Syldon

joined 1 year ago
[–] Syldon 5 points 11 months ago

You don't have any evidence to support that really though do you? My opinion is that nothing ventured nothing gained.

[–] Syldon 4 points 11 months ago (7 children)

I keep hearing this argument a lot. A very similar story with reversing Brexit. Educating the public is key to a successful result. Where as I agree with the Brexit case, I disagree with the PR voting. There are polls that show 70% of those asked that they want electoral reform. Adding this as an election is called would stop any organisations forming a campaign against it. Labour have a mission statement released. They do not have a manifesto pledge yet. There is an overwhelming desire from the Labour membership for PR voting. It would not be an unreasonable thing to do.

And more so, I feel this needs to be kept in the limelight to remind Labour that it is an item that is high on the voters want lists.

[–] Syldon 0 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Mate give it up.

The article is 20 years old. It misses a massive point. Kids are struggling enough today without families. Birth control is better understood now than it ever has been in the past. Do you even read the news out side of the Tory media?

Being poor means less chance at education, being poor means you cannot afford a family, and will actively look to stop having kids. It is a consequence of not having the finances to do other stuff, like pay for an education, that makes the stats skewed. Having an education gives better access to better financial rewards from employment, which enabled you to give a child a better chance at stability. The prevalence of being childless is not a consequence of being under educated; it is purely down to the fact that the Tories have turned the screw to much on the least fortunate in the UK.

Again Ice cream does not give you sunburn. It is just that more people eat it on hot days.

I think, where we both agree is that we need better education across the country to give kids a better chance. The Tories have demolished funding for schools in the north of England. It needs rectifying. This is only one of the many other things the Tories have demolished in the last 14 years.

[–] Syldon 1 points 11 months ago (5 children)

The study ends in 1969. This is based on people aged 50 and above. This is not relevant to the kids of today. The cost of living crisis is now. Kids are not having kids because they are really struggling to live.

There are some huge caveats missed in that study. It is akin to stating people who eat ice cream are more likely to get sun burned. There is not enough correlation between the stats of education level and child birth. They only suggest that is the case. In this era education was free. If a woman was not rearing kids, then education was at your disposal. Now it is not. Having kids stops education dead in the water for a lot of kids, because now it is a debt trap.

Again critical thinking goes a long way.

[–] Syldon 1 points 11 months ago (7 children)

Bugger me you must have hunted high and low for that one.

Great except it is Finland and Sweden based. This is a UK forum based on the UK. There are people in Africa that are under educated and breed like rabbits. What has this to do with the UK?

[–] Syldon 0 points 11 months ago (9 children)

I understand why it’s so controversial to say, but the more educated you are, the less kids you’re likely to have and a declining birth rate is a problem for any economy.

Show me a study to prove this. It is just nonsensical BS, imo. The more educated you, the more likely you are to be above the mean wage. Money is the issue today.

Fifty years ago, only the top ten percent of people went to university and yet we still had teachers, nurses and every other job that for some reason needs a degree now. And a welder could earn a wage decent enough to buy an average house and support an entire family.

We also had free education training and grants for living expenses for students. Today that training means a huge amount of debt. I am a firm believer in that we should be investing a lot more into education. There is a conspiracy theory that the Tories deliberately do not invest in education because the more educated are not voting Tory anymore. This is born from the report created in 2005 " DIRECT DEMOCRACY: An Agenda for a New Model Party". which states:

The decline in Conservative support has been particularly marked among the most educated. This is not always obvious since more education is associated with higher income, and higher income is still (just) associated with stronger Conservative support. However, other factors being held constant, the more educationally qualified someone is, the less likely he or she is to support the Conservatives. This is a problem to the extent that the more educated are likelier to vote, and are often influential in leading the opinion of others. It is also, of course, a problem in a country where nearly half of young people are now going to university.

The list of authors at the end will interest you also.

Michael Gove was elected MP for Surrey Heath in 2005 and is a columnist for The Times.

Danny Kruger is a leader writer for The Daily Telegraph and was formerly a policy adviser to the Conservative Party and Director of Studies at the Centre for Policy Studies

Kwasi Kwarteng is a financier, former Conservative candidate for Brent East and a Harvard Kennedy scholar.

