UK Politics
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=70018
Printed Date: February 09 2025 at 04:59
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: UK Politics
Posted By: The Hemulen
Subject: UK Politics
Date Posted: August 06 2010 at 11:25
|
There have been some great discussions here during and post-election so I thought a general-purpose UK politics thread might be worth a try. Non-UK residents are obviously more than welcome to chip in as well. I'd like to start the ball rolling by asking what everyone thinks of the government's overall spending cut policy. Is cutting the deficit really the most important thing we should be doing right now, or might a lack of investment in the public sector damage our economy in the long-term? Some food for thought on this issue http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Countering-the-cuts-myths - here . |
Replies:
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: August 06 2010 at 11:47
the spending cut policy is too harsh and will be damaging to certain sectors of society - namely the vulnerable, but i appaud their plans to root out the benefit cheats.. meanwhile the banks are back raking it in again but not lending... .
Cameron, unfortunately,
 has shown his inexperience and incompetence in a few short months - gaff gaff gaff  he's too much like a slick car salesman, all smiles and good intentions don't last long, we will soon see if he has any substance in the months to come.President Obama used our Health Service as a model for change but the Tories will soon set about wrecking it all for us
  -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: August 06 2010 at 11:50
|
Cool, I want to learn more about UK politics!
Will be watching and maybe joining in on occasion ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: toroddfuglesteg
Date Posted: August 06 2010 at 13:58
|
Their overall spending policy will probably mean I will loose my job sometimes next year. I am not a frontline service so they can dispense with me. I am seriously worried now. |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: August 06 2010 at 15:13
|
I can see the nead to cut back on public spending but the way they've gone about it through giving the chop to whole serveces doesnt seem to be a good way of doing it. OK, some of those serveces, councils, weekend get-togethers we could have done without but I fail to see how dispencing with the UK Film Council is a good thing. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 07 2010 at 03:18
Excuse the selective quoting but I wanted to pick up on this point. I'm sure we can all agree that discouraging people from exploiting the benefit system is a good thing, but the way in which the Tories propose to do it have me deeply concerned. Making people poorer does not help them find jobs. I myself have been looking for work for the last few months and have had no success so far. I am not entitled to Job Seeker\s Allowance because my partner works full time. Never mind that she earns minimum wage and is too young to be eligible for working tax credits. We are still trying to process our claim for Housing Benefit and in the meantime we are facing the distinct possibility of being unable to pay the rent this month. I am keenly aware that if I got a decent job all this would solved in a flash. It doesn't make me any more likely to find one.
|
mystic fred wrote:Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 07 2010 at 09:18
|
UK politics has gone down an inevitable path in my opinion. A coalition government - which has happened before - is the result of a homogenisation of policy across the three main parties. A dissillusioned electorate no longer trusts any one party. This can be construed as a good or bad thing, depending on your own personal stance. Some would argue that in the longer term a more stable economy could be achieved by all parties striking a careful balance between tax and spend. Historically Labour taxed and spent, and the Tories chopped and privatised.
