The UK Politics Thread [Wot did Jez do now...]

[GS]

It's been nearly eight years. I think 95% of your opinions are bollocks formed by narrative and/or when it comes to the religious side of things, mental. I'm not going to spent my Saturday evening debating it.

At least I'm capable of forming an argument and supporting it.

I always figured the only thing it does is remind you of the GREAT BRITISH EMPIRE, to make sure people feel important and stay patriotic and whatnot. I guess that's as good a reason as any. I still find it lol, although not as lol as the US military, which seems to mostly serve the same goal while costing much, much more.

Our progression towards constitutional monarchy since the act of union with Scotland has gone a long way to protecting the country from the sort of constitutional convulsions undergone by other countries on the continent (alright, France). On a practical level, no sovereign has withheld royal assent since 1708. Gridlock in the American system, where you have two legislative bodies and a wholly separate executive all seeking to implement your own political agenda is a good example of why the Westminster system of government is more effective at getting things done.

[GS]

Michael D. Higgins > Elizabeth II

I was reading the Irish Daily Mail today, as you do, and there was OUTRAGE because his wife had made some quite outspoken comments on abortion, which have managed to piss off a lot of people. Not that she's a separate figure in her own right, she was literally only invited to speak at an event solely because her husband is the President. We avoid shite like this, thankfully.

[Disco]

I was reading the Irish Daily Mail today, as you do, and there was OUTRAGE because his wife had made some quite outspoken comments on abortion, which have managed to piss off a lot of people. Not that she's a separate figure in her own right, she was literally only invited to speak at an event solely because her husband is the President. We avoid shite like this, thankfully.

Prince Philip says hi, and probably makes reference to potatoes or bogs or something.

[GS]

They're usually unguarded statements that are inadvertently recorded, they're not examples of someone using the office of their spouse to provide a platform for highly contentious views on a sensitive issue. She was participating in a debate, invited because she was "the wife of the President" rather than because she is a leading figure in her own field. That's perfectly fine, but the Presidency in Ireland is supposed to be above 'party politics', nor should it politically interfere.

She can, of course, say what she wants when he leaves office. Martin McAleese did some good work on the peace process up here in fairness, although that was very much "behind the scenes" diplomacy with the loyalists.

[niko_cee]

Highly controversial? You'd think she was advocating shoving the aborted foetuses back in. Ah no, it's Ireland.

[GS]

Abortion is a seriously contentious issue on the island, north and south. They only changed the law in the south about three or four years ago to loosen some of the more stringent restrictions, whilst they still haven't changed it here. The legacy of the church, particularly in rural areas, means that it's an issue requiring sensitive handling. It's certainly divisive, although if you handle it 'correctly' then you will surely get to where you want to be with a sensible policy much sooner than if you presume to preach to people who presumably hold genuine and sincere views on it.

[Henry]

Michael D. Higgins > Elizabeth II

This. The predictable anti-Irish attitude aside.

[GS]

This. The predictable anti-Irish attitude aside.

It is certainly not anti-Irish. If you suggested imposing a monarchy on a country which didn't have one, or indeed in resurrecting a long-dead monarchy (e.g. France), it would never have legitimacy, would never work and thus a presidential system would be the way forward. Where a monarchy exists and has done for centuries, particularly in the Westminster system, that is a very different question. There are no circumstances arising which would justify a change in the UK. Indeed, there a number of advantages to the monarchy (for example: financial, the avoidance of using the position for party political purposes) for the UK and its system of government which create an overwhelming case, in my view, for its continuance.

Long may they reign.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I always figured the only thing it does is remind you of the GREAT BRITISH EMPIRE, to make sure people feel important and stay patriotic and whatnot. I guess that's as good a reason as any. I still find it lol, although not as lol as the US military, which seems to mostly serve the same goal while costing much, much more.

We had a monarchy long before the Empire and we'll have one long afterwards as well. Monarchs are basically elected anyway, as we could always 'elect' to overthrow them if we wanted, as we did briefly in the 1600s, before realising the alternative was far worse.

