3 ms·

I think it's fun when the elected government doesn't do what the people who elected them want. Like a middle finger to democracy.

arrowsmith 1y ago
"Alexa, summarise the last 15+ years of UK politics in two sentences."
- scott_w 1y ago
  I mean, the last 15 years were mostly Tories and the public kept voting them in. I’m glad I’m not a politician because I have no sympathy for Brexit voters who voted Tory in 2019, claim “I know what a voted for,” and now complain about how much poorer and full of immigrants the country now is. It was all there in the 2019 Conservative manifesto they voted for!
  - arrowsmith 1y ago
    Wtf are you talking about? The Conservatives promised to reduce immigration in 2019. Instead they increased it to its highest ever levels by far, hence why they got thrown out of office. Have you ever met or spoken to a Conservative voter in your entire life?
    - scott_w 1y ago
      They promised a policy (Brexit) in a form that would replace immigration from European countries with immigration from non-white countries. In fact, the Tories did NOT promise to reduce immigration. They promised 2 things that are guaranteed to increase immigration: - 50,000 extra nurses (including foreign recruitment) - A points-based system, you can find articles talking about how this increases immigration Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50524262 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50524262
      - Nursie 1y ago
        > They promised 2 things that are guaranteed to increase immigration > A points-based system, you can find articles talking about how this increases immigration Firstly, I don't think they actually introduced one of those, did they? And secondly, how is that guaranteed to increase immigration? The UK media and some of politicians at the time were all talking about an Australian-style points system. As someone pretty intimately acquainted with the Australian system, people (including ex-PM Teresa May) didn't seem to understand that under the Australian system - - The government sets a minimum number of points under which you won't even be considered. - The government set a maximum number of visas they will grant under the scheme each year - The people with the best points are invited to apply for those visas So with this setup the 'paper' minimum might be 65 points, but the effective threshhold is often 95 points to actually be invited to apply. Yet in the UK the picture was painted as if you set a points threshhold and that's it, anyone with more than that gets a visa and you can't possibly control the numbers. It seemed like a total misunderstanding of the scheme. They also said things like "And Australia has proportionally even higher migration than the UK under that scheme!", which is true, but again that's because the government has decided to set the amounts of visas at that level and sets them higher or lower, or adjusts which skills get more points, according to perceived need for skilled people. Aus has higher migration under their points scheme as a choice. The UK could have chosen to limit skilled visas under a similar program to a much lower level. As far as I could tell, all of the articles and talking points at the time entirely ignored this.
        scott_w 1y ago
        > Firstly, I don't think they actually introduced one of those, did they? The fact they didn't introduce it doesn't change the fact that adding 50,000 nurses required an increase in immigration. I went back and re-read the article, they also promised more childcare places. Guess what? That also requires more immigration. In fact, I just read the manifesto itself and they also added a "fast-track NHS visa," so we have a clear "let's increase immigration" policy right in your face! Page 22, hilariously right next to where they promise "numbers will come down." > They also said things like "And Australia has proportionally even higher migration than the UK under that scheme!", which is true, but again that's because the government has decided to set the amounts of visas at that level and sets them higher or lower You're correct, the government can choose to give out less