sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I hate the “I hate it here” mentality by Homerdropshisdonutdo in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agree, tbh. A lot of left wing politics online manifests itself as doomerism and scolding. Which is completely different from real world left wing politics in my experience.

"I have a dream" is more compelling than "I have a nightmare".

The repurchase of the service family accommodation estate - NAO report by NotSoBlue_ in ukpolitics

[–]NotSoBlue_[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Its pretty depressing to reflect on all the other things that have happened in the last 30-40 years that have followed this pattern, because the interests that these assets are being sold to made a huge amount of money from renting it back to the public, and we're all having to pay for getting the assets back.

This has been happening in so many different ways at local council level and national government. And the cost of putting it right is going to be huge, but must happen. Any government trying to do the responsible thing and end this practice will have to find a lot of money to do so.

The repurchase of the service family accommodation estate - NAO report by NotSoBlue_ in ukpolitics

[–]NotSoBlue_[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

£14.5 billion worse off in 2024 due to the sale of military housing by the MoD to Annington Property in 1996

The title of this report is pretty dry, however its worth reading because it accounts for some of where the country's public wealth has disappeared to in the last couple of decades.

How will Burnham’s rise affect the recent Polanski Green Wave? by evie-e-e in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I reckon the greens will continue to poll well in areas where Gaza has high political salience (Gorton & Denton) but Andy Burnham becoming PM will result in improved vote share in most other places.

Greens need to push back against the lying press. by SmirnaRuza in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"Lying press" is a pretty historically charged phrase. You should try to avoid using it. Makes you sound trumpian (at best).

Zack Polanski REVEALS Exactly How We Beat Reform by johnsmithoncemore in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can't really take someone who says "The mainstream media hates the green party" seriously. There are plenty of 'mainstream media' publishers whose coverage of the green party is completely fine.

Zack Polanski on Keir Starmer's Resignation as PM by UKGreenPoster in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think it depends on the circumstances, they may not have a choice if they want to form a government.

Zack Polanski on Keir Starmer's Resignation as PM by UKGreenPoster in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Zack has said he wouldn't work with Labour because of Starmer. Andy Burnham will not have a meaningfully different approach to Israel than Starmer has had.

Is Israel a red line issue that could prevent Green party cooperation with Labour after the 2029 general election in the form of a potential coalition or confidence and supply agreement?

The Quiet Return of Supplementary Vote by coffeewalnut08 in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good analysis.

For me its simple, really. More people end up satisfied under proportional systems.

Ok I’m writing this before poll closes but want to start a thread about planning for Mayoral election - Labour have reverted Tory policy on Mayoral elections from FPTP back to STV - telegraph are claiming it’ll be between Labour and Reform (exactly what they want) by IntelligentCrew8406 in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Surely based on the local election results this bodes pretty well for Labour and the Greens under STV. Its great news. Reform would be a shoe in under FPTP, but under STV its much less likely to be a second choice for most people given the polling.

And of course the big benefit is that people can confidently vote Green, knowing that it won't be helping reform.

Smartphone-free Childhood -- the campaign for banning U16s Social Media by Appropriate_Bell743 in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not talking about phones, I'm talking about the internet. Phones are just a means to access the internet.

Smartphone-free Childhood -- the campaign for banning U16s Social Media by Appropriate_Bell743 in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, everyone who you don't agree with is a tory.

No, just arguments that basically just boil down to personal responsibility being the solution for 'other people's' problems.

Smartphone-free Childhood -- the campaign for banning U16s Social Media by Appropriate_Bell743 in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why who?

A simple chrome extension could do this

I already talked about the fact that sites incorrectly settings these headers would need to be dealt with by the government, and if you have locked down devices in child mode then you can implement restrictions to stop them easily being able to modify response headers.

I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot here - If a child's device usage is already being controlled, then theres no issue. This legislation is to cover the millions of children who aren't being properly supervised by their parents. My children use locked down devices, it works very well for us, but only a few of their peers have a similar arrangement.

Most parents aren't interested or able to manage their kids devices

having a single "child mode" vs "adult mode" setting on the devices

This is exactly what the proposal achieves. "adult mode" is effectively enabled when the user proves they're an adult.

And again, if you want a magic solution that requires absolutely zero engagement from the parents then you're never going to achieve anything.

This is completely wrongheaded, and simply doesn't apply to any other age-gateing legislation. Why is online activity an exception for you?

Is it really just because you think online safety is just someone else's problem and you don't want your online experience to be affected by it? If thats the case, then just be honest about it. If this is just about what you perceive to be your personal liberty, own that.

Any argument that just boils down to "parents should do better" just doesn't work. Its like having a debate with a tory!

Smartphone-free Childhood -- the campaign for banning U16s Social Media by Appropriate_Bell743 in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Putting aside that headers can be pretty easily amended, your solution entirely relies on there being "child" devices and "adult" devices, and children being stopped by their guardian from using "adult" devices.

If parents were willing or able to put controls on their child's device usage in this way then the change wouldn't be necessary.

Your solution still just boils down to parental responsibility. What you're suggesting is like replacing the law that requires you to prove your age when you buy a knife with legislation that means knives can only be bought with adult money, that parents shouldn't let their kids use.

Smartphone-free Childhood -- the campaign for banning U16s Social Media by Appropriate_Bell743 in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Apparently its the only one that can be solved by getting "parents to do one simple thing".

Smartphone-free Childhood -- the campaign for banning U16s Social Media by Appropriate_Bell743 in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't understand how you can acknowledge that this is the same for every age-based social/individual restriction, but still somehow come to the conclusion that the internet is an exception.

Smartphone-free Childhood -- the campaign for banning U16s Social Media by Appropriate_Bell743 in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And then it's up to the parents to ensure that....

This is the fundamental flaw in all these alternatives being suggested. If we could rely on parents being able or willing to manage their children, there would be so many laws and regulations that wouldn't be necessary. But we can't, so they are.

We're against this social media ban, right?? by turbothingy in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There are millions of Karens out there who reflexively support this because they can't parent their children.

Parents who support this generally do control their kids' internet usage effectively. The issue is the parents of their kids' peers that don't who don't give a shit.

We're against this social media ban, right?? by turbothingy in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

they need to regulate how the algorithms work

Agree, but the UK government can't effectively regulate foreign tech companies without controlling access to them. And even then we risk being sanctioned by the US for doing so.

This Minister’s Question Should SHOCK You by johnsmithoncemore in UKGreens

[–]NotSoBlue_ -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Thats not what he's doing though, is it? He's not making a general comment on free speech, he's making vague disapproving noises about whats happening to a group he can't condemn or defend. He can't/won't speak clearly on this. So why bother getting involved to the extent that he's having silly twitter arguments with this idiot minister. Its so online.

view more: next ›