That's an ideal model though; all parties agreeing on how best to achieve a stable economy, and in reality I perosnally dont think this is attainable. On the issue of the budget cuts, I think they are too harsh. The recovery of an economy can't be based solely on cutting the public sector to death, in the belief that the private sector will pick up the jobless from the public sector. There needs to be up front investment in jobs creation. Banks need to start lending to small businesses again, to get things moving. The tax payer has bailed these greedy b*****ds out, and they are nearly all making a healthy profit once more. It's time to start putting it back. Lets be clear about the extent of public sector cuts. Natioanlly we are looking at potential job losses of over 600,000. The private sector is not going to re-employ a large chunk of that figure, certainly not in the short term. The Tories are using the budget deficit as an excuse to implement to sort of cuts, one may expect of the Tories anyway. Meanwhile Nick Clegg, in his rather restricted capacity as deputy PM, has managed to alienate vast swathes of Lib Dem voters, scuppering any small chance they may have had of obtaining outright power at the next election, and ultimately pushing the party back in to a distant third place behind Labour. It's an interesting and rather worrying time for UK politics, imo. Looking back over the NuLabour years, it has to be said that despite the watering down - or complete drowing - of the party's socialist element, they did invest vast amounts of money in health and education. Many people take these improvements for granted, as we naturally expect our public services to be there when we need them, in a state that we expect. For all those who think NuLabour done little for this coutry, prepare to be very disturbed and dissapointed by what happens over the next four years. Be under no illusion; our public services are f***ed! I was alife long Labour voter, albeit one who cursed them for abolishing clause 4 of their constitution and playing such a major part in an illegal war in Iraq, and an unwinnable conflict in Afghanistan. Would the Tories have done anything different in this respect? Of course not. I now judge individual politicans on their own personal merits, as I interpret them, and have no single allegience to any one party. I genuinely dont know who to vote for in the next election, but one thing is sure, I'll be in a wooden box, with hell frozen over, before voting Tory. None of the above is stated as fact. It is opinion only. I dont claim to know better than anyone else. The opinions are based on perceptions. Like most of not all people here, I'm not an economist ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 07 2010 at 10:50
|
I think we are in an era of Tabloid politics, with all parties producing policies that are superficial and lacking in any real depth or understanding. Everyone is reading the headlines and making snap judgements without a solid foundation in how things work, how things can work and how things should work. All they see are polarised view of how they believe they ought to work based upon some idealised political models that were born in the end of the 19th century that have never worked and never will.
There is no single "Public Sector" so there isn't a general panacea that will solve all ills at a single sweep - there are hundreds of small public sectors, each unique and individually tailored to the particular service they were created to provide - the solutions to each one will be equally as unique and individually tailored to fit the needs of that service. Glib statements about reducing this or cutting that, by outlandish numbers like 40%, are meaningless and destined to fail as a domino effect of collapse of each service will result in the Govt having to step in and take corrective action to heal the damage they've created, wiping out any short-term gains they may have made and replacing them with a net loss as the cost of each fix will be more than the projected saving.
The obvious and most visible example of the Public Sector is the NHS - the UKs biggest employer with 1.37 million staff. There is knee-jerk outcry at the number of managers employed within the Health Service and Tabloid politics says cut them.
There are 39,000 administrators and 380,000 nurses out of a total workforce of 1,370,000 - that's 1 manager for every 35 employees - or 1 manager for every 9.7 nurses - since not all of those admins will be managing nurses, then the actual number of nurses being managed by a single manager will be much higher. I've been a manager in the private sector for the best part of thirty years and those figures sound a heavy to me - the technical term is called " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Span_of_control - Span of Control " and is the numerical management of staff based upon the supervision level required by a group of workers - this figure is governed by the relative skill-level of the people being managed and the less skilled the workforce the more workers a single manager/supervisor can manage. To a non-manager that may sound backwards and illogical - surely a skilled worker requires less supervision, but skilled workers take more of a manager's time, therefore they can manager fewer in any working day. [and let's not bog this down by arguing about what a manager does - it is considerably more than just telling people what to do]. The general figure for the number of skilled staff a manager can cope with is around 5-8, and from my experience that sounds about right - increase that ratio and the system becomes inefficient with the skilled workers doing more of the administrative duties themselves rather than concentrating on what they are employed and trained to do - based on that the number of administrators and managers in the Health Service is too low. So if the Health Service needs 380,000 nurses (and I don't doubt that) then it needs more than 39,000 administrators - cut the number of administrators and the number of nurses has to be reduced proportionally. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: August 07 2010 at 11:05
Thiis harsh but the answer is...take ANY job......Asda, Tesco, pub...whatever, until you find what you sre looking for. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: August 07 2010 at 11:12
I should have been more specific David, when i wrote that i was thinking of the "Jazz Dancer" recently exposed as a benefit cheat, he was claiming benefit for severe arthritis and dancing the Fandango ....
