nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

General British politics discussion thread

ancapailldorcha

It was suggested that a new thread for non-Brexit political matters regarding the United Kingdom might be warranted so here we are.

Please bear the charter in mind when posting.

Thanks.

Threadbans:
hotmail.com

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Strazdas

devnull wrote: »

So I see that Boris Johnson has probably married Carrie Symonds.

Fancy having to use your own wedding as a dead cat.

How long before they divorce? I would give it less than two years : the guy doesn't even do relationships.

dogbert27

Strazdas wrote: »

How long before they divorce? I would give it less than two years : the guy doesn't even do relationships.

I think she's playing him like a fiddle. She would be nowhere near this level of politics without him.

She now has a child with him and getting married has her alimony set up for when the relationship breaks up like his other marriages.

Seth Brundle

Strazdas wrote: »

How long before they divorce? I would give it less than two years : the guy doesn't even do relationships.

Recently they sent out "Save the Date" letters to friends, the date being (I think) July 30th 2021.
Maybe that is the planned divorce date.

devnull

I see they have released a wedding photo this morning now, having leaked some small details of the 'secret' wedding to the Tory press yesterday.

It's almost like they wanted to get just enough of the story out to control narrative on the Sunday newspapers and hold the wedding photos back so they could do the same for Monday also.

Wonder if they can hold some details back to control the front pages for Tuesday or later as well. Would be very helpful for the Government if they are able to do so, as they really could really benefit from stretching this dead cat out.

Strazdas

dogbert27 wrote: »

I think she's playing him like a fiddle. She would be nowhere near this level of politics without him.

She now has a child with him and getting married has her alimony set up for when the relationship breaks up like his other marriages.

They're certainly an unconventional 'couple' anyway. It's rumoured that he has been seeing other women while they've been together (which she knows all about of course).

devnull

Strazdas wrote: »

They're certainly an unconventional 'couple' anyway. It's rumoured that he has been seeing other women while they've been together (which she knows all about of course).

Probably that's going to be a strength of Johnson, as the wedding this weekend and what you describe, could provide the opportunity for further dead cats down the line as and when they are required.

Peregrinus

Strazdas wrote: »

They're certainly an unconventional 'couple' anyway. It's rumoured that he has been seeing other women while they've been together (which she knows all about of course).

He has definitely been seeing other women. And she knows about at least some of that. Don't assume that she's happy about it, though.

Remember the kefuffle when the police were called to her apartment because the two of them were having a violent row? That row was over Johnson and another woman.

Seth Brundle

But assuming if she is marrying him for convenience, what is the convenience? He has no money after he pays alimony to his first two wives.

PommieBast

Seth Brundle wrote: »

But assuming if she is marrying him for convenience, what is the convenience? He has no money after he pays alimony to his first two wives.

Good chance he'll end up coining it on the ex-PM circuit like Blair and Cameron did..

Tell me how

Seth Brundle wrote: »

But assuming if she is marrying him for convenience, what is the convenience? He has no money after he pays alimony to his first two wives.

She may have wanted her child to be able to say that their parents were married, she may be truly in love and always wanted to get married, she may want the security of being able to state she was married to him, she may want the notoriety of being able to say her husband was the PM. He might be truly in love and wants to make this one work, he might want to show his commitment to her as he is afraid he might lose her, he might want to stop her from going to the press were he not to marry her, he might wanted to have affected the media stories from Cummings' revelations.

Two people know exactly why they got married (they might have had different reasons) anything anyone else says is just gossip really.

Capt'n Midnight

Seth Brundle wrote: »

But assuming if she is marrying him for convenience, what is the convenience? He has no money after he pays alimony to his first two wives.

How much will Hello or the Daily Mail pay for the photos ?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: A below-standard post has been removed.

Lemming

Seth Brundle wrote: »

But assuming if she is marrying him for convenience, what is the convenience? He has no money after he pays alimony to his first two wives.

Tell me how wrote: »

She may have wanted her child to be able to say that their parents were married, she may be truly in love and always wanted to get married, she may want the security of being able to state she was married to him, she may want the notoriety of being able to say her husband was the PM. He might be truly in love and wants to make this one work, he might want to show his commitment to her as he is afraid he might lose her, he might want to stop her from going to the press were he not to marry her, he might wanted to have affected the media stories from Cummings' revelations.