Jeremy Hunt was elected MP for South West Surrey in 2005 and is the founder of a publishing business

As for the wage this purely down to the government's attacks on union organisations and how they are governed. Skilled workers are still highly paid though. Thatcher got rid of the shipyards. Welders are a dime a dozen (speaking as a welder, I know this for fact). Try to get a plumber, electrician or joiner on the cheap. We do not invest in trade skills anymore. We had government funding for companies to take on apprentices. This used to cover all the costs for an apprentice. An apprentice was cheap free labour. Now they are a cost with huge liabilities attached.

Don’t act surprised when an entire generation has been brought up with the mantra “work hard and you can achieve anything you want!”, and then act surprised that they don’t want to have kids after working seven years for a worthless degree, no high skilled job role to move in to and a pile of debt before they’ve even started work.

There are more people going to university now than there was 50 years ago. This is has no credence at all.

I strongly suggest you take the time to do some critical thinking on your beliefs.

[–] Syldon 9 points 11 months ago

As are Labour. The Tories are not the only culprit here. It was listed in the 1997 Labour manifesto pledge.

We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.

[–] Syldon 1 points 11 months ago

Cheers I don't know how I missed the date.

[–] Syldon 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (15 children)

She sounds like a really nice person to know.

But she has often captured the media's attention with her controversial views around family, claiming the declining birth rate in the UK was partly down to "cultural Marxism" and increased numbers of people going to university.

Just be good little thickos and breed for the we, who deserve to have you serve us.

According to ITV there are 8 under investigation.

A total of eight MPs including Miriam Cates are currently under investigation by the Standards Commissioner, including Deputy Speaker Dame Eleanor Laing, veteran conservative Sir Bernard Jenkin and Reclaim MP Andrew Bridgen.

Deleted part. bad link.

[–] Syldon 20 points 11 months ago

Mone replied: “Saying to the press, ‘I’m not involved’, to protect my family, can I just make this clear, it’s not a crime … I was protecting my family.”

If she had done nothing wrong then what was she protecting her family from?

 

Asked what the government should do in response to the Supreme Court ruling.

  • 29% say the government should pursue a similar agreement with a different country;
  • 39% say the government should scrap the policy;
  • 14% say they should do something else;
  • 18% say they don't know

Asked if the UK should remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights:

  • 51% said the UK should remain a member;
  • 28% say the UK should withdraw;
  • 21% say they are not sure.

30% of the country are idiots who will jump under any racist banner they can find. They have absolutely no idea what they are signing up to. A more pertinent poll would be to ask if they understood the ECHR and what it does.

The ECHR is a higher court than we hold in the UK for a reason. It is where you hold government to account. Without the ECHR the tragedy of the Hillsborough disaster would still be blaming the Liverpool fans, and there would be no accountability.

This is the text and what power we would be handing to government.

Article 1 – obligation to respect human rights

  • The state has the responsibility to respect every individual’s human rights, as set out in the Convention itself.

Article 2 – right to life

  • We all have the right to life, and not be killed by another person.

  • The state must protect people’s lives by enforcing the law, protecting those in danger, and safeguard against accidental deaths.

The state could murder you and not be held accountable for it.

Article 3 – prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment

  • Nobody, under any circumstances, can torture or abuse anyone else. We should never be treated in ways that cause us serious physical or mental suffering.

Forced confessions could become a thing again in the UK.

Article 4 – prohibition of slavery and forced labour

  • Nobody should ever be made a slave or forced to work against their will.
  • There are minor exceptions to this article, for example in some cases it is legal to require someone to work in if they’re in prison or the military services.

This government has tried to implement unpaid work in the past and failed because of this law.

Article 5 – right to liberty and security

  • We can only be detained in certain circumstances, for example if we’ve been convicted by a court, or if we’re considered to be a danger to ourselves.

The government could just lock you away without accountability.

Article 6 – right to a fair trial

  • We have the right to a fair and public trial, within a reasonable amount of time, by an independent and unbiased judge.

