Westminstenders: 10 day count down

[RedToothBrush]

10 days to go...

... Wake me up when the shit show is over.

On the topic of low level lies and disinformation, I’ve just seen that a local radio station had the candidates on for a debate. The conservatives posted a tweet:

NorwichConservatives
@NorwichTories
· 3h
#BreakingNews: @NorwichChloe declared winner of #NorwichNorth candidates debate on @BBCNorfolk!

I genuinely thought this was based on the presenter choosing a winner or a listener poll etc.

Two hours later there was a rather mild follow up tweet by the radio station:

BBC Radio Norfolk
@BBCNorfolk
No winners were declared.
@BBCNorfolk
urges everyone to listen again to the #NorwichNorth debate so you can make up your own mind up. Catch up from 9am: bbc.co.uk/sounds/play

mobile.twitter.com/BBCNorfolk/status/1202558648108638208

There is a logic in Labour keeping Trident:

Like Brexit, abolishing Trident would be something that affects future govts in decades to come, because it would be difficult to reverse

There needs to be an all-party consensus on decisions of that type, which shut off options for future govts,
instead of such decisions being made on the base of a narrow majority, or - for a GE - a narrow plurality.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime here's the link I think you were after:

I still have my doubts that the UK could use Trident anyway. Since we've discovered a lot of things we were told are a load of cobblers, I'm going to add "independent nuclear deterrent" to the list. There will be some secret treaty (like the one that gave US spies diplomatic immunity) which prevents it. It's inconceivable that the US would not cripple the UK in such a way, after Suez. It's also just as conceivable that the ridiculously naïve Macmillan happily accepted US assurances over Polaris and that it's suited all sides to not look too carefully ever since.

The whole point of Polaris was to stop the UKs nuclear programme. Not replace it. Having final say in the Big Red Button would have been a precondition. Whatever anyone might say (or think).

Fair enough, Levellers.

But do bear in mind we're only human, not all-purpose saints.

In other news, I have flu. A politician I'd love to meet is coming along to canvassing this evening.

I've been practising walking and ... it's not working. So I'm going to miss him. I can't stand up for long enough to go along and hear him speak, never mind canvass.

I'm so sad. ☹️

Clearly Tory supporters don't care that their leader is a horrible bigot, because the ploppers here keep refusing to condemn him for it

They'll only condemn Corbyn and Labour
wherever those on the centre and left here have repeatedly condemned Labour & Corbyn for AS

I live in an area with a high proportion of Muslims. When ds was at primary school (Scotland, so fixed catchments), 60% of his fellow pupils spoke English as an Additional Language (primarily Urdu). The closest primary (which by a quirk of a dog's leg in the catchment boundaries wasn't our catchment school ) was 98% EAL.

The local shopping street is great for herbs and spices and saris (as well as Halal meat) It is however usually shut on Friday lunchtimes when it's time for the mosque.

There are no no-go areas here. And the Brexit Party will almost definitely lose its deposit (The Tory candidate probably too! )

So sorry to hear you have the flu, thecat 💐

Do stay warm in bed, so you recover asap
Please don't risk making it worse by getting up when really ill

The local shopping street is great for herbs and spices and saris

My late DM used to love popping to Southall and going around the markets looking at materials ...

There's a much better case to be made for the trickle-up benefits of a healthy, well housed, well educated populace, than there is for trickle-down economics.

Case for who ?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I would say that case is worth making to all the people who think that because they don't receive benefits, for instance, or (a smaller group) they don't use state education, then they don't benefit from those things so it doesn't matter if they aren't that well funded (better than being 'soft' and rewarding the undeserving etc etc.). Pointing out that everything from their food to their healthcare is safer (I think fear is quite a driver sometimes) in a country where the population is well educated and supported when necessary, for instance, might make them see that it's actually in their interest to make that happen.

I think I'm agreeing with you really that there are people who need to see what's in it for them, although I think there are shades of that and it's not black and white. I just think it's worth doing the pointing out (even if only for the lurkers) rather than writing people off.

And thecat, yes I agree that no one is a saint and everyone has to vent at times!

Thanks, BigChoc.

You are, as ever, a 🌟.

If we didn't spend it on wars we'd spend it on something else military.
Personally, I would be happy to see our forces better equipped.

Or upset Mr Trump even more.
A bonus!

do you remember when you said that you tried really hard not to post on here, but could just not stop yourself? You also gave a bit more of a backstory - I've just been searching for it, it was on an AIBU thread.

I think I’ve been doing pretty well in cutting down, actually. My excitement levels are just rising again because the election’s so close.