Two people know exactly why they got married (they might have had different reasons) anything anyone else says is just gossip really.

Another possibility - besides the obvious blatant dead cat bounce attempt - , is that a court of law is greatly restricted in attempting to compel his wife to testify against him. Pure speculation of course regards motive, but there is that legal "benefit". What Johnson gets out of the above is clear should there be any future legal proceedings, but what Symonds get out of that I really couldn't fathom, but then again what she sees in him I really do not want to fathom. The pair of them deserve one another.

LuckyLloyd

I suppose we can argue the competence and ethics of previous U.K. PMs, but could we really say that any previous PM since the late nineteenth century was such a charlatan as Johnson? He’s incompetent and immoral of course, but the Brits never voted in outright grifters before.

I think it’s a very poor commentary on the electorate and the standard of their public discourse that he remains in such a strong position.

Strazdas

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I suppose we can argue the competence and ethics of previous U.K. PMs, but could we really say that any previous PM since the late nineteenth century was such a charlatan as Johnson? He’s incompetent and immoral of course, but the Brits never voted in outright grifters before.

I think it’s a very poor commentary on the electorate and the standard of their public discourse that he remains in such a strong position.

He's definitely the worst PM of the last couple of centuries. I suspect what has happened is a combination of a dumbed down English electorate and a bunch of liars and propagandists in the media.

FPTP could only really only work with a sophisticated electorate and a responsible press. Given the current state of the electorate and the press, they have moved away from being a democracy - it's more akin to a semi authoritarian regime propped up by a lying and corrupt press. Britain's withdrawal from the EU very much ties into this.

Sam Russell

Strazdas wrote: »

He's definitely the worst PM of the last couple of centuries. I suspect what has happened is a combination of a dumbed down English electorate and a bunch of liars and propagandists in the media.

FPTP could only really only work with a sophisticated electorate and a responsible press. Given the current state of the electorate and the press, they have moved away from being a democracy - it's more akin to a semi authoritarian regime propped up by a lying and corrupt press. Britain's withdrawal from the EU very much ties into this.

STV system could not be simpler to understand for the electorate - just put the candidates in the order of preference. Who could argue with that?

It only gets complicated when the political parties (and some of the electorate) want to game the system - and they all do want to game the system. The press/media also get involved because it is a blood sport which is good for sales.

Strazdas

Sam Russell wrote: »

STV system could not be simpler to understand for the electorate - just put the candidates in the order of preference. Who could argue with that?

It only gets complicated when the political parties (and some of the electorate) want to game the system - and they all do want to game the system. The press/media also get involved because it is a blood sport which is good for sales.

The reason FPTP worked in the past is that the press and TV were responsible and saw it as their duty to report both the government and opposition quite fairly. Also, the two parties had serious politicians and parliamentarians in their ranks.

The whole thing has fallen apart in the last decade. Right wing press is full of liars and spoofers, much of British TV news has gone for the dumbed down and sensationalist route and the Brexit Tories are the chief beneficiaries of this.

PommieBast

Strazdas wrote: »

The whole thing has fallen apart in the last decade. Right wing press is full of liars and spoofers, much of British TV news has gone for the dumbed down and sensationalist route and the Brexit Tories are the chief beneficiaries of this.

Some of this has been going on since the 1990s. As for BBC News it started going rapidly downhill after the Hutton enquiry.

BlitzKrieg

Strazdas wrote: »

The reason FPTP worked in the past is that the press and TV were responsible and saw it as their duty to report both the government and opposition quite fairly. Also, the two parties had serious politicians and parliamentarians in their ranks.

I think FPTP has a finite lifespan. Because it puts pressure on the two main parties to keep growing in size and expanding, constantly widening their base.

Eventually you reach where we've been for the last decade, a labour party that stretches from centre right (blairite) all the way to far left (momentum) and a conservative party going from centre right all the way to thinly veiled fascism in the far right.

In almost any other election system, these parties would have had the smaller more extreme elements split off, either pushed out by the moderates or walked out themselves to form a more hardline party.

But in FPTP small parties have no power so all sides dig their heals in.

