Following UK Politics Thread Page 614

  • You-can-call-me-kal 13 Jan 2020 16:49:50 19,726 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    The lack of BAME candidates in either election is also very damning. It’s a shame Luciana Berger isn’t still in the party as I think she’d have been a very strong candidate for deputy.

    I’m not sure Starmer is completely nailed on, and as I’ve said before the way the election works with voting for preferences, I think Nandy has a much better chance of getting it than everyone thinks as she’ll be a lot of people’s second choice.
  • Armoured_Bear 13 Jan 2020 16:50:52 28,821 posts
    Seen 47 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I hope to fuck it’s Starmer.
  • Dgzter 13 Jan 2020 16:53:48 3,209 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Obviously not as major as her commitment to enact all of the Board of Deputies' recommendations, but it also appears that RLB is indicating that she'd not block calls for a second independence referendum in Scotland.

    Disappointingly, Jess Phillips still demonstrating that she has fundamentally misjudged the situation in Scotland: https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1216652313001111552?s=20

    It is, ironically, internationalism that drives the rejection of Brexit by most of the Scottish electorate, not to mention their governing party. And the SNP's fiscal and social policies are driven by the same ethos of solidarity that used to be the purveyance of Labour north of the border.

    Sadly, I suspect Phillips does not quite grasp the nuance between the sort of civic nationalism encapsulated by the SNP and the rancour of British exceptionalism and jingoism displayed by the pro-Brexit crowd and the far right in England.
  • Armoured_Bear 13 Jan 2020 16:57:23 28,821 posts
    Seen 47 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I like Jess Philips but she is making an utter Arsenal of herself over Scotland. Has no idea.
  • Dgzter 13 Jan 2020 17:10:43 3,209 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Strikes me that its perfectly valid to appreciate an MPs work and stance on a whole host of issues, some of which I may well agree with, but also question those areas on which we clearly don't share common ground.

    Isn't that the core of nuanced political debate?
  • You-can-call-me-kal 13 Jan 2020 17:13:30 19,726 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    RLB has also said she’ll get rid of the House of Lords.

    Have to say most of my reservations about her have fallen away now and I’m feeling quite positive about the idea of her leading. Bringing in Zarb-Cousins still concerns me as does her links with Milne, Murphy, Momentum etc, and I’m not completely convinced she’s strong enough to go against such a strong Tory majority. But she’s reminding me of why I once supported Corbyn to a degree.
  • Dougs 13 Jan 2020 17:18:02 94,076 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    Jess Philips has said if she doesn't win, she'd want to serve under Nandy (so her supporters may put her as a 2nd preference)
  • mothercruncher 13 Jan 2020 17:22:29 17,736 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    its-H1ggyLTD wrote:
    I liked Jess Phillips except when she discussed some policy that directly affects me, then I liked her a bit less.
    I can sympathise- I thought her proposal to ban the Ninja Turtles was a step too far as well.
  • simpleexplodingmaybe 13 Jan 2020 17:52:46 13,538 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    It’s interesting that for a party in which a losing female leadership candidate has never even placed above a losing man that the same could happen again in a race with a single man in it
  • JamboWayOh 13 Jan 2020 20:04:26 19,315 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/13/farage-will-not-take-a-penny-of-153000-mep-golden-goodbye-due

    What a great guy. A hero even. To not to take the money even with all that Russian cash he's been getting. Man of the people really.
  • TheSaint 13 Jan 2020 22:28:20 19,570 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Remember when lying had consequences?
    https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1216748359144308737?s=21
  • nickthegun 13 Jan 2020 22:36:05 81,757 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    These days, Archer and Hamilton wouldn’t even lose their parking spaces.
  • simpleexplodingmaybe 13 Jan 2020 22:41:48 13,538 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    They’d be Lords
  • Technoishmatt 13 Jan 2020 22:46:26 4,128 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Or PM...
  • Stuz359 13 Jan 2020 23:10:19 255 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    House of Lords is one that needs revisiting. I agree we need a second chamber, as a check and balance, but I don't want it to be elected. I don't want it to be appointed for life peerages from current political parties either. I don't want it to be appointed from narrow political divides. I'd prefer an upper chamber divided equally between a certain section of society, mainly academics, but some from industry as well, Engineers, scientists, lawyers, professors and business. I would want it to be technocratic and not beholden to current political party thinking, and under no pressure to adopt a party line. I would suggest that peers are nominated and have a shelf life of about five years to reflect current parliamentry time in office. I of course, dream of a federation of planets, but i'm still an optimist.
  • mattproton 14 Jan 2020 07:45:33 55 posts
    Seen 5 months ago
    Registered 6 months ago
    That's a really difficult function to make. The thing about systems involving people and the function of scrutiny is you need to make the scrutiny the self interest of the people in a separate function so that it doesn't matter who the person is.. In that idea, no matter how great the scientists or academics are, you rely on the good dictator. Because the system has no means to make the academic scrutinise in any designed way..

