Political round up.............

by GSC Thu 20 Apr 2017, 11:14 am

First topic message reminder :

CaledonianCraig wrote:
GSC wrote:The Scots voted to remain part of the UK.

The UK voted to leave the EU. Every Scottish vote counted the same as every other UK citizen. I don't see the issue.

The Scots (a good number if you look at post-ref stats from neutral sources) decided to vote no on varying issues. One of the main ones was because they feared losing their place in Europe. That won loads of votes for Better Together and has proved to be fruitless for the voters as they are now out of Europe.

The issue is that many Scots sees Scotland as its own country - sure not independent - but very close to it as they have their own government. However, when they vote by 62% to remain in Europe and end up being taken out of Europe it becomes a big issue to many. Yes we know the UK voted to exit but there are perhaps a million plus Scots who fail to recognize or accept being part of the UK or see themselves Scottish first and foremost and feel how they vote should hold more water than it does in the current union.

Sorry Craig, but that's democracy. Why should somebody in Edinburghs vote count more than someone's in London? Almost as ridiculous as Mhairi Black complaining that a region with more inhabitants had more MPs representing it than another region with less MPs.

But such is the politics of the SNP, always phrasing as Scotland vs the rest of the UK (or more accurately England) when Scotland voted to be part of the UK.

by LionsV2 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 9:45 am

I personally don't agree with votes for all, it will never happen as it wouldn't be cost effective but people should have to take a competency test before being allowed to vote and that goes for all ages, similar to a driving theory test. As with most things the older you get the more politically astute you become as the decisions you make affect you and others around you, at the age of 16 I simply don't think that is the case.

by LionsV2 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 9:49 am

[quote="navyblueshorts] No-one has an accurate picture of what any of the political policies are going to mean - not a clue - and to make matters worse, all the parties lie through their teeth when publishing Manifestos. Best thing that could happen there is as derbymanc (I think) suggested and make all Manifestos a legally binding document.[/quote]

That wouldn't be at all possible and would require a voting system that always results in a majority party.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 10:22 am

LionsV2 wrote:I personally don't agree with votes for all, it will never happen as it wouldn't be cost effective but people should have to take a competency test before being allowed to vote and that goes for all ages, similar to a driving theory test. As with most things the older you get the more politically astute you become as the decisions you make affect you and others around you, at the age of 16 I simply don't think that is the case.

A Competency test.... Laugh

.........That would rule Theresa May out then.. crapping all over her core vote...

Yet you agree with Brexit......Even though all the data shows that the better educated people voted to stay in...

by LionsV2 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 10:37 am

No substance as ever then Truss.

by **Galted** Thu 02 Nov 2017, 10:46 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
LionsV2 wrote:It has nothing to do with their likely voting intention but all to do with what they understand about the things they're voting for; all the other things you mention are personal choices whereas this is a decision that affects everyone.
I don't believe you I'm afraid, although accept the personal choice angle you mention, to some extent.
Maybe we should introduce an upper age limit as well, while we're at it? While many 'elderly' people are completely compos mentis, a lot don't know which way is up anymore.

If it's about understanding, engage with them and educate them politically. Whose fault is it if you're right that they know little of what they're voting for? Anyway, it's laughable. You just have to look at what the wider 'adult' voters think is factually correct when they're making their decisions to see that point is pretty much a nonsense. No-one has an accurate picture of what any of the political policies are going to mean - not a clue - and to make matters worse, all the parties lie through their teeth when publishing Manifestos. Best thing that could happen there is as derbymanc (I think) suggested and make all Manifestos a legally binding document.

by Scottrf Thu 02 Nov 2017, 10:48 am

It's also about not trying to encourage people to vote if you want informed voters.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 10:57 am

Scottrf wrote:It's also about not trying to encourage people to vote if you want informed voters.

I'm expecting the Government to try to bring in legislation where photo ID is required when you vote......it cuts down participation which hurts the less motivated Liberal vote....

Certainly works well in the Southern red neck States in the USA.......

Like the 16 year old voting proposals................It is all self serving..

by LionsV2 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 11:04 am

Surely we want a motivated electorate rather than people voting for the sake of it.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 02 Nov 2017, 1:30 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
LionsV2 wrote:I personally don't agree with votes for all, it will never happen as it wouldn't be cost effective but people should have to take a competency test before being allowed to vote and that goes for all ages, similar to a driving theory test. As with most things the older you get the more politically astute you become as the decisions you make affect you and others around you, at the age of 16 I simply don't think that is the case.

