Politics 2024/25 General Election Voting Intention (2022)

[Raven]

I see an allegedly smart man has been caught out again:

Elon Musk shares fake news claiming UK rioters will be sent to ‘detainment camps’

The X owner pushed a made-up headline from a far-right British party on his platform, before deleting it.

www.politico.eu

I think when the gov.uk restarts it's petitions I'll do one to ban X/Twitter or at the very least ban any national or local government info/news going through it.

They won't ban it, that's just grandstanding. They will likely introduce tougher rules regarding deleting misinformation, and increasing liability. It's all extra cost, which is where it matters.

To double upset the knuckle draggers, it will likely be in partnership with the EU, too.

 

[Embattle]

They won't ban it, that's just grandstanding. They will likely introduce tougher rules regarding deleting misinformation, and increasing liability. It's all extra cost, which is where it matters.

To double upset the knuckle draggers, it will likely be in partnership with the EU, too.

I realise that is true but at the moment it is utterly silly to carry on this way as the owner is a prime example of a conspiracy nut, also as I stated I would at least like to see it banned for national and local governments to use it to push information etc.

He like many social media organisations like to repeat that they can't monitor everything having deliberately cut staff numbers to the bone to make it harder.

I've no issue with that, as it makes sense

 

[Wij]

They’ll call it censorship if they do.

 

[Scouse]

That's because it's exactly what it is. (And I humbly submit...)

I mean, he's a cunt. But people really do love to ban words they don't want people to say don't they.

Meanwhile...

 

[Embattle]

👆I knew he would turn up.

 

[Scouse]

👆I knew he would turn up.

Inconvenient when human's base desire to censor is challenged by reason and intellectual rigour isn't it.

 

[Embattle]

Inconvenient when human's base desire to censor is challenged by reason and intellectual rigour isn't it.

Not at all, just as bullshit in the past as it is now and normally by the usual suspects although the linking of RD article is quite funny, but as stated I would accept the government at local and national not using the service since it is a closed service run and full of too many dickheads.

 

[Tom]

I say let him say what he wants. Because the more he opens his mouth, the more people realise he isn't Tony Stark.

Anyway, despite his personal views (which I find abhorrent) I'm a big fan of SpaceX and related tech. And yes, while it's other people designing the rockets and things, he remains the guy at the top, directing the whole show. And he's doing a good job there.

 

[Tom]

x.com

x.com

 

[Gwadien]

The Tories are to blame more than anyone else, worsening living conditions and telling people it's the fault of immigrants.

The evidence is the delusion from the plebs citing Starmer as being the one who's responsible.

 

[Wij]

The Tories are to blame more than anyone else, worsening living conditions and telling people it's the fault of immigrants.

The evidence is the delusion from the plebs citing Starmer as being the one who's responsible.

My Facebook timeline is full of morons I went to high school with blaming the state of their lives on the high number of immigrants that Stamer has let in. The fact that he’s only been in power a few weeks seems lost on them.

Glad I don’t speak to the dozy cunts.

 

[Gwadien]

My Facebook timeline is full of morons I went to high school with blaming the state of their lives on the high number of immigrants that Stamer has let in. The fact that he’s only been in power a few weeks seems lost on them.

Glad I don’t speak to the dozy cunts.

Yeah and that Starmer was a lawyer and he's in Labour so therefore he would have fought to keep them in the country, which in turn makes attacking 'lefty lawyers' acceptable too.

 

[Embattle]

I say let him say what he wants. Because the more he opens his mouth, the more people realise he isn't Tony Stark.

Anyway, despite his personal views (which I find abhorrent) I'm a big fan of SpaceX and related tech. And yes, while it's other people designing the rockets and things, he remains the guy at the top, directing the whole show. And he's doing a good job there.

Much to the concern of investors he isn't doing enough of that, since he took over twitter.

 

[Tom]

My Facebook timeline is full of morons I went to high school with blaming the state of their lives on the high number of immigrants that Stamer has let in. The fact that he’s only been in power a few weeks seems lost on them.

Glad I don’t speak to the dozy cunts.

Not to mention the number of people criticising councils for not spending money. TH3 PotHoleZ! Teh oveRGR0wn V3rgEZ! tHEY misseD THe B1nS!

The councils are all broke as fuck due to austerity. Mine has lost about £280M in funding since 2010. They will go bankrupt within the next year or two if nothing changes, they cannot afford to maintain their statutory obligations.

 

[Wij]

Not to mention the number of people criticising councils for not spending money. TH3 PotHoleZ! Teh oveRGR0wn V3rgEZ! tHEY misseD THe B1nS!

The councils are all broke as fuck due to austerity. Mine has lost about £280M in funding since 2010. They will go bankrupt within the next year or two if nothing changes, they cannot afford to maintain their statutory obligations.

It’ll all be Starmer’s fault.

 

[Scouse]

The Tories are to blame more than anyone else, worsening living conditions and telling people it's the fault of immigrants.

The evidence is the delusion from the plebs citing Starmer as being the one who's responsible.