    And these are people living in this country, so they will have a political compass, which means, as we illustrate, they will be consistant in their philosophy, which means that the function of scrutiny will reflect relative to a proportionate ratio, a rough political point of view.. And we require objectivity..

    I think the house of lords stands because the system kind of works and it's bloody difficult to design systemic scrutiny in the way that it would need to be. A conflicting force with no agenda save objective scrutiny, involving people..

    The thing about the philosophy of the problem is that it relies on the idea that there is a contextual right answer.. Scientists and academics will likely get the right answer.. Only politics is about contexts with priorities and the priorities are chosen in one degree of abstraction by the electorate. So if we vote tories after austerity then fuck the poor, that's what the majority want because of priorities. So the contexts don't contain a resolvable right answer. Just the democratic choice of the people that the law makers made the best case for their priorities.

    Edited by mattproton at 08:01:40 14-01-2020
  • Dougs 14 Jan 2020 07:56:18 94,076 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    It partially works. There's a strong body of Peers who do an excellent job. But there's also a whole load of hangers on who don't do much, and I agree political appointees is part of the problem. I don't think an elected upper house is any better though, it would just follow the commons which surely isn't what we want.
  • mattproton 14 Jan 2020 08:11:04 55 posts
    Seen 5 months ago
    Registered 6 months ago
    The people decide the government, the government make the law which is roughly a power that they won. So the law isn't fixed or natural or constant. It is our rough morality and we choose it by proxy. So scrutiny for this function is kind of undemocratic.

    Really, systemic scrutiny for the law that is the product of the government will happen in two key ways, the Press and the general public will likely make the running social narrative reflect a judgment on the consequence to the law.. And the people will be able to make an informed choice about the eficacy of the decision at the next election..

    So because Democracy works in one degree of abstraction, the real scrutiny to the function of government works in one degree of abstraction systemically.

    It's one reason why Brexit isn't really a democratic situation.

    If you have a general public that isn't educated, then they get to the right answer by trial and error. They elect, they get experience and the next election they reflect the experience with an evolved more informed decision. Brexit there is no process, democracy is a process systemically.
    Brexit we were clueless and had to get it right, and the advocates were also clueless.. They were just confident at bullshit..

    The logic of nigel farage is that in a context of a debate where nobody knows the right answer, then the distinction is confidence not correctness. Farage is confident.. An academic will tell you that he doesn't know.. We have a situation where the general public bought that Rees Mogg and Nigel Farage were confident about Economics, what was the Mogg Quote, An economist will tell you anything... But that fallacy is the proposition that in economics there is one way to get it wrong, because of the inherent complexity, the art of economics is how you get the forecast wrong, you legislate for potentials and correct. So the general public that also weren't economists bought the confidence of people who had an agenda for economics as a field to be wrong.. And the nature of the field facilitated them to sell out the entire field of economics by painting a narrative rooted in the cliche that it always is wrong..

    You can forecast that there will be a downturn and legislate by prudent decisions, if the downturn doesn't manifest technically you got it wrong, that is one potential error but in the same context you could ignore that forecast and keep spending and the downturn does occur, technically that is another mistake in the same context but the error is far worse.. That is the nature and art of the error in economics..

    This context economics couldn't predict, but in a context with risk, they inherently advocated prudence..

    Edited by mattproton at 08:29:34 14-01-2020
  • TechnoHippy 14 Jan 2020 08:56:27 17,309 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    One advantage of life long peerage is that the lord or lady feel secure that they can represent a particular cause or opinion, and do so for an extended time so that the resistance can grow. With appointed for fixed terms that longevity (and maybe bravery) could be lost.

    That said I'm all for trying to make the House of Lords more appropriate for the modern age, but not sure what the right solution is. I certainly think what we have is a hell of a lot better than not having it at all.
  • Nexus_6 14 Jan 2020 11:48:06 4,945 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    So a request for a new independence referendum has been denied by No.10.
    BJ states that
    another independence referendum would continue the political stagnation that Scotland has seen for the last decade, with Scottish schools, hospitals and jobs again left behind because of a campaign to separate the UK
    I do wonder what it is all getting left behind from - the wonderful English NHS?

