General British politics discussion thread

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 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).

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 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..

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 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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).

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 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

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.

People look to BBC News and current affairs for their political information though. They don't look to comedy or satire. Also, the people most likely to vote (and vote Tory) are not even watching any of those satire shows.

Strazdas wrote: »

People look to BBC News and current affairs for their political information though. They don't look to comedy or satire. Also, the people most likely to vote (and vote Tory) are not even watching any of those satire shows.

What makes you think that. They have some of the highest rated comedy in the UK. Recently they have had huge hits with the Waller Bridge stuff for instance. I love how you can just flat out say an entire nation don't go to the BBC for comedy.

And ya the Tory voters are not watching that satire but what has that got to do with anything

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Tories are trying to emasculate the BBC , look at the whole OAP licence fee thing. There's history too given how Granada (Death on the Rock) didn't get renewed. ITN changed to ITV and the individual regions got subsumed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/czpxkvk2qxpt/the-guardian

The Tories were very quick to jump on the reform angle when the Bashir stuff came out. A lot of that reform will probably have nothing to do with him or what he done

The British Politics/News Media Venn Diagram is going to receive a massive shake up over the next few months starting in the next few weeks when GB News starts broadcasting.

While they haven't declared a political allegiance, their chairman is Andrew Neil formerly of the BBC and still involved with The Spectator. They have said that they are looking to mimic the format of US broadcasters including Fox and MSNBC with shows centered around strong presenters so I expect we will see the emergence of some highly opinionated opinion formers after a period. British News media is supposed to maintain impartiality under the governance of Ofcom so it will be interesting to see if this is the case. Neil has said that he is going to have a section on his show dedicated to 'Wokewatch' which I'm sure will arouse the interests (figuratively and literally) of many Boards users who seem to have a keen interest in such topics.

Tell me how wrote: »

British News media is supposed to maintain impartiality under the governance of Ofcom so it will be interesting to see if this is the case.

The Ofcom with Paul Dacre at the helm?

devnull wrote: »

GB News is going to be anything but impartial.

One of the leading people behind it, Andrew Cole has posted this on LinkedIn: “GB News: Over time we will conduct special enquiries to expose those who act in the worst interests of the UK.

“We will also drive critical campaigns: one could be calling for a public enquiry into certain MPs, members of the Lords and civil servants who acted against the UK and in favour of a foreign entity (the EU) during the Brexit years.

“Many of our target audience wish to see this enquiry happen.”

Notice how he presents his opinion as a fact. I have no doubt that there will be a lot of this to come. I don't object to anyone airing the view that he has, even if I disagree with it and think it's wrong, but this kind of stuff is very much the kind of nonsense you'd expect to see in America, not the UK.

This traitors narrative is a very dangerous thing and leads down a path that ends in things like people storming Capitol Hill with weapons, nooses and handcuffs or nutters shooting MPs like Jo Cox

I really think the UK is in a dangerous position in terms of what way it's electorate are about to be manipulated over the next few years.
GB News will definitely attract those of a particular mindset and I expect there are going to be a significant number of discussions on topics such as the efficiency of the NHS, the role of the BBC and whether or not it warrants having a license fee propping it up, the argument against Scotland voting to leave in a future referendum will get it's fair share of attention and a regular helping of lambasting the EU, Labour, Climate activists, BLM, and all these pesky progressive ideals that have gotten in the way for so long.

They'll have no shortage of candidates to appear on the various shows and I expect people like JHB, Kate Andrews, Farage, Tom Harwood, Brendan O'Neil and others will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of being invited on to speak to even more agreeable hosts than they've been used to in some circles.

I don't know if anyone saw a clip from Talk Radio recently where two guests, along with the host, gleefully awarded Femi Oluwole the title of 'Plank of the week' for having the gall to speak out against Brexiteers continued insistence that the problems the UK is experiencing is the fault of the EU or remainers or whoever. It was quite unsettling to see them lambast him without him being there to defend himself or without them, even for a second, providing a counter point to his argument.

As someone else pointed out, Paul Dacre has been chosen to lead OfCom so as to rebut any calls that will come saying that GB News or other broadcasters who try to chase after their audience are being biased.
It all feels quite sinister and to use the analogy often aimed at Democrats in the US where they are accused of bringing a knife to a gunfight with the GOP, Labour in the UK look like they are arming themselves with water pistols and nerf guns against opponents in fighter jets and attack helicopters.

We've already seen how the Tories have acted with Boris's flat upgrade, contracts to friends of cabinet ministers, setting up a review in to how Covid was handled etc, once there is a very friendly high profile national broadcaster in place to help massage how the public hears about this, they could really lose the run of themselves.

Tell me how wrote: »

I really think the UK is in a dangerous position in terms of what way it's electorate are about to be manipulated over the next few years.
GB News will definitely attract those of a particular mindset and I expect there are going to be a significant number of discussions on topics such as the efficiency of the NHS, the role of the BBC and whether or not it warrants having a license fee propping it up, the argument against Scotland voting to leave in a future referendum will get it's fair share of attention and a regular helping of lambasting the EU, Labour, Climate activists, BLM, and all these pesky progressive ideals that have gotten in the way for so long.

They'll have no shortage of candidates to appear on the various shows and I expect people like JHB, Kate Andrews, Farage, Tom Harwood, Brendan O'Neil and others will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of being invited on to speak to even more agreeable hosts than they've been used to in some circles.

I don't know if anyone saw a clip from Talk Radio recently where two guests, along with the host, gleefully awarded Femi Oluwole the title of 'Plank of the week' for having the gall to speak out against Brexiteers continued insistence that the problems the UK is experiencing is the fault of the EU or remainers or whoever. It was quite unsettling to see them lambast him without him being there to defend himself or without them, even for a second, providing a counter point to his argument.

As someone else pointed out, Paul Dacre has been chosen to lead OfCom so as to rebut any calls that will come saying that GB News or other broadcasters who try to chase after their audience are being biased.
It all feels quite sinister and to use the analogy often aimed at Democrats in the US where they are accused of bringing a knife to a gunfight with the GOP, Labour in the UK look like they are arming themselves with water pistols and nerf guns against opponents in fighter jets and attack helicopters.

We've already seen how the Tories have acted with Boris's flat upgrade, contracts to friends of cabinet ministers, setting up a review in to how Covid was handled etc, once there is a very friendly high profile national broadcaster in place to help massage how the public hears about this, they could really lose the run of themselves.

I do think UK society as a whole is much more progressive than their media landscape and their political class. If you look at voter demographics, "young" people, which means pretty much anyone under 50, are much more less likely to vote Tory, as is anyone with an education. But the combination of the utterly undemocratic FPTP voting system, safe seats, and voter turn out mean that their voice is just not heard as much.

This is a contrast to the US where there are large cohorts of very hardline young republicans (not saying the UK doesn't have its Tommy Robinson types but they're not as big a factor)

I think this is mainly due to the prevalence of Fox News where the UK doesn't have anything quite that bad on TV and it's mostly the newspapers with their older demographic that are utterly toxic.

I do wonder what the current concerted effort from the Tories to skew the media landscape even further to the right would achieve in taking the UK down that path.