General British politics discussion thread

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

I actually watched the clip of the crowd at Wimbledon attacking him for not being English - well his rejection of being English. He was quite put out about it.

Sounds like the Classic misunderstanding of being British or English/Scottish, you can be both British and English or Scottish but not Scottish and English (or vice versa)

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

I actually watched the clip of the crowd at Wimbledon attacking him for not being English - well his rejection of being English. He was quite put out about it.

good, you can share a link to it then

J Mysterio

Aegir wrote: »

ad hominem.

This is a discussion forum, it's where discussion takes place.

Laughable. Do you know what ad hominem means? Go check the definition and then read my post again.

I don't think you're capable of meaningful discussion.

breezy1985

J Mysterio wrote: »

Laughable. Do you know what ad hominem means? Go check the definition and then read my post again.

I don't think you're capable of meaningful discussion.

Sure he didn't even attempt to reply to a single allegation from your post and tried a weird twist of my words that was nonsense.

I met plenty of him in London. The bitter little English person who thinks all the odds are stacked against them and are constantly jealous of the open pride Ireland and the celtic regions have for their culture.

My favorite example was the crying over how we all have a day like Paddy's day or Burns night and they were "not allowed" celebrate their culture or George's day despite there being a big party in Trafalgar Square that they dont bother showing up for and Guy Fawkes night which they wave aside cause it doesn't fit the narrative

View

Aegir wrote: »

So Farage sailed up the Thames with a flotilla of Scottish fishermen to channel English nationalism?

They channeled British nationalism, but I guess it is much easier to blame the English.

At a guess, the people on that flotilla were probably overwhelmingly English (with one or two London based non-English people joining in).

And the “nationalism” they were “channeling” was unquestionably that of the xenophobic hard right (and hard left) element(s).

Seth Brundle

Interesting to see how the current scandal in the UK is not that the PM was going to assist a Tory friend by changing the tax system but on who released the private text messages.
"Everyone, quick, look over there!"

Strazdas

The problem with "English nationalism" is that nobody who believes in it can even admit to it or acknowledge it exists. England totally dominates the union (to a crushing degree) so they have to claim they are British patriots, pro-UK, British and proud.....even if they have no time for the Scots and Northern Irish.

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Interesting to see how the current scandal in the UK is not that the PM was going to assist a Tory friend by changing the tax system but on who released the private text messages.
"Everyone, quick, look over there!"

It isn’t much of a story though. Dyson was developing a ventilator at the time the whole world was scrambling for them and wanted assurance that his employees wouldn’t be taxed if they flew in to do the work.

In normal times it would have been a huge issue, but it wasn’t in normal times.

I’m not comfortable with people being able to contact the PM and lobby directly, but I guess we have seen several times both here and the U.K. that it happens.

Leroy42

So why didn't Johnson announce it as part of an overall tax measure? Increase R&D allowances. Or maybe focus on UK based companies that actually manufactured and HQ'd in the UK rather than a foreign based company?

Why didn't he tell everyone about it at the time, given that it was so required and such a brilliant thing to do?

Why shouldn't they have to pay tax, like people that actually live and work in the UK. Surely give the same incentives to everyone, not just the guy that has your phone number.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

If Andy Murray puts up for parliament, then I can see the political dimension. Otherwise, it's a bit tenuous to the topic of General British Politics discussion.

As for Aegir and J Mysterio, as I see it you are both attacking each other and seriously derailing the thread. You can both either stop it now, or have a ban if you can't or won't be civil.

O'Neill

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56870370

Cummings attacking Johnson on being compitent. Quite staggering tbh coming from someone like him. The knives are out. Doubt this sticks though tbh, I've lost count in the amount of times even the last year alone where I go 'surely this will land the Government in real trouble' but they somehow still manage to come out it unscaved. Populism innit?

Akrasia

O'Neill wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56870370

Cummings attacking Johnson on being compitent. Quite staggering tbh coming from someone like him. The knives are out. Doubt this sticks though tbh, I've lost count in the amount of times even the last year alone where I go 'surely this will land the Government in real trouble' but they somehow still manage to come out it unscaved. Populism innit?

Cummings is about as credible a source as David Icke but he claims to have lots of written evidence and says he is prepared to speak under Oath in an investigation against Johnson

Johnson did a great job of turning a man known for ruthlessness from a key ally into an arch enemy and it could be his downfall

I’m expecting another long form interview or press conference with Cummings where he makes wild self serving claims

Don’t think Johnson will be backing him the same way he did when Cummings went on his extended road trip/eye test

breezy1985

Akrasia wrote: »

Cummings is about as credible a source as David Icke but he claims to have lots of written evidence and says he is prepared to speak under Oath in an investigation against Johnson

Johnson did a great job of turning a man known for ruthlessness from a key ally into an arch enemy and it could be his downfall

I’m expecting another long form interview or press conference with Cummings where he makes wild self serving claims

Don’t think Johnson will be backing him the same way he did when Cummings went on his extended road trip/eye test

I love how Cummings thinks it is ok to publicly admit that he has evidence of corruption on a PM but it's ok to sit on it till it suits him

ThePanjandrum

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds like the Classic misunderstanding of being British or English/Scottish, you can be both British and English or Scottish but not Scottish and English (or vice versa)

Not even if you have some Scottish and some English ancestors? Not even if you are born in one country but live in another? Who are the Scottish or English anyway? What criteria can you use? Why were Scots living in other parts of the United Kingdom not allowed to vote in the independence referendum?