[Henry]

Yeah, a civil war being much more reasonable than an election.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Well they didn't have elections then, other than joke ones which you could only vote in if your ancestors had killed the right people 300 years earlier.

[Magic]

What's with this recent trend of comparing current stuff to historical, incomparable stuff?

[Henry]

Well they didn't have elections then, other than joke ones which you could only vote in if your ancestors had killed the right people 300 years earlier.

You're talking about what we could do now, to justify the stupid comment that they effectively are elected.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The sad truth for republicans is that people like having them, so you'll have to take your faultless logic elsewhere.

[Lewis]

The best thing about the English Civil War is that they only wanted to prove a point, presumably because nobody wanted to have to break it to Charles.

[GS]

What's with this recent trend of comparing current stuff to historical, incomparable stuff?

If Hitler had compared his proposal to invade Russia with Napoleon's effort 129 years earlier then perhaps he wouldn't have got to the gates of Moscow before watching his armies start to freeze to death.

Historical precedent, such as it is, can be important.

The sad truth for republicans is that people like having them, so you'll have to take your faultless logic elsewhere.

I don't understand why people get annoyed about it, but there's always a hardcore of holier-than-thous who believe their "principles" are somehow purer than everybody else's. Henry falls into this category, unfortunately.

[Magic]

Yeah Hitler was a psychopath though.

[GS]

That's debatable.

[Spoonsky]

If Hitler had compared his proposal to invade Russia with Napoleon's effort 129 years earlier then perhaps he wouldn't have got to the gates of Moscow before watching his armies start to freeze to death.

Historical precedent, such as it is, can be important.

I'd argue that this is a simplistic view to take. If he had gone straight to Moscow instead of heading south and getting stuck in Stalingrad he might well have won Russia / the war. Hitler wasn't ignorant of Napoleon, he went to the fellow's grave in Paris and obviously was aware of the precedent in Russia.

Someone more knowledgeable can back me up or contradict me on this.

[Lewis]

Napoleon wanted to win a decisive battle (preferably without having to travel very far), agree to peace on his terms having proven what he was all about, and then leave. He obviously never got the battle he wanted, so he cooked up capturing Moscow as an alternative, expecting to bowl in and dictate terms to what he hoped would be a bunch of chumps just sitting there in awe of him. Obviously that never happened either. By contrast, Adolf Hitler wanted to hoover up European Russia and keep it forever, which meant advancing across a broad front and securing their new possessions. Moscow was important as a railway and manufacturing hub (and no doubt a propaganda coup), but invading with the sole intention of capturing it would have sunk the rest of their plan, as would any decision to assign it overwhelming priority. In terms of what they actually wanted to do in the first place, the Nazi invasion plan was pretty perfect. They just lost.

Charles XII of Sweden is probably the better direct comparison with Hitler, because there is some suggestion that he wanted to partition Russia once he had battered their armies one at a time, which he was more than capable of doing, and would more than likely have caused the discontent present at the time to have boiled over into an almighty seethe against Peter the Great and thrown everything into MELTDOWN.

[GS]

I'd argue that this is a simplistic view to take. If he had gone straight to Moscow instead of heading south and getting stuck in Stalingrad he might well have won Russia / the war. Hitler wasn't ignorant of Napoleon, he went to the fellow's grave in Paris and obviously was aware of the precedent in Russia.

Someone more knowledgeable can back me up or contradict me on this.

I wasn't being serious - it was another "Hitler reference" for the sake of making one.

[GS]

Natalie Bennett is stepping down as leader of the Green Party. Quite possibly the least impressive political figure you're likely to see.

[Magic]

Boyd will be gutted.

[Lewis]

I'd like to see how a bloke would go leading the Greens. Putting aside the practical difficulties of finding somebody credible in their legions of hippies and wankers, would the lolness of their policies be more or less apparent without some soppy woman nattering about it?

[Magic]

As long as she's not a fat lesbian...shit forgot about Ruth 'the Don' Davidson.

