General British politics discussion thread

Strazdas

pixelburp wrote: »

I look forward to the inevitable GB News screed the first time someone refuses to sing, or have the children sing, that dirge.

I suppose if nothing else, at least the mask is beginning to slip. Johnson knows the CoVid bounce is going to run out soon, Brexit will reveal its flaws soon enough in coming budgets and pockets and unless England wins the Euros (is that likely?), he probably doesn't see much to coast along anytime soon.

That YouGov poll this week was very interesting and suggests that even the relentless propaganda / lies from the Tory press cannot cover up that Brexit is going badly and has effectively failed.

pixelburp

Strazdas wrote: »

That YouGov poll this week was very interesting and suggests that even the relentless propaganda / lies from the Tory press cannot cover up that Brexit is going badly and has effectively failed.

Indeed, but in FPTP, it won't matter a jot if the Tories romp home again in the face of anaemic opposition.

Sam Russell

pixelburp wrote: »

Indeed, but in FPTP, it won't matter a jot if the Tories romp home again in the face of anaemic opposition.

The trouble with FPTP is that if there is a shift, it can be devastating for the loser.

The Liberal Party were once the first or second party of Government, depending on their fortunes at the time, but once Labour got above the threshold needed, the Liberal Party MPs were able to share a taxi home, or required two tandems if they did not have the taxi fare. They never recovered, even with the Labour defectors with whom they ended up forming the Liberal Democrats.

That fate could face the current cabal of Tories, and I hope it does. UKIP are no more, neither are the Brexit Party.

If the LibDems do make a resurgence, will it be at the expense of Tory or Labour party?

Capt'n Midnight

dogbert27 wrote: »

I'm sure the next thing will be, one nation, one language.

One people, one nation, one leader.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

One people, one nation, one leader.

I think that only applies in North Korea - oops, that has already been suggested on twitter as their blueprint.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

The trouble with FPTP is that if there is a shift, it can be devastating for the loser.

But that's a good thing surely ?

It gives you stable governments.


Who spend a lot of time undoing the changes the previous government made to the changes made by the ... :rolleyes:

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But that's a good thing surely ?

It gives you stable governments.


Who spend a lot of time undoing the changes the previous government made to the changes made by the ... :rolleyes:

Well, there is truth in that. It was this that bankrupted the UK in the post war era - until they joined the EEC EU single market, and boomtime began. The single market removed all that unnecessary customs and non-tariff barrier paperwork - such a waste of time filling out daft forms, and bureaucracy.

Now they have a powerful single party Government with an unassailable majority, and no political constraints, they can achieve greatness again.

cml387

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, there is truth in that. It was this that bankrupted the UK in the post war era - until they joined the EEC EU single market, and boomtime began. The single market removed all that unnecessary customs and non-tariff barrier paperwork - such a waste of time filling out daft forms, and bureaucracy.

Now they have a powerful single party Government with an unassailable majority, and no political constraints, they can achieve greatness again.

Some might argue quite the opposite, that the consensus between Labour and the Conservatives ("Butskellism") led to complacency and lack of competitiveness
that led to economic disaster in the 70's.

Sam Russell

cml387 wrote: »

Some might argue quite the opposite, that the consensus between Labour and the Conservatives ("Butskellism") led to complacency and lack of competitiveness
that led to economic disaster in the 70's.

I think the seventies was when the chickens came home to roost - having been hatched in the Tory years on the fifties under Eden and MacMillan. In 1964 when Wilson became PM, the larder was bare - completely bare. The nation was bankrupt, but he managed to keep the leaky barge afloat for a few years but eventually it began to sink. In 1967, the GB £ was devalued from $2.80 = GB£1 to $2.40 = GB£1. Unfortunately, we had to follow.

The UK has been the sick man of Europe for most of the past 75 years. WW II bankrupted them, and their poor economic management has not helped them escape from it - except perhaps for a few years of apparent affluence when they were taking in each others washing, creating full employment.

L1011

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But that's a good thing surely ?

It gives you stable governments.


Who spend a lot of time undoing the changes the previous government made to the changes made by the ... :rolleyes:

Except when more recently its given highly unstable, one divided party or one divided party plus a rag-bag confidence and supply deal setups where any other system would have delivered a vastly more stable coalition.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, there is truth in that. It was this that bankrupted the UK in the post war era - until they joined the EEC EU single market, and boomtime began. The single market removed all that unnecessary customs and non-tariff barrier paperwork - such a waste of time filling out daft forms, and bureaucracy.

Now they have a powerful single party Government with an unassailable majority, and no political constraints, they can achieve greatness again.

The single market didn’t happen until 93.