good luck finding a job David, remember you can dazzle them
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 07 2010 at 11:51
Don't think I haven't tried. I have no career aspirations, all I want is a wage I can live on. My writing/performance work is my career, it just doesn't pay the bills. In the last month I have applied to every call centre and retail job going, but I've not had so much as an interview. From any employers perspective, why would they give the job to an inexperienced arts graduate when they have dozens of other applicants with years of work experience behind them? Anyway, we're getting off topic here... Andy, you made some excellent points regarding the three main parties all shifting towards the centre-ground and the inevitable disconnection that causes. In my brief time as an elligible voter I have always voted Lib Dem, viewing them as the only major party which gets close to representing my views on certain issues. Labour's increasingly authoritarian streak and warmongering was always a major obstacle for me, and likewise I'd never so much as contemplate voting Tory. Yet now, with Clegg's discgraceful u-turn on spending cuts the moment he got a sniff of power I feel completely cut off from all three parties. Dean, you're bang on the money with this tabloid attitude to the public sector. I've nothing useful to add, but I wanted to acknowledge your valuable contribution. |
Posted By: Syzygy
Date Posted: August 08 2010 at 06:32
|
Benefit fraud is something that needs to be tackled, but tax evasion by major corporations and the obscenely rich costs the country far more. It would be nice if 'call me Dave' would at least acknowledge that. I've been lucky enough to survive an unpleasant culling in the college where I work, but the public sector cuts are more likely to lead us into a double dip than to solve any immediate problems. A simple freeze on recruitment for 2 - 3 years, coupled with realistic voluntary redundancy schemes, would go a long way to cutting costs without leading to an upsurge in people claiming benefits.
And another thing - the 'big society' - I'm not sure where this army of volunteers is going to spring up from. Admittedly there'll be lots of people out of work, but if you're engaged in voluntary work you're not available for employment and therefore ineligible for benefits. I think I missed the plans to tackle that particular issue. ------------- 'Like so many of you I've got my doubts about how much to contribute to the already rich among us...' Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom |
Posted By: toroddfuglesteg
Date Posted: August 08 2010 at 07:03
|
Benefit cheats is just a minor problem (max 5 bills of the 156 bills in budget deficit) and a scapegoat for every government. Remember, people on benefits have no voice and no defence. Another thing....... If they tackle alcoholism, unhealthy lifestyles and social deprivation on the many estates, there will hardly be no need for UK to borrow money at all. Remember, the food and drinks industry have billions of pounds in resources and hundreds of lobbyists. My guess is that this government will just use people on benefits as scapegoats for all the ills in the world and not tackle the issues which has led to this mess.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 08 2010 at 07:43
|
^ Benefit 'scapegoats' is just another example of the Tabloid politics I referred to - I accept there is a problem, (all be it a small problem) and that it needs to be addressed, but the current 'policies' are scatter-gun policies that effect the innocent and the guilty alike. This pervading attitude, (once limited to only the blue-rinse brigade) that all benefit claimants are fraudulent is being exaggerated and misused to slip through right-wing policies that Maggie Thatcher could only dreamt of in her wildest power-induced fantasies. ------------- What? |
Posted By: toroddfuglesteg
Date Posted: August 08 2010 at 08:06
|
A donation from the drink producers to the party funds keeps the government away from dealing with the real issues here. Three months ago and on a Thursday night, I had to go to the local Accident & Emergency dep at my local hospital after a small accident (flesh wound) on my push bike. I was the only stone cold sober person admitted there that night. The rest was all alcohol related accidents and very avoidable. Most of them Buckfast related, an drink produced by a company who has never paid tax in the UK because they are a registered charity. There you have a lot of the 156 bill budget deficit and the next hellish five years here. But would anyone dare to fix this ? No. The thing is that we all knows what has to be done to fix the problem. We have all seen the sink estates and the millions of people who are outside this society. We all knows that picking on benefits receivers and gypsies does not solve anything. This time around, I am not sure if this scapegoat thing will help. In particular when the kids dies before their parents due to alcohol, bad food, no jobs, bad housing and drugs. |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 08 2010 at 09:10
Gah, this 'big society' bullsh*t makes me so angry. It's just a mask for slashing public services. One of the examples is having libraries run by volunteers. Apparently we can afford to lob billions of taxpayer's money to the bloated banking sector yet we can't afford to pay a librarian's wages? Pathetic. |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: August 09 2010 at 02:32
|
The situation with University and College grads. will not get any easier this year, the funding has been cut further and many students will find themselves competing with hundreds of equally qualified applicants for the same few jobs, media studies, law and the arts have taken over from science subjects, i fear the cleverest most useful people will "temporarily" end up in Debenhams, MacDonalds, building sites...or go abroad. .