A Competency test.... .........That would rule Theresa May out then.. crapping all over her core vote...

Yet you agree with Brexit......Even though all the data shows that the better educated people voted to stay in...

Check-mate.

by LionsV2 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 1:36 pm

That's me told isn't it Pr4wn, such fascinating insight as ever.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 02 Nov 2017, 1:39 pm

It must have. You haven't contested its content at all, other than with the usual cheap, personal snipe.

Studies have shown conclusively that, on the whole, less-educated people voted leave.

by LionsV2 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 1:43 pm

Better educated meaning having a degree which of course doesn't matter unless that degree is in politics or economics, that is what studies have shown and it's largely an age related criteria. Degrees were less prevalent last century so older voters are less likely to have one, good try though.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 02 Nov 2017, 1:45 pm

Right, so absolutely nothing to back up any of that then? I'd link to the studies that showed my point, but I'm sure you saw all of them in the news.

by LionsV2 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 1:47 pm

Not able to dispute anything I've said then, more educated doesn't mean more intelligent, it simply shows a life choice.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 02 Nov 2017, 1:53 pm

Before I can take what you've said seriously, you have to back it up. That's how this works. Otherwise, your assertions are baseless.

Here you go, seeing as you're clearly finding this difficult: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38762034

The onus is on you to back up what you have claimed. Firstly, you have to back up that education doesn't make you smart and that it's simply a life choice (good luck with that one).

Also, your point about older voters not having degrees and being generally less well-educated only re-enforces my point.

by Scottrf Thu 02 Nov 2017, 1:57 pm

I agree with him to an extent though. It is more to do with personal choice/class than intelligence. Anyone without mental retardation can get into University these days.

How does a textiles degree show that you're better able to understand the nuances of political debates?

by LionsV2 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 1:57 pm

You do realise you have to back up that a degree makes you more intelligent and more politically astute, you seem to be confusing education with intelligent which re-enforces my point in fact. A 2-2 in Media Studies doesn't really mean anything does it, whereas a 1-1 in Economics would, if you provide anything differentiates between the two then go ahead.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 02 Nov 2017, 2:00 pm

LionsV2 wrote:You do realise you have to back up that a degree makes you more intelligent and more politically astute, you seem to be confusing education with intelligent which re-enforces my point in fact. A 2-2 in Media Studies doesn't really mean anything does it, whereas a 1-1 in Economics would, if you provide anything differentiates between the two then go ahead.

Do you contest that, on the whole, those with degrees are more intelligent than those without? Really?

by Duty281 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 2:03 pm

The 'better-educated' point is a nonsense.

1) Most degrees taken have nothing to do with learning about the EU, so the majority of degree holders aren't going to be 'better-educated' on the EU than someone who doesn't hold a degree.

2) The 'better-educated' point supposes that only education in a formal environment counts.

3) It ignores the generational divide.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 02 Nov 2017, 2:10 pm

Does being better educated on the EU include knowing the difference between the ECHR and the ECJ?

by Scottrf Thu 02 Nov 2017, 2:11 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Does being better educated on the EU include knowing the difference between the ECHR and the ECJ?

Zing

by LionsV2 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 2:12 pm

Pr4wn wrote:
LionsV2 wrote:You do realise you have to back up that a degree makes you more intelligent and more politically astute, you seem to be confusing education with intelligent which re-enforces my point in fact. A 2-2 in Media Studies doesn't really mean anything does it, whereas a 1-1 in Economics would, if you provide anything differentiates between the two then go ahead.

Do you contest that, on the whole, those with degrees are more intelligent than those without? Really?

In a certain age group that would work but you're comparing different age groups and generations who had differing access to higher education and as Scott points out it is fairly class dependent, university being a largely middle class pursuit.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 02 Nov 2017, 2:14 pm

I put it to you that, on the whole, across the entire population, people with degrees are generally more intelligent than people without degrees.

Do you seriously dispute that? Seriously?

by LionsV2 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 2:18 pm

Not able to understand the generational differences then I see and yes I do dispute that for that reason.

by **JuliusHMarx** Thu 02 Nov 2017, 2:32 pm

The stats from the BBC link above do not just include degrees.
"The correlation is strong, whether based on assessing graduate and equivalent qualifications or lower-level ones."
I'm fairly sure that studies have shown a strong correlation between intelligence (we could argue about the definition of intelligence, I suppose) and GCSE results. I don't know about A-levels because I don't recall looking into it.

by Ent Thu 02 Nov 2017, 2:33 pm

TBH if you are older and have a degree you are probably more likely to be more intelligent than a peer who does not given the premium on university places.