Thatcher breaking the unions who had been crippling the country for the past two decades was the decisive move.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

The single market didn’t happen until 93.

Thatcher breaking the unions who had been crippling the country for the past two decades was the decisive move.

You could say that, but Thatcher could be said to have led to the collapse of mining and BL and much manufacturing.

I would think it was the 1983 Financial 'Big Bang' that removed much of the financial regulations that allowed the CoL free reign and its massive expansion. The success of this unregulated financial market led to the creation of the single market - basically the removal of bureaucratic control and replacement of it with market surveillance.

The SM has been incredibly successful economically without the financial crash (so far).

Strazdas

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the seventies was when the chickens came home to roost - having been hatched in the Tory years on the fifties under Eden and MacMillan. In 1964 when Wilson became PM, the larder was bare - completely bare. The nation was bankrupt, but he managed to keep the leaky barge afloat for a few years but eventually it began to sink. In 1967, the GB £ was devalued from $2.80 = GB£1 to $2.40 = GB£1. Unfortunately, we had to follow.

The UK has been the sick man of Europe for most of the past 75 years. WW II bankrupted them, and their poor economic management has not helped them escape from it - except perhaps for a few years of apparent affluence when they were taking in each others washing, creating full employment.

Yes indeed. It's not fully understood in Britain that WW2 was an economic catastrophe for the country and left it bankrupt. This is how living standards in the likes of Germany, France, Netherlands and Belgium moved ahead in the ensuing decades.

There's a huge amount of denial going on. A new Brexiteer narrative is that GB was "tricked" into joining the EEC and would have been far better off outside it and the subsequent Single Market. It's dangerous fantasist stuff - they can't even admit the EU was good for the UK at an economic level.

weemcd

Strazdas wrote: »

Yes indeed. It's not fully understood in Britain that WW2 was an economic catastrophe for the country and left it bankrupt. This is how living standards in the likes of Germany, France, Netherlands and Belgium moved ahead in the ensuing decades.

There's a huge amount of denial going on. A new Brexiteer narrative is that GB was "tricked" into joining the EEC and would have been far better off outside it and the subsequent Single Market. It's dangerous fantasist stuff - they can't even admit the EU was good for the UK at an economic level.

I live in the North but have obviously been back and forth to the Republic hundreds of times. One thing I always noticed, this was 20 years ago when I was a teenager, any new road, bridge, piece of infrastructure would have a very large very easy to read sign that would state "This project was part funded by the European Union." I have never noticed this in Northern Ireland and I can only assume the rest of the UK, it's not displayed or discussed.

Now the roads in the North are falling to bits and the previously inferior roads in the Republic are lightyears ahead...

eire4

weemcd wrote: »

I live in the North but have obviously been back and forth to the Republic hundreds of times. One thing I always noticed, this was 20 years ago when I was a teenager, any new road, bridge, piece of infrastructure would have a very large very easy to read sign that would state "This project was part funded by the European Union." I have never noticed this in Northern Ireland and I can only assume the rest of the UK, it's not displayed or discussed.

Now the roads in the North are falling to bits and the previously inferior roads in the Republic are lightyears ahead...

There really has been quite the sea change in infrastructure over the last 30 years or so. I remember seeing constantly those EU funding signs alongside the many infrastructure projects growing up as well.

breezy1985

weemcd wrote: »

I live in the North but have obviously been back and forth to the Republic hundreds of times. One thing I always noticed, this was 20 years ago when I was a teenager, any new road, bridge, piece of infrastructure would have a very large very easy to read sign that would state "This project was part funded by the European Union." I have never noticed this in Northern Ireland and I can only assume the rest of the UK, it's not displayed or discussed.

Now the roads in the North are falling to bits and the previously inferior roads in the Republic are lightyears ahead...

Spent 10 years in London after 25 growing up in Ireland and always noticed the same thing. The EU and EU expenditure is only ever mentioned in the negative in the UK

Sam Russell

eire4 wrote: »

There really has been quite the sea change in infrastructure over the last 30 years or so. I remember seeing constantly those EU funding signs alongside the many infrastructure projects growing up as well.

Well, now we are paying for the infrastructure, not the EU, although there could be joint funding.

The UK were obliged to show the projects that were funded by the EU, but the notice was usually hidden on the back out of sight.

L1011

A lot of the 1990s EU funded roads were substandard and were bypassed using our own money (or 2% funded via NDP1 I think it was, which still got the flag but was far, far from the 85% funding of before) within fifteen years. They wouldn't fund the standard we actually needed, just something better than the goat-tracks we had.