At my College they have opened up a new centre for Plumbing, Electrician and Joinery courses for the ones that have no qualifications, by the time they are thirty they could be running their own businesses and doing much better than the grads...
 ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: August 09 2010 at 02:36
| So, am I the only one who supports the Scottish National Party? |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: August 09 2010 at 02:44
May not be a UK resident, but that seems to be the trend through a lot of the "developed" world. It's important...but I am a bit appalled at how deficit is now the greatest evil and unemployment...meh |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: August 09 2010 at 03:42
To be fair, in the US at least, pretty much all of that has been paid back with interest. I never got into the populist anger about bailouts, they're just loans. And also, wouldn't it make sense you wouldn't have money for anything else if you're paying all that money? ;-) Anyway, I don't actually follow UK politics so I have nothing else to add. Oh, except that the idea that someone in any western country at this point in time can just "get a job" if they're willing to lower their standards is ridiculous. We have stacks and stacks of applications from people, and from all those we pretty much only hire college-age students (we even had a few minors earlier in the year, which was ridiculous because minors aren't good at anything) because they're the only ones who are willing to work part time for $8.50/hour, as we stopped giving anybody full time a long time ago. $8.50/hour isn't bad for an entry level job (minimum wage in the US is $7.25), but you can't live in Manassas on $8.50. And Trouserpress can't live on the UK equivalent (especially with your taxes, yeeesh!). Epignosis couldn't get a sh*tty retail job either, he has a degree and was teaching English for (some amount) of years, they want somebody who they know is going to work hard and not grieviously injure themselves, a degree doesn't show any of that.
http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2010/03/08/hard-times-hit-for-plumbers-pipefitters/ - No, life is not that easy. Besides the fact that you have to pay for those courses, and education is never cheap. Or maybe we'll have a glut of skilled labor because people think it's a surefire way to make money. The comparisons aren't exact, obviously, but we do have far too many lawyers and there are still a ton of people signing up for law school. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: August 09 2010 at 05:19
|
Honestly, a lot of what has been said sounds close to home (with difference of course). Beginning to think more and more that politics is pretty much the same, regardless of location.  |
Posted By: Syzygy
Date Posted: August 09 2010 at 07:51
|
And another bloody thing - every time the BBC news mentions Barclays Bank they feel the need to reiterate that it didn't receive a government bailout. Fair enough as far as it goes, but where would Barclays have been if there hadn't been a bail out? Totally stuffed, that's where. The fact that they chose to sell the family heirlooms to a far eastern conglomerate when their dodgy dealings went tits up does not exonerate them, and just because they didn't take any governement money it doesn't mean that they weren't as big a beneficiary of the taxpayer's largesse as their cronies.
I feel better now... ------------- 'Like so many of you I've got my doubts about how much to contribute to the already rich among us...' Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom |
Posted By: flower-of-scots
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 19:13
|
The Etonians have us all by the balls. they can, and will, do what they can to sacrifice the poor and give their friends a big lift.
Cameron is not ever to be trusted on the NHS and Clegg (Faust) remains a tory under libdem colours. The 2 mailto:w@nkers - w@nkers as i call them, each with their own agenda that they know will stiffle recovery and send us all into another recession, but what the hell do they care, because it won't affect them or their friends.