    I do also wonder how a union that one party cannot explore removing itself from is actually a union.
  • JamboWayOh 14 Jan 2020 11:56:35 19,315 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Hasn't it always been do I say not as I do when it comes to England communicating with Scotland? Like Northern Ireland, England views both places as politically convenient when it wants to but couldn't give a shit the rest of the time. A bit like Labour and it's inability to remember that Scotland is a crucial part of its voter base that it needs to reclaim.
  • Armoured_Bear 14 Jan 2020 12:08:21 28,821 posts
    Seen 47 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Nexus_6 wrote:
    So a request for a new independence referendum has been denied by No.10.
    BJ states that
    another independence referendum would continue the political stagnation that Scotland has seen for the last decade, with Scottish schools, hospitals and jobs again left behind because of a campaign to separate the UK
    I do wonder what it is all getting left behind from - the wonderful English NHS?

    I do also wonder how a union that one party cannot explore removing itself from is actually a union.
    I thought the Scottish NHS and employment level was better than in Engerland
  • Frogofdoom 14 Jan 2020 12:16:25 16,420 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The sooner you accept that you are just a colony which you have almost no say in the better it will be for everyone.

    Time to accept serfdom and help us get Brexit done.
  • Decks Best Forumite, 2016 14 Jan 2020 12:24:45 24,919 posts
    Seen 27 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    The Tunnock's Teacake will play a pivotal role in the upcoming trade wars.
  • Dgzter 14 Jan 2020 12:48:49 3,209 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Armoured_Bear wrote:
    I thought the Scottish NHS and employment level was better than in Engerland
    Yup, they are. Scotland does, in fact, outperform all other nations in the Union in those areas (and certain others).

    However, due to the impact of the last decade of austerity, bearing in mind that Scotland's devolved budget is at the discretion of the ruling party in Westminster, the figures are somewhat down on what they were c.2010 (I believe). And this is where the political rhetoric and spin comes in.

    Effectively, you can spot an MP who doesn't have the slightest fucking clue about the brief in Scotland by their reliance on these attack lines. See Jess Phillips, this week. Or, indeed, our illustrious PM today.
  • grey_matters 14 Jan 2020 12:49:23 5,265 posts
    Seen 43 minutes ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    Decks wrote:
    The Tunnock's Teacake will play a pivotal role in the upcoming trade wars.
    But then, it plays a pivotal role in anything of value anyway.
  • simpleexplodingmaybe 14 Jan 2020 14:13:18 13,538 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I think the solution is to restore Hadrian’s border and leave everyone to the south to Boris
  • JamboWayOh 14 Jan 2020 14:18:32 19,315 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    simpleexplodingmaybe wrote:
    I think the solution is to restore Hadrian’s border and leave everyone to the south to Boris
    Hmm, sounds good.
  • Rogueywon Most Generous Forumite, 2016 14 Jan 2020 14:20:48 8,694 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    There's an incredibly dangerous story for the government running this week, but it's not Scotland, Brexit, Megxit or even Paltrow's vagina. It's FlyBe. This one has the potential to be very, very nasty, with big political ramifications.

    For the last 20 years, Labour, Coalition and Conservative governments have pointed at EU state aid rules as the reason why they can't bail out various failing businesses, from Woolworths to British Steel. This is technically true, but it misses two key points. First, that any trade deal covering the sector in question (not just EU membership) would likely prohibit such a bailout. Second - most importantly - that bailouts of failing businesses are usually a really, really bad use of taxpayers' money. But EU state aid rules have been an easy scapegoat for decades. From next month onwards, it's going to get much, much harder to explain why government isn't going to bailout a household-name firm on the brink of going bust.

    This matters because if you map the firms that have gone bust with "where's the bailout" controversies, they map heavily onto both the most leave-supporting areas and the areas that the Conservatives just took in the general election. I personally suspect a big part of the Brexit vote was driven by a hope for a return to economic protectionism - but that's not what's on the cards and the convenient excuse of EU rules is about to disappear.

    Worse than that, FlyBe is a very unusual airline (I used to work in the air transport business). It's heavily focussed on domestic routes, unusually dependent on subsidy and is pretty much essential to the transport connections of certain regions, South West England and Northern Ireland in particular. If it goes under, those regions get a lot more isolated from the wider UK. That cuts massively against the manifesto Johnson has just been elected on, which emphasises regional connectivity. Even if he gives a commitment to provide new road and rail links to the South West to compensate for the loss of FlyBe, those would take at least a decade to plan, approve, design and deliver.

    There's an obvious get-out here, which is to allow FlyBe to defer payment of its Air Passenger Duty tax-bill and reduce or remove APD for domestic flights going forward (can't just do it for one company as that would be anti-competitive). But that cuts against the carbon-reduction agenda. So no easy answers. Personally, I suspect they'll take the hit on carbon on the basis that Extinction Rebellion will never vote Conservative, but the South West will.

    This is going to be an incredibly difficult one. It's a good reminder that most of being in government is actually responding to the latest "shit happens" moment.

    Edited by Rogueywon at 14:24:38 14-01-2020
Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.