Sam Russell

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Not even if you have some Scottish and some English ancestors? Not even if you are born in one country but live in another? Who are the Scottish or English anyway? What criteria can you use? Why were Scots living in other parts of the United Kingdom not allowed to vote in the independence referendum?

If you listen the Beatles 'A Day in the life - (I heard he news today)' (written by John Lennon) he uses the line 'the English Army had just won the war'. Clearly he did not entertain the term British. In the era he grew up in, most people would describe themselves as English, Welsh, or Scottish - as appropriate. The only ones that referred to themselves as 'British' were from the Empire - usually India.

British was not in general use in the 1950 to 1960s - I have no idea what changed. The queen was the Queen of England, not the Queen of Britain. She was head of the Church of England. The economy was controlled by the Bank of England. There was no Britain - Great or otherwise.

Strazdas

Sam Russell wrote: »

If you listen the Beatles 'A Day in the life - (I heard he news today)' (written by John Lennon) he uses the line 'the English Army had just won the war'. Clearly he did not entertain the term British. In the era he grew up in, most people would describe themselves as English, Welsh, or Scottish - as appropriate. The only ones that referred to themselves as 'British' were from the Empire - usually India.

British was not in general use in the 1950 to 1960s - I have no idea what changed. The queen was the Queen of England, not the Queen of Britain. She was head of the Church of England. The economy was controlled by the Bank of England. There was no Britain - Great or otherwise.

Very interesting discussion on the subject here. The word was only ever meant to be used in the context of the British Empire and was never intended to refer to the people who live on the island. In times past, it was used for the British government or law but there was never any such thing as a "British identity".....you were English, Scottish or Welsh.

https://theconversation.com/a-genealogy-of-the-term-british-reveals-its-imperial-history-and-a-brexit-paradox-108317

Did the word 'British' become a proxy for English nationalism in recent decades I wonder?

BonnieSituation

Aegir wrote: »

It isn't so much a retreat into English nationalism, more a case of the English getting fed up with being the constant whipping boys for the nationalists in the so called Celtic Nations.

The poor sausages.

However do they manage to get up in the morning?

Sam Russell

Strazdas wrote: »

Very interesting discussion on the subject here. The word was only ever meant to be used in the context of the British Empire and was never intended to refer to the people who live on the island. In times past, it was used for the British government or law but there was never any such thing as a "British identity".....you were English, Scottish or Welsh.

https://theconversation.com/a-genealogy-of-the-term-british-reveals-its-imperial-history-and-a-brexit-paradox-108317

Did the word 'British' become a proxy for English nationalism in recent decades I wonder?

The term 'English' and 'British' were and still are interchangeable for many English and Irish people. The term 'English passport' is used even though England does not issue passports, but does issue bank notes and does have a 'Queen of England'. Wales only warrants a Prince, and Scotland gets nothing.

You never hear 'Scottish' or 'Welsh' being interchangeable with 'British' - I wonder why?

Brexit was an English escapade.

pixelburp

Sam Russell wrote: »

The term 'English' and 'British' were and still are interchangeable for many English and Irish people. The term 'English passport' is used even though England does not issue passports, but does issue bank notes and does have a 'Queen of England'. Wales only warrants a Prince, and Scotland gets nothing.

You never hear 'Scottish' or 'Welsh' being interchangeable with 'British' - I wonder why?

Brexit was an English escapade.

You will hear "British" used by unionists in Northern Ireland; obviously from a purely geographic point of view they can never be British, but the term has shifted meaning for the sake of a latter-day umbrella term for the UK. There's not really an alternative term that works, or is phonetically pleasing to use. A UK'er? A subject? If we're being technical I suppose. there's no easy reduction for the union.

But then. I don't disagree, "British" is as much a byword for "English" as anything, mostly because the "British" empire was English in origin, and to ignore the lopsided power structure within the union is both disingenuous and naive. The UK is an English institution first and foremost; historically it started with a Scottish king reversing the primacy of his throne - cos even then it was clear the power was strongest in London. This has never really changed. The other nations in the islands were lesser equals, allowed to share some of the power, wealth or influence, but never to be its cultural or political lead. The occasional Scottish PM doesn't indicate anything other than statistical probability.