[GS]

I'd like to see how a bloke would go leading the Greens. Putting aside the practical difficulties of finding somebody credible in their legions of hippies and wankers, would the lolness of their policies be more or less apparent without some soppy woman nattering about it?

I saw a review recently of the Scottish leaders' debate where Patrick Harvie was described as (to paraphrase) fucking useless. Their policies don't get much oxygen, largely because they're seen in most places outside Brighton as a protest vote, they're not going to win so who cares about specifics - TREES etc.

Caroline Lucas will win the leadership if she runs, and you'd imagine she'd join the ranks of Leanne Wood et al in terms of speaking in sternly, matronly tones against Nigel Farage in the next leader's debate. They're not going to have mass appeal, and presumably if there was any danger of them moving from a protest vote to an actual party of consequence their policies would get more scrutiny and they'd be laughed out of the building.

[Lewis]

When I went to watch the local debate across the road during the last election the Green bloke was clearly the most intelligent there, but he was a baldy scientist, so you just know that he yearns for a progressive version of Moonraker. On the other hand, some nasal woman sitting there advocating permanent recession is inherently less threatening.

[GS]

As long as she's not a fat lesbian...shit forgot about Ruth 'the Don' Davidson.

Ruth Davidson's actually quite an impressive public speaker, and she ran a competent campaign. Given what she's working with in terms of Tory perception in Scotland, she did quite well. Kezia Dugdale is a butch lesbian as well, but she's just shit. Caroline Lucas, to be fair, is impressive enough - even if I do think she is mental.

[Magic]

Dugdale is a hateful cunt. The SNP have basically re-established the Tories in Scotland, that's it. If you'd have said that 10...nay even 5 years ago you'd have been sectioned. Labour are dead in the UK.

[GS]

When I went to watch the local debate across the road during the last election the Green bloke was clearly the most intelligent there, but he was a baldy scientist, so you just know that he yearns for a progressive version of Moonraker. On the other hand, some nasal woman sitting there advocating permanent recession is inherently less threatening.

Again, I think it's just that people see them as a party of protest so they don't really care. UKIP successfully made the move from party of protest to party of consequence (sort of) through strong performances in the European elections. Granted they only won one seat, but they took 3.8m votes in the last election. They were subjected to some scrutiny, and the unfortunate reality for those who would cry RACIST is that it would appear their vote ultimately proved stable i.e. people learnt more and didn't run for the hills. I doubt you could say the same for the Greens.

[Lewis]

I bet the Greens' absolute core is as solid as the UKIP one. Places like Norwich and other pockets of the country that would be wealthy enough to ride out a famine are bang up for it, and would happily see Labour lose forever if they could still smug it out.

[GS]

I bet the Greens' absolute core is as solid as the UKIP one. Places like Norwich and other pockets of the country that would be wealthy enough to ride out a famine are bang up for it, and would happily see Labour lose forever if they could still smug it out.

Possibly. I'd wager the UKIP vote core is stronger. This is quite interesting reading: here

Your average Green voter is under 29, educated, renting privately and reading the Guardian. So Boydy, basically. Your average UKIP voter is a male over 60, poorly educated, low social status and living in social housing. I suspect the latter is a stronger 'core' of voter, largely because Labour have consistently neglected issues in the north. They've long treated the northern seats as places where they could pin a red rosette on any breathing mammal and win the seat, whilst the Greens are probably struggling to create a clear narrative for themselves other than TREES etc.

UKIP are talking about issues that matter to your average bloke over 60 from a post-industrial town where Polish Jeff and his family have taken his daughter's social house and his son's job at the local factory. In that context, who gives a fuck about 'renewable energy'?

[Jimmy Floyd]

I know someone who is a Conservative/Green swing voter. Get that in your focus group and smoke it.

[GS]

I know someone who is a Conservative/Green swing voter. Get that in your focus group and smoke it.

We had transfer votes in the local elections here from Alliance to UKIP. I'm unconvinced that people undertaking such transfers are fully cognisant of how the system works.