visas, and they hinted that they would in the manifest (page 22). But if you read the rest of the manifesto, you realise quickly that the two goals can't be achieved at the same time. It's like promising to cure cancer by shooting the patient. Look, we can argue about this until the cows come home but, if you voted Tory because you thought they would bring immigration numbers down, then you should have read their manifesto. The fact that they were never able to do this was right there! Going back to "I voted for Brexit," then complaining about Brexit. Well, that's also something that there's no excuse for. In December 2019, the deal that was to be agreed was known. If you didn't like what it said about fishing or whatever, well, tough shit. You agreed to it when you put your tick in the box for Conservative. --- Manifesto: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative%202019%20Manifesto.pdf https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/...
    - teamonkey 1y ago
      There were also the matters of Johnson throwing a Covid party, Truss tanking the economy within a few weeks of taking office, and Sunak being useless and generally taking the hit for a flacid economy.
      - arrowsmith 1y ago
        All of those are true but I promise you that the median conservative voter can forgive all of those far sooner than they’ll forgive the Boriswave.
- userbinator 1y ago
  s/UK//
- jlwozere 1y ago
  :%s/normal/retarded/g
Nursie 1y ago
> I think it's fun when the elected government doesn't do what the people who elected them want. I can't think of a country that does have people largely in agreement with the governments actions, lately. Or perhaps, for any given country, one can find a collection of loud voices detailing how 'the people' disagree with what's happening. But whether they meaningfully do is hard to establish. I imagine a lot of Brits agree with the incoming rules, whether they are effective or not. You find that here in Aus too - a lot of Australians vehemently agree with the protectionist laws, because the intent of them is to protect children. And to many of them it doesn't matter what the real outcome is, because you want to protect children don't you? And this law is to protect children, QED.
DarkmSparks 1y ago
UK is a monarchy. More so now than ever before. They all just chasing their peerages.
- drcongo 1y ago
  I think the whole of the 1800s would disagree with you.
- arrowsmith 1y ago
  > they I'm not sure you understand what the word "monarchy" means.
  - DarkmSparks 1y ago
    It means the Brits get to elect who will agree to do and say exactly what the King and his mafioso family tells them to do and say.
    - Lio 1y ago
      That's clearly bullshit. When the House of Commons and the King disagree the Commons is supreme. When that was last tested, in 1688, the reigning monarch was removed from power and replaced. It was enshrined in the Bill of Rights 1689 and has not needed to be tested since.
      - DarkmSparks 1y ago
        when the prime minister and the monarch agree that the PM takes all the credit for murdering lots of kids, the prime minister gets a knighthood. (tony blair) - chasing the peerages. When they disagree, they get a big dose of massive character assassination (Gordon Brown, Jeremy Corbin) Or just dead (David Kelly). Discussed in detail during the non public weekly meetings between the PM and head of state.
Arkhaine_kupo 1y ago
In america there is 0 corelation between middle class voting preferences and what their elected officials voted for. There is a closer aligment with upper class voters and lobby groups. It is arguable america is not a democracy based on those facts despite nominally voting every few years https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/the-influence-of-elites-interest-groups-and-average-voters-on-american-politics/ https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/the-... Basically if 0% of americans want a law it has 30% chance of passing, and if 100% of american want a law it has 32% chance of passing. For lobby groups it goes from 0% = 0% to 100% = 65% chance. Much closer to preference based lawmaking.