I think things are more complex than that.

1) It's perfectly reasonable to not want the cultural and ethnic makeup of your country to radically and rapidly change. Of course, in the venn diagram of people who think this ALL the racists in the UK reside inside, but the circle is much bigger than just the racists.
2) Under Blair's Labour immigration exploded (see post above).
3) The huge economic changes under Thatcher brought about a lot of change, some good, plenty bad (including the entrenchment of a type of underclass, uneducated poverty). It had it's part in the boom-bust cycles, however, Labour also has to take it's share of the blame for the lax regulation that lead to the 2008 financial crash.
4) After the 2008 financial crash the Tories brought in (for ideological reasons) austerity. It was the wrong policy - but the public went along with it because of the idiotic belief that government fiscal policy is like household finances. This entrenched years of low growth.
5) Labour and our new chancellor is doing exactly the same thing as Osborne and the Tories.
and 6) importantly, when times are financially hard, it's easy for people to point at immigrants (or some other sector of society) and blame them. As it ever was. This isn't surprising and all those racists from point 1) are doing what they're doing because of the culmination of multiple government's policy.

But remaining unacknowledged are the non-racists in that venn diagram. Their valid concerns about the huge cultural changes that are taking place in the United Kingdom, that they perfectly reasonably are uncomfortable about.

Labour are failing in leadership on immigration. That and the response to recent violence - locking people up for 3 years for ill-advised social media posts, whilst locking people up for throwing burning bins at coppers for much less - pours fuel on the 'government's against us' fire.

 

[Scouse]

Here we go...

Extreme misogyny to be treated as terrorism under UK government plans

Yvette Cooper orders review to identify gaps in current legislation to address violence against women and girls

www.theguardian.com

 

[Gwadien]

Here we go...

Extreme misogyny to be treated as terrorism under UK government plans

Yvette Cooper orders review to identify gaps in current legislation to address violence against women and girls

www.theguardian.com

All the article really talks about is prevent, which absolutely is the right step. A colleague of mine got in trouble last year for telling a kid to get off tiktok because all he aired were the views of Andrew Tate and Nigel Farage, parents rang up and he had to apologise. We're not equipped to deal with this shit, mainly because parents have the upper hand against schools where we grovel and beg for them not to leave the school.

 

[DaGaffer]

All the article really talks about is prevent, which absolutely is the right step. A colleague of mine got in trouble last year for telling a kid to get off tiktok because all he aired were the views of Andrew Tate and Nigel Farage, parents rang up and he had to apologise. We're not equipped to deal with this shit, mainly because parents have the upper hand against schools where we grovel and beg for them not to leave the school.

Terrorism though? Keep widening the net and eventually it becomes meaningless. The "scare people silly by using the T word" approach will work for a bit, but in the end we'll just end up with a new word for actual blowing people up shit.

 

[Embattle]

I suspect it is convenient to use it rather than drawing up new laws.

 

[Gwadien]

Terrorism though? Keep widening the net and eventually it becomes meaningless. The "scare people silly by using the T word" approach will work for a bit, but in the end we'll just end up with a new word for actual blowing people up shit.

Yeah, I agree, it's the same with the term 'Genocide' (I didn't realise that the US Government was forced to get involved in other countries when the G word is mentioned, hence why they always accuse genocide in pretty much every conflict they get involved in, covering their bases etc.)

I do agree that something needs to be done, as opposed to the nothing that we are doing. Besides, there are similar features between what Tate does and what the far right/hardcore islamists do to recruit - 'ignore what you're being told by babylon, them telling you that you're wrong proves that you're right.'

Most likely what Embattle said - Prevent only get involved with terrorism prevention so it's easier for it to fall under their remit.

 

[Scouse]

Terrorism though? Keep widening the net and eventually it becomes meaningless. The "scare people silly by using the T word" approach will work for a bit, but in the end we'll just end up with a new word for actual blowing people up shit.

Yep.

It's also the first time I've seen violence against women and girls acronym-ized. VAWG?

Young boys, meanwhile, are well aware of the fact that despite them being massively more likely to be victims of violence, they don't matter. That we don't care.

It's almost as if we should primarily treat violence as the crime regardless of the victim?

 

[Gwadien]

Yep.

It's also the first time I've seen violence against women and girls acronym-ized. VAWG?

Young boys, meanwhile, are well aware of the fact that despite them being massively more likely to be victims of violence, they don't matter. That we don't care.

It's almost as if we should primarily treat violence as the crime regardless of the victim?

This is about the prevention of crime.

 

[DaGaffer]

This is about the prevention of crime.

Yes, but (for once) @Scouse is right; point out to women's groups that violence against men is orders of magnitude higher than against women, and you get dismissal or "its not a competition you know".

Boys are being marginalised on pretty much every measure; it's really not surprising that cunts like Tate are there to fill the vacuum in the same way Pakistani kids twenty years ago were suddenly under suspicion at every turn despite not knowing what an Al-Qaeda was if it bit them on the arse and ended up in the arms of their Imam. And we all know how that's turned out.