Strazdas

breezy1985 wrote: »

Spent 10 years in London after 25 growing up in Ireland and always noticed the same thing. The EU and EU expenditure is only ever mentioned in the negative in the UK

Yes, the EU was almost portrayed as a drain on UK resources. Remember Theresa May repeatedly saying "We will be able to stop sending vast sums of money to the EU". When your own PM is shamelessly lying to you about the true nature of EU membership, it's easy to see how the gaslighting can happen.

breezy1985

Strazdas wrote: »

Yes, the EU was almost portrayed as a drain on UK resources. Remember Theresa May repeatedly saying "We will be able to stop sending vast sums of money to the EU". When your own PM is shamelessly lying to you about the true nature of EU membership, it's easy to see how the gaslighting can happen.

The biggest failure of the remainers was not pushing RDF enough. That money spent by "London" on EU membership mostly went back into Yorkshire, Wales, West country and NI but this never got talked about during the £350m bus BS

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

You could say that, but Thatcher could be said to have led to the collapse of mining and BL and much manufacturing.

I would think it was the 1983 Financial 'Big Bang' that removed much of the financial regulations that allowed the CoL free reign and its massive expansion. The success of this unregulated financial market led to the creation of the single market - basically the removal of bureaucratic control and replacement of it with market surveillance.

The SM has been incredibly successful economically without the financial crash (so far).

It is understood perfectly well.

Things like coal mining were one of the reasons the country had become a basket case. It was a completely unviable business by the early seventies and the unions blocked any attempts to reform it, leading to the winter of discontent.

Ultimately, the mining strike in the eighties was just the ultimate conclusion of an ongoing power struggle between the trade unions and the government.

Joe_ Public

You could argue the coal industry was only heading one direction anyway, whether that was in 5 years or 10 years or 20, but to not only gut the industry, among others, but basically leave those communities to rot and decay, offer them little alternatives, while the big speculators took over and began shifting more and more of their profits off shore, is pretty much the root of the grossly unequal society they have today and why thatcher was particularly despised by a large section of the population. I would also say successive governments also played no little part by failing to counter the pernicious policies she pursued.

Hodors Appletart

Hancock getting stitched up by the S*n

wonder how long more he'll last

cml387

Hodors Appletart wrote: »

Hancock getting stitched up by the S*n

wonder how long more he'll last

The BBC's daily display of the front pages has left out The Sun this morning I notice.

ancapailldorcha

cml387 wrote: »

The BBC's daily display of the front pages has left out The Sun this morning I notice.

Really? I'm not surprised but it's this sort of blatant and somewhat subtle partisanship that has a lot of people feeling tepid about the BBC.

Anyways, Carole Cadwalladr has posted the front page for anyone who wants to see it:

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1408317135449899013

Hancocks is one of the more competent members of the government as well. Given that the party seems to be turning on him, I think his days may be numbered.

ArmaniJeanss

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Really? I'm not surprised but it's this sort of blatant and somewhat subtle partisanship that has a lot of people feeling tepid about the BBC.

It was probably just a simple of case of covering themselves.
If the story is false then they could get sued. 'We were just reporting what someone else said' isn't a solid defence in the UK.
Letting the legal department have a look at it first and see exactly what stance they are going to take is probably BBC standard practice.

Joe_ Public

Not sure i recall the sun being that interested when the health secretary was messing up ppe and care homes, telling huge porkies about it, or allegedly helping his mates secure lucrative covid contracts, but now he's kissed a girl behind the bicycle shed and they're all over it. Feels like the 1990s all over again.

cml387

Could the hand of Dominic Cummins be behind this?

pixelburp

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Not sure i recall the sun being that interested when the health secretary was messing up ppe and care homes, telling huge porkies about it, or allegedly helping his mates secure lucrative covid contracts, but now he's kissed a girl behind the bicycle shed and they're all over it. Feels like the 1990s all over again.

There has always been a puritanical spirit in a lot of the western tabloid thinking though. Sex sells, especially of the illicit, forbidden variety. As you say Hancock's sins are demonstrative and tangible; I couldn't care less what any politician does with his or her lust. Sexual relationships are not anyone's business except those immediately effected, but those Victorian hangups are hard to let go of it seems. Would be nice to live in a world where sex wasn't shamed.

Hodors Appletart

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Not sure i recall the sun being that interested when the health secretary was messing up ppe and care homes, telling huge porkies about it, or allegedly helping his mates secure lucrative covid contracts, but now he's kissed a girl behind the bicycle shed and they're all over it. Feels like the 1990s all over again.

knives are out for Hancock and Johnson imo, and Hancock has clearly been left there to act as the fall guy for Covid anyway.