arrowsmith 1y ago

"Alexa, summarise the last 15+ years of UK politics in two sentences."

scott_w 1y ago
I mean, the last 15 years were mostly Tories and the public kept voting them in. I’m glad I’m not a politician because I have no sympathy for Brexit voters who voted Tory in 2019, claim “I know what a voted for,” and now complain about how much poorer and full of immigrants the country now is. It was all there in the 2019 Conservative manifesto they voted for!
- arrowsmith 1y ago
  Wtf are you talking about? The Conservatives promised to reduce immigration in 2019. Instead they increased it to its highest ever levels by far, hence why they got thrown out of office. Have you ever met or spoken to a Conservative voter in your entire life?
  - scott_w 1y ago
    They promised a policy (Brexit) in a form that would replace immigration from European countries with immigration from non-white countries. In fact, the Tories did NOT promise to reduce immigration. They promised 2 things that are guaranteed to increase immigration: - 50,000 extra nurses (including foreign recruitment) - A points-based system, you can find articles talking about how this increases immigration Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50524262 https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50524262
    - Nursie 1y ago
      > They promised 2 things that are guaranteed to increase immigration > A points-based system, you can find articles talking about how this increases immigration Firstly, I don't think they actually introduced one of those, did they? And secondly, how is that guaranteed to increase immigration? The UK media and some of politicians at the time were all talking about an Australian-style points system. As someone pretty intimately acquainted with the Australian system, people (including ex-PM Teresa May) didn't seem to understand that under the Australian system - - The government sets a minimum number of points under which you won't even be considered. - The government set a maximum number of visas they will grant under the scheme each year - The people with the best points are invited to apply for those visas So with this setup the 'paper' minimum might be 65 points, but the effective threshhold is often 95 points to actually be invited to apply. Yet in the UK the picture was painted as if you set a points threshhold and that's it, anyone with more than that gets a visa and you can't possibly control the numbers. It seemed like a total misunderstanding of the scheme. They also said things like "And Australia has proportionally even higher migration than the UK under that scheme!", which is true, but again that's because the government has decided to set the amounts of visas at that level and sets them higher or lower, or adjusts which skills get more points, according to perceived need for skilled people. Aus has higher migration under their points scheme as a choice. The UK could have chosen to limit skilled visas under a similar program to a much lower level. As far as I could tell, all of the articles and talking points at the time entirely ignored this.
      - scott_w 1y ago
        > Firstly, I don't think they actually introduced one of those, did they? The fact they didn't introduce it doesn't change the fact that adding 50,000 nurses required an increase in immigration. I went back and re-read the article, they also promised more childcare places. Guess what? That also requires more immigration. In fact, I just read the manifesto itself and they also added a "fast-track NHS visa," so we have a clear "let's increase immigration" policy right in your face! Page 22, hilariously right next to where they promise "numbers will come down." > They also said things like "And Australia has proportionally even higher migration than the UK under that scheme!", which is true, but again that's because the government has decided to set the amounts of visas at that level and sets them higher or lower You're correct, the government can choose to give out less visas, and they hinted that they would in the manifest (page 22). But if you read the rest of the manifesto, you realise quickly that the two goals can't be achieved at the same time. It's like promising to cure cancer by shooting the patient. Look, we can argue about this until the cows come home but, if you voted Tory because you thought they would bring immigration numbers down, then you should have read their manifesto. The fact that they were never able to do this was right there! Going back to "I voted for Brexit," then complaining about Brexit. Well, that's also something that there's no excuse for. In December 2019, the deal that was to be agreed was known. If you didn't like what it said about fishing or whatever, well, tough shit. You agreed to it when you put your tick in the box for Conservative. --- Manifesto: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da587992a064ba_Conservative%202019%20Manifesto.pdf https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/...
  - teamonkey 1y ago
    There were also the matters of Johnson throwing a Covid party, Truss tanking the economy within a few weeks of taking office, and Sunak being useless and generally taking the hit for a flacid economy.
    - arrowsmith 1y ago
      All of those are true but I promise you that the median conservative voter can forgive all of those far sooner than they’ll forgive the Boriswave.
userbinator 1y ago
s/UK//
jlwozere 1y ago
:%s/normal/retarded/g

Nursie 1y ago

> I think it's fun when the elected government doesn't do what the people who elected them want. I can't think of a country that does have people largely in agreement with the governments actions, lately. Or perhaps, for any given country, one can find a collection of loud voices detailing how 'the people' disagree with what's happening. But whether they meaningfully do is hard to establish. I imagine a lot of Brits agree with the incoming rules, whether they are effective or not. You find that here in Aus too - a lot of Australians vehemently agree with the protectionist laws, because the intent of them is to protect children. And to many of them it doesn't matter what the real outcome is, because you want to protect children don't you? And this law is to protect children, QED.

DarkmSparks 1y ago

UK is a monarchy. More so now than ever before. They all just chasing their peerages.

drcongo 1y ago
I think the whole of the 1800s would disagree with you.
arrowsmith 1y ago
> they I'm not sure you understand what the word "monarchy" means.
- DarkmSparks 1y ago
  It means the Brits get to elect who will agree to do and say exactly what the King and his mafioso family tells them to do and say.
  - Lio 1y ago
    That's clearly bullshit. When the House of Commons and the King disagree the Commons is supreme. When that was last tested, in 1688, the reigning monarch was removed from power and replaced. It was enshrined in the Bill of Rights 1689 and has not needed to be tested since.
    - DarkmSparks 1y ago
      when the prime minister and the monarch agree that the PM takes all the credit for murdering lots of kids, the prime minister gets a knighthood. (tony blair) - chasing the peerages. When they disagree, they get a big dose of massive character assassination (Gordon Brown, Jeremy Corbin) Or just dead (David Kelly). Discussed in detail during the non public weekly meetings between the PM and head of state.

Arkhaine_kupo 1y ago

In america there is 0 corelation between middle class voting preferences and what their elected officials voted for. There is a closer aligment with upper class voters and lobby groups. It is arguable america is not a democracy based on those facts despite nominally voting every few years https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/the-influence-of-elites-interest-groups-and-average-voters-on-american-politics/ https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/the-... Basically if 0% of americans want a law it has 30% chance of passing, and if 100% of american want a law it has 32% chance of passing. For lobby groups it goes from 0% = 0% to 100% = 65% chance. Much closer to preference based lawmaking.