On the point RE the referendum, if you've obtained any research skills or have some experience looking at information from various sources your are more likely to have made an informed decision imo.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 3:05 pm

LionsV2 wrote:You do realise you have to back up that a degree makes you more intelligent and more politically astute, you seem to be confusing education with intelligent which re-enforces my point in fact. A 2-2 in Media Studies doesn't really mean anything does it, whereas a 1-1 in Economics would, if you provide anything differentiates between the two then go ahead.

Fair enough point.........What questions would you put in this test to see If we are up to voting ???....How about..

1. Is it a good idea to p**s off your base and lose seats ??.............Would that be a good one ??....If so I'll tick the NO box !!

No offence but its a crap idea that would doubtlessly be designed to stop whoever is in opposition from getting access to as many voters.....

But hey it's always good to listen to suggestions... and even better when they come from such an objective source.. thumbsup

by LionsV2 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 3:12 pm

You keep repeating that line but I'd be interested to know how many votes Theresa May actually lost, the polls which you love so much don't show a massive difference throughout the year. In fact they suggest that Labour gained more votes from people who had previously shown no inclination to vote before as well as gaining more of the UKIP vote than first thought.

The Tory base vote hasn't moved anywhere nor does a petulant remark have any relevance to this subject.

by Samo Thu 02 Nov 2017, 3:57 pm

Getting a degree in any subject shows you at least have basic research skills and a grasp of critical thinking. Two things you dont really get from studying at the 'School of Life' or the 'School of hard knocks'.

I would certainly argue that better-educated means more intelligent.

by LionsV2 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 4:08 pm

Again that works as an inter generation comparison but not as an overall comparison between generations.

by Samo Thu 02 Nov 2017, 4:22 pm

Based on some of the drivel I see on Facebook comment sections (particularly pages like Britain First) I would also argue that a student coming out of Uni with a 2-2 in Media is far more intelligent than the average 50+ year old. Of course this is all anecdotal.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 4:29 pm

Breakdown of socio economic grade and how they voted GE217

ABC1.......... Con 44......LAB 40

C2DE......... Con 44......LAB 42

Very little difference between the parties when it comes to high achievers and the more menial in the voting between Conservative and Labour..

This notion that more than only a slim majority of achievers vote Conservative isn't backed up by the data..

by Derbymanc Thu 02 Nov 2017, 4:45 pm

Samo wrote:Based on some of the drivel I see on Facebook comment sections (particularly pages like Britain First) I would also argue that a student coming out of Uni with a 2-2 in Media is far more intelligent than the average 50+ year old. Of course this is all anecdotal.

Are you stating that the average 50 year old supports Britain First then? that's an extremely stupid claim and invalidates anything you say afterwards as ultimately the argument back at you would be that most Uni students these days need safe spaces to get away and can't cope with real life so why should they have a say.

(Neither is true, yes there are pockets of idiots like that, the same as anything else in this world.)

And no i don't think you need a Uni degree anymore to show you how smart you are.

by LionsV2 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 4:47 pm

Derbymanc wrote:
Samo wrote:Based on some of the drivel I see on Facebook comment sections (particularly pages like Britain First) I would also argue that a student coming out of Uni with a 2-2 in Media is far more intelligent than the average 50+ year old. Of course this is all anecdotal.

Are you stating that the average 50 year old supports Britain First then? that's an extremely stupid claim and invalidates anything you say afterwards as ultimately the argument back at you would be that most Uni students these days need safe spaces to get away and can't cope with real life so why should they have a say.

(Neither is true, yes there are pockets of idiots like that, the same as anything else in this world.)

And no i don't think you need a Uni degree anymore to show you how smart you are.

It's stupidity beyond words, their membership numbers are so small that their isn't any correlation between BF and any demographic group.

by Scottrf Thu 02 Nov 2017, 7:30 pm

Now we have a defence secretary with no clue what he's doing because he didn't touch anybodies leg. FFS

by LionsV2 Thu 02 Nov 2017, 8:49 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Looks like all the Tory gloating over Labour's idiot Jared O'Mara..

Has come to an abrupt end..