The banks are once again creaming of us and tefal head cameron won't do a thng to stop it...too many friends in banking. The UK is heading straight into another recession caused by cameron and his high pitched sidekick gideon osbourne....a tit if ever there was one let loose on our country....a man who knows nothing about poverty...the silver teaspoon seen to that.
god help us...............
|
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 06:09
|
Blair's memoirs, then. How many millions will he need to donate to the British Legion to wash all that blood off his hands? I don't wish to seem preachy, but everything about this gesture really sticks in my craw. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 06:25
|
I'm not saying the BL is not deserving of the money, but it would be more fitting if the money went directly to the families of those who died in Iraq. The war was illegal and we shouldn't have been there. Deep down Blair knows this, although whether or not he feels any remorse is another matter. I suspect not. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 07:10
The last coalition government that lasted for more than a few months and that had a meaningful mandate was the wartime one, to be fair. Homogenisation of the parties isn't a terrible thing, in my view. About Clegg: I don't know... if he gets the AV, even if it is a crappy vote reform, it's a very important step to having people actually represented in a relevant manner here... maybe it'll be worth it in the long term. Either way, I think that whatever happens with the voting referendum, it'll be used as an excuse to delay any real vote reform for a term or two. Really, this election was the only chance of getting any vote reform for a completely broken system (given that the system in place always and by default favours the party in power), it just might be worth it. Might be. I agree that NuLab has done a hell of a lot more than people think for public services and I think they've done some very important things socially as well - I suspect the conservative government is still slightly uncomfortable with homosexuality, despises single mothers and believes the poor are poor out of choice... I think that a shining element of NuLab's legacy is in ensuring that these sort of things are no longer something it is acceptable for a mainstream party to openly endorse (I mean, you can see that Theresa May is visibly discomforted when talking about homosexuality but she has still changed her stance on it publicly and in terms of the way she votes - I think that's a damn good thing). |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 07:13
|
Ah, missed this. About spending cuts: the fact that schemes like the free school scheme (and I think the rather empty marriage tax break policy is still knocking around - correct me if I'm wrong) are still going ahead does rather imply that the deficit is being used as an excuse for cuts in the public sector on a basically ideological basis rather than in response to the actual crisis. RE: Benefit cheats... I thought tax fraud cost us drastically more than benefit fraud but you never hear about Cameron declaring war on that because that's done by rich people who didn't decide to be poor... I think it's a rather cheap publicity move and meaningless given how the Brown government was clearly moving against benefit fraud anyway. @Mystic Fred: I thought health spending was the only area that the conservatives actually had ringfenced spending on. I know they're planning on changing some things and trying to decentralise it a bit but I'm not sure exactly what... either way, I'm more worried about education. The thing that really worries me about this deficit is how immediately and how entirely people have accepted that politics is just about the economy. I've yet to see anyone, when asked about how they'd 'fix' the economy suggest that maybe some things should matter more in politics. |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 07:21
TGM, I agree with basically everything you've said in those two posts, with one glaring exception:
I'd be very interested to know why you think this could be a positive change. |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 08:00