[Raoul Duke]

The Greens could, in theory be doing alright - the issues they (should) give a fuck about are some of the key topics of the day - climate change, renewable energy and associated stuff like fracking etc., but they get sidetracked by loads of wishy-washy dream-catcher bollocks.

[GS]

They're issues most people genuinely don't give a shit about. Or if they do give a shit, nowhere near enough that it's going to swing a vote. Fracking especially is really a local issue.

[Jimmy Floyd]

They should really abandon the left wing element and become a catch all environmental and conservation party. They do absolutely nothing for wildlife, for example, or really know anything about the countryside at all. It's a party run by urban timewasters who talk a much better game than they play.

[GS]

It's because everyone rural is voting for the Tories.

"They don't know what's best for them."

[GS]

I was watching the first half-hour of the BBC's 2015 election coverage again, with the exit poll etc., and the level of seething from Paddy Ashdown and Harriet Harman is something else.

[Boydy]

That's pretty sad.

[John]

What an odd way to spend an evening.

[Lewis]

It's a shame that the old board and old thread appears to be officially finished.

[The Merse]

Ruth Davidson's actually quite an impressive public speaker, and she ran a competent campaign. Given what she's working with in terms of Tory perception in Scotland, she did quite well. Kezia Dugdale is a butch lesbian as well, but she's just shit. Caroline Lucas, to be fair, is impressive enough - even if I do think she is mental.

Even a Tory-baiting, Scots independence sympathising fuck like me can respect Davidson. She's not a bad character by modern standards and offers decent candour, even if I might not find everything that she espouses completely palatable. She has a certain honesty that is devoid of most of the Tories.

[The Merse]

I was watching the first half-hour of the BBC's 2015 election coverage again, with the exit poll etc., and the level of seething from Paddy Ashdown and Harriet Harman is something else.

Seem to recall particularly enjoying Ashdown's difficulty in pulling anything positive out through gritted teeth. Might do the same, always enjoy re-watching current affairs with retrospective bias.

[GS]

That's pretty sad.

It was a result of clicking through a series of things after reading that Ed Miliband has managed to drop to the 40th most influential person in Doncaster. It was very interesting actually, being able to look back on it with knowledge of how it all panned out.

[GS]

Even a Tory-baiting, Scots independence sympathising fuck like me can respect Davidson. She's not a bad character by modern standards and offers decent candour, even if I might not find everything that she espouses completely palatable. She has a certain honesty that is devoid of most of the Tories.

It's not just the Tories, it's most politicians. I see even some of the SNP lot have been embroiled in particularly unpleasant personal stories recently e.g. slander (and having to pay a five figure sum in recompense) and extra-marital affairs.

That Guido Fawkes website has been doing some of its own digging recently. There's obviously this controversy (although surprisingly little mainstream coverage) over alleged Tory election expenses. It's transpired that there's quite a lot of examples of Labour and Lib Dem candidates / MPs who were engaged in equally shady practices.

Seem to recall particularly enjoying Ashdown's difficulty in pulling anything positive out through gritted teeth. Might do the same, always enjoy re-watching current affairs with retrospective bias.

Aye, he wasn't best pleased. It's quite interesting where they've ended up really, because I suspect half the electorate couldn't tell you who Tim Farron is or what the Lib Dems even exist for any more. They have the same number of MPs as the DUP, for fuck sake. I suspect they might actually be done for, because why would you bother voting for them.

[Lewis]

I would love it - love it - if Andy Burnham fucks this Manchester thing up. Rubber-faced twat.

[phonics]

GS has absolutely brutalized the definition of very interesting there.

[GS]

He's absolutely shit, but then Manchester City Council has 95 Labour councillors for only 96 seats so it would presumably take a monumental fuck up for the official Labour candidate not to walk it.

[Lewis]

The stupid bastard has been having a go at the BBC for giving the 'London perspective' on immigrants, and claiming that Northerners laugh at kids who want to be doctors. Feel the Burn[ham].