I don't think Labour are coming out of this too well either; MP Kelvin Hopkins is suspended pending an investigation.

by Derbymanc Fri 03 Nov 2017, 8:09 am

I'm not sure how robust Labours dealing of these things is, if the complaint was put in 2 years ago and has just now been dealt with

by LionsV2 Fri 03 Nov 2017, 8:43 am

Derbymanc wrote:I'm not sure how robust Labours dealing of these things is, if the complaint was put in 2 years ago and has just now been dealt with

It was initially dealt with but a further complaint to the incident was made on Monday.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 03 Nov 2017, 8:49 am

As Grunier and Crabb still have the whip...and Hopkins and O'Mara have had it withdrawn you may ask the same about the Tories... Derby.

Personally I find the whole business distasteful and the fact the Lib dems destroyed the Tories in three council elections last night and Labour's vote struggled shows other people are feeling the same way.

by LionsV2 Fri 03 Nov 2017, 9:15 am

The Lib Dems only having 12 parliamentary seats will be a big help to them at the moment; The Tories and Labour are both going to get dragged through the dirt.

by Derbymanc Fri 03 Nov 2017, 9:18 am

I ask the same about them all Truss, I find it really bad that any party cheers and shouts at the opponsition only to have the same thing turned on them. Sadly i'm not sure we're all that surprised anymore, like the Donor that gives a bit extra money that can't be found, or an expenses 'scandal' it's starting to be the norm sadly

by Scottrf Fri 03 Nov 2017, 9:25 am

Starting? I'm willing to bet they are less corrupt than they've ever been.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 03 Nov 2017, 9:39 am

It's no surprise is it really? The sort of people you'd actively want to represent you in Parliament wouldn't go near it if you paid them and the sort of people who put themselves forward are too often dodgy, have ego problems and are willing to cut too many dodgy deals to get up the political grease pole. A plaque on all of them.

by Derbymanc Fri 03 Nov 2017, 9:59 am

I don't think they're any less or more corrupt Scott, i think it's the same old same old, jobs for the boys (and girls) backhanders here there and everywhere, a smug sense of satisfaction by some that they're 'better' than the general public, a certain knowledge that unless they're actually doing something treasonous they'll more thank likely get a slap on the wrist and asked to leave if anything dodgy does come out.

That's my general impression of most MP's to be honest and especially those on the front line

by LionsV2 Fri 03 Nov 2017, 10:17 am

Most I think is a bit of an exaggeration there Derby but with cabinet and shadow cabinet ministers it's probably quite true, on both sides of the divide there is numerous backbenchers who genuinely care about their constituents.

by CaledonianCraig Fri 03 Nov 2017, 11:00 am

Derbymanc wrote:It's nice to see Craig finally admit the SNP are irrelevant though :-).

I've never understood people who get so blinkered that they'll stick up for 'their' party regardless of what they do.

If you don't like one party doing it then you should be shouting louder when your 'own' party does it to show you hold the same morals up for all.

(I don't really understand following a party regardless, i look at what each MP is offering and if it goes with that i beileve will be best for the area i'll pick that.

And on your final point that is exactly what I do.

You are English so I don't expect you to understand the SNP position. They are an irrelevance when it comes to Westminster due to the fact they make up about less than 5% of the house. Nothing can be done with 5%. They are voted in for their policies in Scotland and being that they are chiefly the only party pushing for Scottish independence. Barring Scotland being allocated more constituencies (which is not going to happen) or SNP members stand for election in the rest of UK (also not going to happen) then they will remain an irrelevance in terms of being heard in Westminster.

In Scotland though they are in no way an irrelevance. They are the biggest party and best supported in the country who have been in power at Holyrood for 10 years and counting.

For me its crystal clear a vote for Scottish Tory or Scottish Labour is a vote for the Westminster branch of those parties - nothing more nothing less. A wasted vote as their MPs are mere puppets for what May and Corbyn want.

by LionsV2 Fri 03 Nov 2017, 11:05 am

Shock horror, those voting for unionist parties are voting for Westminster.

by GSC Fri 03 Nov 2017, 11:14 am

In a minority government, 5% of the vote is in no way irrelevant. That's a lot of leverage to use in advancing your own interests.

by CaledonianCraig Fri 03 Nov 2017, 11:17 am

LionsV2 wrote:Shock horror, those voting for unionist parties are voting for Westminster.

No they are voting for MPs who will be primarily concerned with what is best for their party first and foremost regardless of the impact on Scotland or their own constituency.

by GSC Fri 03 Nov 2017, 11:20 am

Do the SNP not enforce voting along party lines Also?

Seems a bit more of goalposts shifting here, it's fine to vote along party lines when the subject is only Scotland, but not when it affects the entire UK?

by Sponsored content