As for the repetition of points, I’ll take your complaint seriously when you apply that same standard to the tidal wave of identical points that are repeated on here all day, every day by the anti-Tory side. But I don’t hold out much hope

Let's be honest, the submission about Labour AS makes for very uneasy reading...and so many of the replies on Twitter are just grim.

My problem is that islamophobia is widespread in the Tory party and BJ is clearly a racist.

I am not thrilled that I have to choose between a weak leader that enabled AS to take hold in his party and an over-privileged snob who actively promotes hate speech. But given that the over-priviliged twat is also likely to destroy the NHS, I will hold my nose and vote labour, as that is the best option in my seat.

All that spending's part of our 2% NATO commitment. If we didn't spend it on wars we'd spend it on something else military. Or upset Mr Trump even more.

I very much doubt that all the money that has had to be spent as a result of that 2% comes from the 2% - the human cost of those wars, the destabilisation in the middle east - the need for humanitarian aid, the refugee crisis, the rise in terrorism - and the measures to protect against it, the money being spent (or not) on veterans who have been disabled or traumatised in the line of duty.

the 2% might cover the cost of setting the fire, but it doesn't cover the cost of putting it out.

We chose to go into Iraq, Libya, Syria - Nato didn't make us. Our Parliament voted to do it. JC warned against them all, he voted against them all - he will make different decisions. And those decisions will save lives and money.

And that money can be spent elsewhere. We can make different decisions. We can even make decisions that will upset the POTUS - no matter who they happen to be at the time. Just because we've always spent money doing something does not mean we have to continue doing the same.

And once they've poured the money into infrastructure, public services and jobs then the resulting booming economy will reap higher taxes. People who feel they have more money in their pocket will spend more, so businesses will do better, so more taxes. And they'll have to employ more people to cover their increased business - so more taxes etc etc etc. It's basic Keynesian economic theory. It's the best way to get out of recession. Austerity was a choice - a poor one, that was ideologically not economically motivated. Anyone who worries about the economy as their deciding factor in voting, and votes for more austerity - does not understand economics.

We can choose a different way. The government can choose different priorities to spend on than the one that preceded it.

Yes - I'm sure that's a massive over simplification. But the fact is, well over 100 professional economists (who know a hell of a lot more than I do about these things - and probably a hell of a lot more than everyone else on this thread) took the time to endorse the Corbyn plan. They didn't have to - they did it because they believe - with all their knowledge and expertise - that it is workable.

The money is there - this can be done.

*Let's be honest, the submission about Labour AS makes for very uneasy reading...and so many of the replies on Twitter are just grim.

My problem is that islamophobia is widespread in the Tory party and BJ is clearly a racist.*

What a depressing time to be British. It's almost a relief not to be voting.

Icantreachthepretzels

All very laudable. However, if you were to imagine what a military-industrial complex with it's hooks into government were to look like, you'd probably arrive at the US, with the UK in tow.

I'm finding that there is a lot than I can scroll by at the moment . Makes it easier to keep up 🎶🎵

All very laudable. However, if you were to imagine what a military-industrial complex with it's hooks into government were to look like, you'd probably arrive at the US, with the UK in tow.

But does it have to be that way? And can we not change it? and even if we can't - should we at least not try?

Really good video here from People's Vote, urging people to vote tactically.

If you can, please share it.

twitter.com/peoplesvote_uk/status/1202540647770656768?s=21

But does it have to be that way? And can we not change it? and even if we can't - should we at least not try?

Well in order:

1. Obviously not
2. In theory, yes
3. Depends on the cost

The whole thing is an ouroboros that feeds on itself. Eventually it will falter as it runs out of fuel or the ability to consume it's fuel.

Everything goes in cycles. History shows us this. We didn't arrive here today by the slow, measured growth over millennia. It just looks like that when you zoom out. Zoom in and you see wars, revolutions, famines, natural disasters and disease punctuating the ascent to heaven.

When I first started posting on Usenet, my sig was:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

35 years on, it's no less valid.

The Roman Empire conforms to the "200 years" bit if you take the early republic thru Punic wars thru late republic thru early empire thru later empire/Constantinople thru early catholic church and then Europes post dark ages history.

3) Depends on the cost

This one cuts both ways: the cost of trying to change - and the cost of failing to.
Climate catastrophe would be measured on the second one. So should the cost of another tory government and increased cosying up to the U.S.

3) Depends on the cost

This one cuts both ways: the cost of trying to change - and the cost of failing to. Climate catastrophe would be measured on the second one. So should the cost of another tory government and increased cosying up to the U.S.

I was thinking more of personal costs. People who go against the industrial military complex aren't going to get a great many Christmas - or Hanukkah - cards.

Interestingly I'm a unilateralist but not a pacifist. There's one for you to conjure with! 🤔