Heck, simply trying to use Scottish or Northern Irish banknotes in England gets pushback, depending on where you go (that there isn't a universal note ala the EU is insane but that's another story)

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

The term 'English' and 'British' were and still are interchangeable for many English and Irish people. The term 'English passport' is used even though England does not issue passports, but does issue bank notes and does have a 'Queen of England'. Wales only warrants a Prince, and Scotland gets nothing.

You never hear 'Scottish' or 'Welsh' being interchangeable with 'British' - I wonder why?.

The same reason people talk about getting a ferry to England I guess.

A lack of education.

Censorship in the UK seems to have reached a new low, this story has not been reported by the BBC at all.
If the protests were about anything else it would have made the headlines, but not a peep!
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2021/0424/1211904-london-covid-protest/

Sam Russell

pixelburp wrote: »

You will hear "British" used by unionists in Northern Ireland; obviously from a purely geographic point of view they can never be British, but the term has shifted meaning for the sake of a latter-day umbrella term for the UK. There's not really an alternative term that works, or is phonetically pleasing to use. A UK'er? A subject? If we're being technical I suppose. there's no easy reduction for the union.

But then. I don't disagree, "British" is as much a byword for "English" as anything, mostly because the "British" empire was English in origin, and to ignore the lopsided power structure within the union is both disingenuous and naive. The UK is an English institution first and foremost; historically it started with a Scottish king reversing the primacy of his throne - cos even then it was clear the power was strongest in London. This has never really changed. The other nations in the islands were lesser equals, allowed to share some of the power, wealth or influence, but never to be its cultural or political lead. The occasional Scottish PM doesn't indicate anything other than statistical probability.

Heck, simply trying to use Scottish or Northern Irish banknotes in England gets pushback, depending on where you go (that there isn't a universal note ala the EU is insane but that's another story)

My point about declaring oneself as 'British' (back in the day) was to declare that one was not Scottish, Welsh, or English (or Irish) - only those who could not be the preferred identity had to fall back on the not so well thought of 'British' identity - probably because they were from some place else in the Empire.

Of course this was before the troubles in NI burst into British politics, which changed many things.

The UK are the only country in the world not to have the countries name on its postage stamps, and one of few (the only?) country not to have a national soccer team. It is usually the name on the postage stamp or the soccer team that gives a country its colloquial name. Consequently the UK has no popular identity that is universal.

No wonder their politics is the way it is.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

My point about declaring oneself as 'British' (back in the day) was to declare that one was not Scottish, Welsh, or English (or Irish) - only those who could not be the preferred identity had to fall back on the not so well thought of 'British' identity - probably because they were from some place else in the Empire.

I have to wonder where you get this stuff from.

The English use the term British because they think it more politically correct. A more inclusive term than English.

The national front hijacked the English flag and the English identity and so British was considered more pc. Moderates are now reclaiming both of these.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

I have to wonder where you get this stuff from.

The English use the term British because they think it more politically correct. A more inclusive term than English.

The national front hijacked the English flag and the English identity and so British was considered more pc. Moderates are now reclaiming both of these.

I am talking about the post WW II period up until the early 1960s. Television was beginning to have its massive effect on discourse and popular culture after that.

Does England have a flag - or is it like the English passports? Both Scotland and Wales have a 'National' anthem, but England makes do with the accepted National anthem - more equivalence with English = British = English.

pixelburp

Sam Russell wrote: »

My point about declaring oneself as 'British' (back in the day) was to declare that one was not Scottish, Welsh, or English (or Irish) - only those who could not be the preferred identity had to fall back on the not so well thought of 'British' identity - probably because they were from some place else in the Empire.

Of course this was before the troubles in NI burst into British politics, which changed many things.

The UK are the only country in the world not to have the countries name on its postage stamps, and one of few (the only?) country not to have a national soccer team. It is usually the name on the postage stamp or the soccer team that gives a country its colloquial name. Consequently the UK has no popular identity that is universal.

No wonder their politics is the way it is.

naw I get you. It's an entity without a universal form for sure. The EU, America made an attempt to identify the overall authority with a term or institution that could represent all constituent parts. Both were and are contrived entities. The UK (ie, England) went from the monarchical head of a global empire, to just a other medium sized country (to whatever the hell brexit will dictate) without the revision to its structures. It patted itself on the back for "2 world wars and 1 world cup" while the rest of the western world was rebuilding itself, culturally or structurally.

There's an argument and it's one I'm increasingly a believer in, that with Wales and Scotland, there should have been a devolved English government too back in 1999. But therein lies the old empirical thinking: Britain is Westminster, Westminster is England, therefore there wasn't a need for devolution. England had no need for devolution because again, the primacy was seen to be within its borders.

