group?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, I have absolutely no training or experience with detecting peoples age from physical appearance, if indeed that's even possible. Unless someone shows some evidence that some kind of fraud has actually been committed, why would I jump in with an ill-educated guess?
 
Kentonio said:
I have no idea, I have absolutely no training or experience with detecting peoples age from physical appearance, if indeed that's even possible. Unless someone shows some evidence that some kind of fraud has actually been committed, why would I jump in with an ill-educated guess?
Click to expand...

It is hardly an ill educated guess since you have witnessed the aging process in humans all your life. The whole issue has been obfuscated by numpties on both wings if you ask me.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
It is hardly an ill educated guess since you have witnessed the aging process in humans all your life. The whole issue has been obfuscated by numpties on both wings if you ask me.
Click to expand...

My life experience is that gauging people's ages is insanely difficult. I'm 40, and look about 30. Some of my classmates from school look like they're in their mid 50's. As a 14 year old we had people in our year who could just walk into pubs and clubs without a second glance. If I'd tried it I'd have been laughed out of the place.
 
Kentonio said:
My life experience is that gauging people's ages is insanely difficult. I'm 40, and look about 30. Some of my classmates from school look like they're in their mid 50's. As a 14 year old we had people in our year who could just walk into pubs and clubs without a second glance. If I'd tried it I'd have been laughed out of the place.
Click to expand...

How can you say that you look 30 if you can't judge people ages? You are demonstrating that you know what most people around the age of 30 look like. Not that I want to get too deep into this debate as I agree that we don't have enough information to judge.
 
Thankfully, Tracy Brabin wins the Batley and Spen by-election with 85% of the vote. Says a lot about the basket of deplorables that stood against her that she got heckled during her acceptance speech.
 
Ubik said:
Thankfully, Tracy Brabin wins the Batley and Spen by-election with 85% of the vote. Says a lot about the basket of deplorables that stood against her that she got heckled during her acceptance speech.
Click to expand...

Ffs really?! Thought it was bad enough they were standing...evidently they were capable of making it even worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.