And worst the parties keep expanding that base and courting in more and more extremes.

Eventually either one or both of those parties have got to go and we start over (liberals during early 20th century) or FPTP itself just outright breaks.

Strazdas

PommieBast wrote: »

Some of this has been going on since the 1990s. As for BBC News it started going rapidly downhill after the Hutton enquiry.

Probably some truth in that. Murdoch's evil influence has been around for decades - what has changed though is that even the likes of the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail (both of whom have no connection to him) have given up the pretence of being newspapers.

The BBC has been seriously compromised. I saw someone point out at the weekend that it is a fine organisation with many excellent people working for it, but that BBC News in particular has been infiltrated by the Tories / Brexiteers and it's this shower who could end up bringing the entire corporation down.

breezy1985

Strazdas wrote: »

Probably some truth in that. Murdoch's evil influence has been around for decades - what has changed though is that even the likes of the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail (both of whom have no connection to him) have given up the pretence of being newspapers.

The BBC has been seriously compromised. I saw someone point out at the weekend that it is a fine organisation with many excellent people working for it, but that BBC News in particular has been infiltrated by the Tories / Brexiteers and it's this shower who could end up bringing the entire corporation down.

Depending on who you ask both sides will tell you the BBC is biased towards the other. Being left wing myself I am always shocked when people accuse the BBC or RTE of being left wing.

ancapailldorcha

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I think FPTP has a finite lifespan. Because it puts pressure on the two main parties to keep growing in size and expanding, constantly widening their base.

Eventually you reach where we've been for the last decade, a labour party that stretches from centre right (blairite) all the way to far left (momentum) and a conservative party going from centre right all the way to thinly veiled fascism in the far right.

In almost any other election system, these parties would have had the smaller more extreme elements split off, either pushed out by the moderates or walked out themselves to form a more hardline party.

But in FPTP small parties have no power so all sides dig their heals in.

And worst the parties keep expanding that base and courting in more and more extremes.

Eventually either one or both of those parties have got to go and we start over (liberals during early 20th century) or FPTP itself just outright breaks.

I see where you're coming from but I'm quite pessimistic having lived here for a decade now.

I view the problem as being two-fold. Firstly, as you point out, the disincentive for splitting is prohibitively high so the parties hold together, just about so in the case of Labour.

Secondly, whichever party comes to power will have done so on the back of FPTP so there'll be a similar disincentive to change the system that just elected them. The next time Labour win, if they do pull off a solid win, it'll be because the Tories will have overestimated the amount of nationalist rhetoric the electorate (or 40-45% of it) will stomach and they'll be too toxic as a result. It could be similar to 2010 where we might see a coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems, the SNP or all three.

I can see how the Conservatives might alienate the electorate. I just don't thing the flag waving thing is nearly as big here as a lot of people, especially the Tories think. The stuff with plastering the Union flag on the Eurofighter Typhoon jet or the vials of the Astra Zeneca vaccine is just cringe-inducing.

From what I see of Starmer, he seems to think that all he needs to do is wave a flag and look a bit less nationalistic than Johnson to win the next election when in reality all he'll do is alienate a wing of his party and earn the distrust of those he's trying to win over. He's going to make the same mistake that Corbyn did with Brexit and we'll get the same result as we did in 2019.

What he needs to do is to push a radical programme that includes voting reform, wealth distribution, investment, NHS reform, etc. I just don't see a path to voting reform as things are right now.

ArmaniJeanss

In hindsight it's a shame that the 2010 Liberals accepted* merely a referendum on FPTP/AV.

They were in a powerful enough position in May 2010 post-election that they could have made a parliamentary/legislative act in the first months of the new parliament a condition of joining the coalition (obviously with the understanding that the Conservatives must agree to whip it to get it through).

Of course subsequent parliaments could have reversed it, although once smaller parties and other MPs had started getting elected via AV it would have been unlikely to ever have a majority to reverse.

* I'm assuming a referendum wasn't actually needed - in the absence of a constitution I don't think one was required.

Sam Russell

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

In hindsight it's a shame that the 2010 Liberals accepted* merely a referendum on FPTP/AV.

They were in a powerful enough position in May 2010 post-election that they could have made a parliamentary/legislative act in the first months of the new parliament a condition of joining the coalition (obviously with the understanding that the Conservatives must agree to whip it to get it through).