Well, I don't think it's ideal but it's much better in the context of our political system than the polarised politics of the 70s. 1) Neither of the major parties is going to be extremely radical. No labour leader now will suggest an 83% top rate (no joke, we had that once) of taxation, I don't think the conservatives will attempt to pull out of the EU or to slash the NHS because it doesn't fit in with their fundamental ideals. I think that in a first-past-the-post system you basically get a lot of alternation of government by two parties, and most governments are far stronger than their share of the vote should leave them - hence, if you have two major parties each of whom is doing exactly the opposite of the other, the country's going to swing between two extremes in a very precarious fashion. I suppose my point is that, as far as I can tell, there were some extremely bad times (Idee Amin offered us bananas as 'economic aid' at one point) when we had hardline left and right wing governments with solid majorities (and that was when we had politicians with character, as well) and I think the current consensus should avert things from ever becoming that bad. 2) I think that good ideas on both sides of the centre are more likely to be implemented irrespective of which party's in control. If Labour borrows a good conservative idea which is popular and reasonable and then tailors it to its own particular priorities (eg. the inheritance tax thing, which got lambasted so much by the broadsheets), that's a good thing in my view. 3) I don't really believe that people neccessarily had that much more choice back when they had more drastic choices... yes, there is no serious far left party now, but back in 1974 I don't think you could've voted for a serious centre-left party that wasn't suggesting an 83% top rate of taxation to support industries with a sense of entitlement. The only way we are going to get more meaningful party choices in this country is electoral reform so that there are more than two viable parties. So, yes, I don't think consensus politics is worse than what went before. We could do with some new characters in politics though - I mean, Mandelson (and he's not even an MP!) is probably the most memorable and charismatic figure in all three major parties right now... that's ridiculous. Optimally, I think we could do alright with more polarised main parties if we had a proportional system that would offer some kind of balance to them and make parliamentary votes more genuinely important. |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 09:47
Thanks for that. You've made some pretty persuasive arguments there. I agree with you that we really need to see meaningful electoral reform for this country to move forwards politically. As it currently stands, I doubt I'd be able to cast anything but a protest vote in the next election, such is my disdain for all three main parties. Tell me, are you involved at all in the Take Bake Parliament campaign? I've signed a few petitions and stuff, but haven't been to any meetings or anything yet because no one's taken the lead in my area (I would, but finding a job is my top priority right now). I'm drawn to it because it's proper worthwhile political activism which I can do from a non-partisan perspective and, like you, I sincerely want the referendum on AV to be a success, for the sake of reinvigorating our stale political system. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 09:55
It would be good if we had some 'positive' characters in politics, rather than dark sinister types like Mandelson. It seems that all Labours 'good guys' either resigned after Iraq, or died (Mo Mowlem, Tony Banks, Robin Cook et al..) I can see the sense in parties meeting in a middle ground. The fact of the matter is, there is still a socialist party people can vote for, there is a facist party, a green party, and anti Europe party. All the choices are still there, just not among the main three parties. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 09:58
Take Bake Parliament!?!?!
Is this something organised by Jane Asher
 ------------- What? |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 10:27
Whoops.  My idiot brain was attempting to refer to http://www.takebackparliament.com/ - Take Back Parliament . Unlike the Tory-backed (or should that be baked?) No campaign, the Yes campaign is relying on grass-roots activity, in lieu of massive billboard campaigns funded by multi-millionaires. |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 11:07
'fraid not... I switch at random between having too much free time and none and I've never really thought about activism, to be honest. Might see if I can help out with some things in the run up to the referendum. |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 11:13
Would be. Not convinced the current trend towards career politicians and shortlists is going to give us any more Dave Nellists. |
Posted By: freedom-of-speech
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 20:06
|
Still flogging the old Iraq war was it illegal nonsense to death.
Why do parents and relatives of armed forces members still reel in shock when in times of war their loved ones get killed? Isn't it one of the hazards of the job? Good god the numbers who have been killed in Iraq/Afghanistan are insignificant to the soldiers who died in world war one, in an hour, or even world war two. Have our armed forces become so soft?
Good on Blair for donating his profits to the British legion, i bet the tory numpties wouldn't......
Finally the war in Iraq would never ever be found illegal in any court in any part of the world...so get a different record people it's so yesterday.