 

[Gwadien]

Yes, but (for once) @Scouse is right; point out to women's groups that violence against men is orders of magnitude higher than against women, and you get dismissal or "its not a competition you know".

Boys are being marginalised on pretty much every measure; it's really not surprising that cunts like Tate are there to fill the vacuum in the same way Pakistani kids twenty years ago were suddenly under suspicion at every turn despite not knowing what an Al-Qaeda was if it bit them on the arse and ended up in the arms of their Imam. And we all know how that's turned out.

Things are being done for boys though, but lots of it was destroyed by the Tories - see SureStart centre decline, and Labour are bringing those back too. There was also lots done for county lines & gangs in general, but again, Tories.

I don't blame Labour for doing things that are FOTM in the media, that's kinda how every government operates, plus there's a bit of foresight going on too - look at the amount of shoots from the 'Tate' crowd in the US, whilst we don't have many attacks on that kind of scale, I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest it could happen here too.

Again, I'm limiting this to the Prevent thing, on a wider scale, sure I'm concerned that jokingly telling a woman to get back into the kitchen would lead to terrorism charges, I'm fairly hopeful that there would be sufficient public backlash.

 

[Scouse]

Yes, but (for once) @Scouse is right; point out to women's groups that violence against men is orders of magnitude higher than against women, and you get dismissal or "its not a competition you know".

Boys are being marginalised on pretty much every measure; it's really not surprising that cunts like Tate are there to fill the vacuum in the same way Pakistani kids twenty years ago were suddenly under suspicion at every turn despite not knowing what an Al-Qaeda was if it bit them on the arse and ended up in the arms of their Imam. And we all know how that's turned out.

I'd potentially go further.

I think Tate could well be the product of young men's marginalisation.

You don't resonate as widely as he does unless people are hurting or identify with what you're saying.

Tate doesn't grow in a vaccum.

We need an end to identity politics. We need to take sex, gender, colour out of everything. We need to equally treat people.

 

[Gwadien]

We need an end to identity politics. We need to take sex, gender, colour out of everything. We need to equally treat people.

I think everyone and their mum would agree with this, but how?

 

[Scouse]

I think everyone and their mum would agree with this, but how?

Basically, reverse politics since you've been born. It used to be much more that way.

I wanted a Labour government because the Tories have been so so woeful. But I was very clear about my terror of what Labour would be like in government - because of what they were like last time round under Blair. And although "political correctness" was absolutely a thing in the 90's - it was Blairs Labour government that codified a lot of this utter shit in law.

Unfortunately, it's "the left" (as poor a description as it is) that, with best intentions, drives this shit. Labour policy is literally the road to hell, paved with good intentions.

 

[Gwadien]

Basically, reverse politics since you've been born. It used to be much more that way.

I wanted a Labour government because the Tories have been so so woeful. But I was very clear about my terror of what Labour would be like in government - because of what they were like last time round under Blair. And although "political correctness" was absolutely a thing in the 90's - it was Blairs Labour government that codified a lot of this utter shit in law.

Unfortunately, it's "the left" (as poor a description as it is) that, with best intentions, drives this shit. Labour policy is literally the road to hell, paved with good intentions.

But identity politics absolutely did exist pre 90s, just meant that you could discriminate, which very much suited middle class white heterosexual males.

 

[Scouse]

But identity politics absolutely did exist pre 90s, just meant that you could discriminate, which very much suited middle class white heterosexual males.

Not saying it didn't (and you're roping in something unnecessary when it comes to wealth there) - but the "solution"* has been to entrench and worsen it.

Law in this country should be made for all. But it isn't.

For example - racially aggrevated offences? If you beat someone up and call him a nigger when you're doing it is that much worse than my friend Steve who came around a train station corner and was smacked in the face by a plank of wood, crushing his cheekbone? Violent assaults treated differently, given different priority, because of identity is OK?

And nowadays, it's not restricted to simply laws. I had two very similar conversations a last year with two architects (IT) who'd been put at risk of redundancy. One bloke, one woman. But despite their identical roles the conversation went very differently - she was reassured that she'd walk in to many positions and certainly get interviews because she was a woman.

The righting of historical wrongs is coming at the expense of people who played no part in history. Especially young white kids from deprived areas who's parents don't have the financial, and intellectual, resources to buffer and protect them.

And then you have the left openly promoting this atrocious only women allowed to apply for jobs stuff, surprised that it "provokes anger".

Men and women are, fundamentally, no different. There's a little fluff around the edges but effectively we're the same.

We need to be treated like that, or you end up with the Andrew Tates of the world exploiting righteous anger and turning it into something uglier.

Instead, teachers are going to start dobbing young boys in to anti-terrorist programmes when they start doing the obvious - raging against girls because arseholes are exploiting their absolutely correct feelings that the system is unfair and discriminates against them.



*of course, I'm not 100% convinced this isn't deliberate divide-and-rule shit. But I'm out of tin foil and it's not sunny enough to warrant a hat.