Of course subsequent parliaments could have reversed it, although once smaller parties and other MPs had started getting elected via AV it would have been unlikely to ever have a majority to reverse.

* I'm assuming a referendum wasn't actually needed - in the absence of a constitution I don't think one was required.

The AV system is very bad. The first choice and then the second - so Lord Buckethead gets No 1, and The Dolphin gets No 2. No, choices have to go down the card - full STV. Diluting it just confuses it, and confuse it and lose it.

Missed opportunity.

Strazdas

breezy1985 wrote: »

Depending on who you ask both sides will tell you the BBC is biased towards the other. Being left wing myself I am always shocked when people accuse the BBC or RTE of being left wing.

If BBC News was secretly left wing, there's no way the English nationalists / Brexiteers etc would have been allowed all over the airwaves for the last five years and let pump out their lies and misinformation. At the very least, they would be strongly challenged every time they put in an appearance.

You would have seen numerous clashes and battles between the Tory / UKIP brigade and the BBC (which never actually happened).

breezy1985

Strazdas wrote: »

If BBC News was secretly left wing, there's no way the English nationalists / Brexiteers etc would have been allowed all over the airwaves for the last five years and let pump out their lies and misinformation. At the very least, they would be strongly challenged every time they put in an appearance.

You would have seen numerous clashes and battles between the Tory / UKIP brigade and the BBC (which never actually happened).

I imagine most people at the BBC are middle class middle aged people who are more than happy with things staying safe and central. Blair vs Cameron would be their dream election.

Edit: Early days pre crazy referendum Cameron

ArmaniJeanss

Sam Russell wrote: »

The AV system is very bad. The first choice and then the second - so Lord Buckethead gets No 1, and The Dolphin gets No 2. No, choices have to go down the card - full STV. Diluting it just confuses it, and confuse it and lose it.

Missed opportunity.

I agree.
But I think going from FPTP to full STV would have been a step too far. I saw AV as kind of an acceptable halfway house on the way to STV.

Clearly as it turned out, even getting AV past the public proved impossible (not helped by both main parties and the full power of the media being against it, peddling their 'one person, one vote' slogans). I don't see how an STV referendum would have fared any better in the face of that onslaught. Surely an even heavier defeat?

And whilst I agree AV isn't great, it would at least be a vast improvement. It doesn't help your 1=Buckethead/2=Dolphin combo obviously, but it at least forces the main parties to look at the amount of Green/MainParty, localIndo/MainParty or Ukip/MainParty combos and adjust policy accordingly to pick up those transfers.

ArmaniJeanss

breezy1985 wrote: »

Depending on who you ask both sides will tell you the BBC is biased towards the other.

Both true to an extent.
Entertainment, panel shows and politics light (Mash Report, HIGNFY stuff) have a clear left bias without any real attempt to hide it.
Politics & News have a clear right bias but are more subtle about it.

breezy1985

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Both true to an extent.
Entertainment, panel shows and politics light (Mash Report, HIGNFY stuff) have a clear left bias without any real attempt to hide it.
Politics & News have a clear right bias but are more subtle about it.

Ya its a mixed bag as it should be. Ironically HIGNFY helped massively in the transformation of Alexander Johnson into lovable rogue Boris

pixelburp

The Arts & Comedy tends to be Left Wing wherever you go, it wouldn't be reserved for the BBC IMO that it could be called a bias or management decision. Maybe it's just that conservative to right-leaning politics tends towards the vigorous protection of the social status-quo, one that'd run contrary to the artistic inclination to observe, criticise and deconstruct the Human Experience. Likewise, comedy tends towards "punching up" against one's social or financial "betters" - again something that perhaps run counter to right-leaning ideologies, ones that'd champion the upper tiers or classes. Good comedy doesn't really gel with the "F*ck you, I've got mine" mindset, you can't really laugh down at people stuck in a rut ("did you hear about the man who can't afford his Medical Bills? What a loser")

That's not to say this is a universal concept I'm espousing, more a casual observation over the years without any academic scrutiny. I'm sure Jimmy Carr's experience with the tax-man might arguably make him on shaky ground to champion left-wing ideals