British Politics thread

I like Miliband. I think there should be more claymation characters in politics.

So how do you regard the UKIP?
From the outside, they quite remind me of the rapid ascent of Vlaams Blok in Flanders, back in the early 90s.

+

Oh my...

Erica Ambler wrote:

UKIP is still a protest vote and one-man band. Many of its policies are unformed or unworkable, but it remains the only British political party that supports withdrawal from the EU and, in the end, I can’t see the point of any nation state that doesn't control its borders or decide its own policies. Therefore UKIP gets my vote. However, that’s purely as a means of applying pressure on the almost identical centre-ground parties; UKIP has no chance of government despite Nigel Farage's fantasies in this already notorious Newsweek interview:

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/10/17/inside-maverick-mind-nigel-farage-276175.html

Quote :

It’s undeniable that, in his battle to embody such qualities as fidelity and temperance, he has suffered the occasional reverse. Eight years ago, Farage established an improbable entente with a 25-year-old Latvian at a pub in Biggin Hill, Kent.She told the News of the World (falsely, insists the Ukip leader) that they made love seven times and that she performed “sex acts with ice cubes” which left the MEP “snoring like a horse”.

Hard not to warm to Farage. He smokes, drinks and fucks women. Possibly the last red-blooded male in British politics.

that's the thing, Farage compared to the others seems normal.

UKIP are inserting someone to fight our MP next year and UKIP support is growing somewhat here, trouble is our MP's got one of those really safe seats that not even an ISIS advance could dislodge.

This is a trend that is not just limited to Britain, of course.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/20/britain-future-divided-rich-poor-poverty-commission-report

Quote :

Britain is on the brink of becoming a nation permanently divided between rich and poor, according to the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission in its second annual state of the nation report.

The 335-page document is likely to be a reference point against which the government’s anti-poverty record will be judged, and to feature strongly in opposition party manifestos for the 2015 general election.

The report says all three main Westminster political parties are lamentably failing to be frank with the electorate about the fact there is no chance of meeting the government’s statutory child poverty target by 2020.

It also predicts that 2010-2020 will be the first decade since records began that saw a rise in absolute poverty – defined as a household in which income is below 60% of median earnings. A rise from 2.6 million households in absolute poverty to 3.5 million is now expected.

We are sliding back down to a situation where you will have a tiny group of haves and a massive population of have-nots.

+

I thought you rejected the undeserving vs. deserving poor bollocks that's had a revival in recent years, or are you in one of your miserly moods? For that I can only recommend a Lagulivin/Hega combo, now reduced at Baker St.

)

Salomé wrote:

I am intrigued by the practical realities of the UK leaving the EU.
What is their relation with the rest of the union like after the "divorce"?

Moved here from the Scottish independence thread. It certainly seems on topic here.

_

"You?" :)

Anyway, none of that truly answers my question.

It would almost certainly need to encompass a UK-EU free trade agreement. I'm just curious about how that would be structured and what it would entail, as well as the practical differences it would present compared to the UK being a full member state.

+

Wonder how many of those taxis carry people back with a hefty bill? There any reliable figures outside the populist BS?

Sure Britain will continue to trade. Only you can bet your Union flag the members of the EU will quickly step in. You seem delusional about the actual state of affairs, Erica. They all are pretty fed up with the constant exceptions Britain claims, they will be happy to see the last of the UK, Poland especially. As for your hate for Germans, that's a bit strange, too. They are the only friends Britain has left, mainly because they want to keep their investments. But as you hate them so much you will surely be relieved once they pull their money, could be they take the odd plant away, too. See, Britain doesn't exactly produce anything anymore the competition couldn't produce just as good. Leaving the EU is just another populist idea, a knee-jerk reaction of insecure nationalists dreaming of the good old days. As long as all went well there wasn't so much talk of it. In the crisis, partially caused by the very "financial centre of the globe" you are so fond of, the rats want to leave ship. Smacks of freeloader mentality to me. Make no mistake, London is a major financial market. But the money doesn't all belong to you as you seem to think.