  • If charged with an offence we should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Speaks for itself

Article 7 – no punishment without law

  • All crimes should be clearly defined by the law. We can only be found guilty of a criminal offence if there was a law against it at the time the act was committed. Once found guilty of a crime we cannot later be given a heavier sentence.

They can make laws and convict you in retrospect. ie: making walking on cracks on the pavement illegal, then show evidence you did this last week.

Article 8 – right to respect privacy and family life

  • This right exists to protect four things: our family life, our home, our private life, and our correspondence.

  • We have the right to live with our family and our loved ones.

  • Respect for the home guards against intrusion into where we live, or to protect us being forced from where we live without good reason.

  • Respect for private life protects our personal freedoms, including respect for our sexuality, the right not to be placed under unlawful surveillance, or for us not to have personal information spread about us against our will.

  • Respect for correspondence allows for us to communicate with others freely and in full privacy.

This is the protection you have over the big brother state and its abuse.

Article 9 – freedom of thought, conscience and religion

  • We all have the right to hold religious and other beliefs. We also have the right to change these beliefs when we choose. We should be free to worship and express our beliefs both in public and private spaces.

Let Braverman loose with this one if you dare.

Article 10 – freedom of expression

  • We have the right for us to hold our own opinions, to express our views and ideas, and to share information with others.

  • This article can protect our right to express views that some may find unpopular or offensive.

Article 11 – freedom of assembly and association

  • We have the right to join with others to protect our common interests, to form trade unions political parties.

  • Importantly this article also exists to protect our right to hold meetings, and to assemble in groups to peacefully protest.

This one is already under threat.

Article 12 – right to marry

  • We have the right marry who we want to, and to start a family.

Article 13 – right to an effective remedy

  • If our rights are violated then we must be able to challenge this through legal means. The state must make arrangement for this, and there may be compensation for any damage caused to us.

This about government accountability.

Article 14 – prohibition of discrimination

  • Our rights should never be denied to us due to any form of discrimination, whether due to our ‘sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status’.

Anyone who saw how Braverman played the protests at the weekend should understand this.

Article 15 – derogation in time of emergency

  • A state can choose to ignore some specific rights in the ECHR at a time of war or other emergency threatening the life of the nation, but any removal of rights should be limited to those absolutely required by the situation. A state must always make sure these measures are consistent with its obligations under International Law.

Article 16 – restriction on political activity of non-nationals

  • A state can restrict the political activity of non-nationals, but this does not apply to the nationals of EU member states when in an EU country.

Article 17 – prohibition of abuse of rights

  • Nothing in the ECHR allows for any state, group or individual to destroy the rights and freedoms that the convention protects.

Article 18 – limitation on use of restriction of rights

  • The restrictions allowed by the convention should not be applied for any other purpose than those explained in the convention itself.

The link to the text also has a petition on it. Maybe now would be a good time to attach your name to it.

 

This isn't going anywhere unless they get support form outside of that group. The group has 25 members. Braverman is a member of the ERG with 43 members. One of which (Jonathan Gullis) is a member of both. So that is a potential 77 votes if she garners full support.

There is also the NZSG where I cannot find a list of members. I am not surprised really. Having to explain to constituents that you want to burn the planet doesn't bring the votes these days.

Could be an interesting few days.

 

“Rishi Sunak is scraping the barrel.”

Really could not put it any other way. There is no one of any substance left in the Tories. Johnson made sure any competence was removed. He couldn't handle the competition. Which speaks volumes on the question of why Sunak plays such a starring role in the Tory party.

 

A different bias did a video on this also a few days back. He was blaming excessive cost on a massive increase shortages. There is always a shortage on some medical supplies due to the flow and ebb of use. With the UK we had between 10-20 before Brexit. This was in line with other countries int he EU. Now, because we are at the back of the queue, we have 150+ regularly on the shortages list. This has increased procurement costs massively.

 

The "rest is politics" podcast interview with Mark Carney and his views on Brexit.

 

Credit to Phil Moorhouse @ a different bias youtube.

view more: ‹ prev next ›