"British" was glommed as the "PC" term in the absence of a serious, introspective conversation about what English or UK identity actually was in the 21st century. 30 seconds of dialogue would have revealed the term as unfit for purpose yet here we are. Confusion still reigns, even though in the cold light of day, To be British is to be English first, because the cultural iconography is predominantly thus.

Sam Russell

pixelburp wrote: »

naw I get you. It's an entity without a universal form for sure. The EU, America made an attempt to identify the overall authority with a term or institution that could represent all constituent parts. Both were and are contrived entities. The UK (ie, England) went from the monarchical head of a global empire, to just a other medium sized country (to whatever the hell brexit will dictate) without the revision to its structures. It patted itself on the back for "2 world wars and 1 world cup" while the rest of the western world was rebuilding itself, culturally or structurally.

There's an argument and it's one I'm increasingly a believer in, that with Wales and Scotland, there should have been a devolved English government too back in 1999. But therein lies the old empirical thinking: Britain is Westminster, Westminster is England, therefore there wasn't a need for devolution. England had no need for devolution because again, the primacy was seen to be within its borders.

"British" was glommed as the "PC" term in the absence of a serious, introspective conversation about what English or UK identity actually was in the 21st century. 30 seconds of dialogue would have revealed the term as unfit for purpose yet here we are. Confusion still reigns, even though in the cold light of day, To be British is to be English first, because the cultural iconography is predominantly thus.

Glad to have a convert.

The bolded bit. The question should be whether there should be a devolved English assembly - or should there be regional assemblies throughout the UK - Wales, Scotland, and NI as is - but England divided into nine or so regional assemblies with a population target of approx 5 million.

I would favour the many region approach. Each assembly would have identical devolved powers. I would abolish the HoL and replace it with a Senate made up of directly elected Senators from each assembly area - with perhaps 10 Senators from each. (It would be important that Senators are equal in number from each assembly area so that no devolved area was predominant). These elections could be fixed term - say every five years in tune with local authority elections.

Then all they would need to do is write down a constitution - guaranteeing equal rights before the law to each of its citizens and have it enforced fairly by the courts.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am talking about the post WW II period up until the early 1960s. Television was beginning to have its massive effect on discourse and popular culture after that.

Does England have a flag - or is it like the English passports? Both Scotland and Wales have a 'National' anthem, but England makes do with the accepted National anthem - more equivalence with English = British = English.

The national anthem is the national anthem. What people choose to play before a rugby match is up to them. There is plenty of pressure to remove GSTQ from England games though.

But, if someone doesn’t know that England has a flag, then you have to question their ability to debate English/British identity.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

Glad to have a convert.

The bolded bit. The question should be whether there should be a devolved English assembly - or should there be regional assemblies throughout the UK - Wales, Scotland, and NI as is - but England divided into nine or so regional assemblies with a population target of approx 5 million.

I would favour the many region approach. Each assembly would have identical devolved powers. I would abolish the HoL and replace it with a Senate made up of directly elected Senators from each assembly area - with perhaps 10 Senators from each. (It would be important that Senators are equal in number from each assembly area so that no devolved area was predominant). These elections could be fixed term - say every five years in tune with local authority elections.

Then all they would need to do is write down a constitution - guaranteeing equal rights before the law to each of its citizens and have it enforced fairly by the courts.

I'm a firm proponent of federalisation. It's been done with Germany. London could be a city sate and England could be divided into blocs of about 5 million people similar to the Duchies and Kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon and Norman times though I may be biased due to playing so much Crusader Kings.

When I was at the People's Vote marches in London, I had a lot of fun talking to people who'd brought regional flags and it seems a shame that these identities have been swallowed up by a "British" identity. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have assemblies so I don't see why there shouldn't be assemblies for Cornwall, Essex, Kent and so on. There'd still be a UK-wide Westminster Parliament in charge of foreign policy, trade, defence, etc but each region could make decisions about itself.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

The national anthem is the national anthem. What people choose to play before a rugby match is up to them. There is plenty of pressure to remove GSTQ from England games though.

But, if someone doesn’t know that England has a flag, then you have to question their ability to debate English/British identity.

There are loads of flags - but do they mean anything if there is no legal entity that they relate to?

breezy1985

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm a firm proponent of federalisation. It's been done with Germany. London could be a city sate and England could be divided into blocs of about 5 million people similar to the Duchies and Kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon and Norman times though I may be biased due to playing so much Crusader Kings.

When I was at the People's Vote marches in London, I had a lot of fun talking to people who'd brought regional flags and it seems a shame that these identities have been swallowed up by a "British" identity. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have assemblies so I don't see why there shouldn't be assemblies for Cornwall, Essex, Kent and so on. There'd still be a UK-wide Westminster Parliament in charge of foreign policy, trade, defence, etc but each region could make decisions about itself.

They made a start back in the 90s but it never seemed to get very far

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUTS_1_statistical_regions_of_England