PS: Just in case you are serious about leaving, then you can just as well discuss it in the Scottland thread, it's going to open up that gate again. Should just not have campaigned for No so hard, you knew there won't be a majority for leaving with Scotland.

Erica Ambler wrote:

'You' as you are in favour of the EU and that's natural enough.  After all, where would Belgium be without it?

We'd probably be just fine had our neighbors not dragged us into two wars in the space of 30 years.

Salomé wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

'You' as you are in favour of the EU and that's natural enough.  After all, where would Belgium be without it?

We'd probably be just fine had our neighbors not dragged us into two wars in the space of 30 years.

Fair point, Oppers, but sometimes the cost of peace is too high.

+

Good article, particularly this paragraph.

Quote :

From the beginning Labour was always an uneasy coalition of the organised working class and the Fabian or Hampstead intellectual. Later it also became the party of public-sector workers, social liberals and dispossessed minorities. Miliband is very much an old-style Hampstead socialist. He doesn’t really understand the lower middle class or material aspiration. He doesn’t understand Essex Man or Woman. Politics for him must seem at times like an extended PPE seminar: elevated talk about political economy and the good society.

Erica Ambler wrote:

George Osborne called Ed Miliband the Tory's secret weapon. Looks like Ed's supporters have come to the same conclusion:

Quote :

Labour wins well when its leader seems most in tune with the times and can speak for and to the people about who they are and what they want to be in the near future: Attlee in 1945, Wilson in 1966, Blair in 1997.

Miliband does not have a compelling personal story to tell the electorate, as Thatcher did about her remarkable journey from the grocer’s shop in Grantham and the values that sustained her along the way ...  [Miliband] went to Oxford to study PPE, worked for Gordon Brown, became a cabinet minister and then leader of the party. [It] does not quite do it.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/11/ed-miliband-s-problem-not-policy-tone-and-increasingly-he-seems-trapped

This is actually the problem with many politicians around the world. They lack any "real-world" experience. Probably close to half of our current MPs are related to a prior MP (children, grandchildren, nieces, ...). We are returning to a de facto feudal system with a thin layer of democratic varnish. With predictable results.

x

Professional politicians with little or no real world experience is the bane of British politics (probably other countries too)...increasingly the party lines are simply labels which the same pool of candidates could readily adopt on a whim. I saw an interview with Tony Benn who spoke of two types of politician, flags and signposts...the signpost are committed and always point the same way (he respects them even when he disagrees with the direction (in his case he cited Thatcher)) but flags blow with the wind and have no real conviction...that was the increasing population of government and today I think its only worse.

The revolution that is needed imo however is probably not one that could arise from a bloody confrontation, its a perception and abandonment of party concepts, a break in the people who are eligible......no one should be a career politician imo, you shouldn't be considered until you are experienced in real world responsibility, two terms is your lot at best and once served no cushy desk jobs afterward....a decent pension and salary should be conditional on those qualifications.

x

Erica Ambler wrote:

lachesis wrote:

Tony Benn who spoke of two types of politician, flags and signposts...the signpost are committed and always point the same way (he respects them even when he disagrees with the direction (in his case he cited Thatcher)) but flags blow with the wind and have no real conviction...that was the increasing population of government and today I think its only worse.

Yet it is Benn that epitomises Salome's complaint of families in politics. How many generations is it now? Plus the late Lord's reputation has taking a posthumous hammering since the revelation of his tax avoidance efforts.

Well one rule for me one for everyone else is really the politicians conceit that is facilitated by the notion of politics as its own profession...but again in my world generations of politicians would be more coincidental they'd have to prove themselves outside politics before being eligible to represent, election would come on the back of a legitimate cv of accomplishment's rather than simply an alignment of coloured rosettes.

x

Be afraid Dave, be very afraid.