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: August 17 2010 at 21:04
|
It's illegal in America. I'd wager it's possible it is in other countries whose laws I know little about. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 18 2010 at 01:48
I know I probably shouldn't rise to the bait as the tone of this post smacks of trolling, but oh well. 1. Regarding the legality of the war: "The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter - United Nations Charter is the foundation of modern international law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-google15-8 - [9] The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and its principal coalition allies in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which are therefore legally bound by its terms. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally bans the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_by_states - use of force by states except when carefully circumscribed conditions are met, stating:
This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louise_Doswald-Beck&action=edit&redlink=1 - Louise Doswald-Beck , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary-General - Secretary-General http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_of_Jurists - International Commission of Jurists . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-10 - [11] Therefore, in the absence of an armed attack against the US or the coalition members, any legal use of force, or any legal threat of the use of force, had to be supported by a UN security Council resolution authorizing member states to use force against Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-google15-8 - [9] The US and UK governments, along with others, stated (as is detailed in the first four paragraphs of the joint resolution) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-11 - [12] that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council - United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities, and not a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression - war of aggression as the US and UK were acting as agents for the defense of Kuwait in response to Iraq's 1990 invasion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-12 - [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-13 - [14] Some International legal experts, including the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_of_Jurists - International Commission of Jurists , the US-based http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lawyers_Guild - National Lawyers' Guild , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-14 - [15] a group of 31 Canadian law professors, and the US-based http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawyers_Committee_on_Nuclear_Policy&action=edit&redlink=1 - Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy have found this legal rationale to be untenable, and are of the view that the invasion was not supported by UN resolution and was therefore illegal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-15 - [16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-16 - [17] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-17 - [18] The ICC can find only individuals to have committed crimes, not governments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-18 - [19] However, the unauthorized use of force or threat of use of force by a member state of the UN violates the UN Charter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#cite_note-google15-8 - [9] " (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War ). As you say, "so yesterday". Wouldn't it be nice if people stopped getting so hung up on major transgressions of international law which has resulted in massive death tolls, political instability and the increased radicalisation of certain individuals who may well not otherwise have been drawn towards terrorism? [/sarcasm] 2. Your comments about relatives of armed forces members is crass, insensitive and completely unbidden. When I talked of the blood on Blair's hands I wasn't just referring to 'our' troops who lost their lives fighting an unnecessary war. The total body count of civillian deaths as a direct result of this war is currently estimated at between 97,196 and 106,071 ( http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ - source ). Yes, this might pale in comparison to previous conflicts, but at least in those we had a valid excuse of self-defence. 3. I'm all for bashing the 'Tory numpties', but that seems like a weird statement. It wasn't their leader who took us into two bloody, unnecessary wars with no sense of what a victory might actually look like. Yes, they all voted for them, but they weren't involved in the day-to-day running of these wars. I doubt their memoirs on the subject would shift a significant number of copies. Welcome to Prog Archives! |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 20 2010 at 05:00
| Only partially related to politics in the narrow, westminster sense perhaps, but anyone with a passing interest in the case of Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper vendor who was filmed being beaten by a police officer and died shortly afterwards, and the subsequent failure to bring said police officer to justice would do well to listen to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tdr1v - this excellent piece of reportage . Incompetency, cover-up or both? |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 20 2010 at 06:39
|
I was going to post something about the calls to re-open the enquiry around Dr David Kelly's 'suicide' and the fact that a law chief has said he will intervene to stop this, in the absence of fresh evidence, but I decided against it. I dont anticipate much interest in debating that.
In the case of Ian Tomlinson, I think there was incompetence at the outset, followed by a cover up. The police can be pretty hapless. Their superiors dont actually support them behaving in this way, but are not man enough to hold their hands up afterwards and say "Yep, we f***ed up! We're sorry. The officer's been charged with manslaughter and the chief of police has resigned, without a golden handshake" In the case of David Kelly, the fact there is much that needs to be clarified, and that the medical records were classified for 70 years, by Hutton at the end of his last whitewash, only serves to reinforce suspiscion. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: August 20 2010 at 07:04
Are you really such an insensative c**t, my brother's in the Grenadier Guards and has already served 6 months out in Afghanistan. He's come back perfectly fine, something I am very grateful for, but I am well aware that he could be seriously injured or worse out there but that wont help with my grief if the worst does happen as no one wants to lose a loved one. So what if the current death toll is less than that of either world war, we are fighting an unwinable war, something that our government should have learnt the last time Britain had armed forces stationed in the country, something that the Soviets learned in their invasion in the 80's. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: August 20 2010 at 09:49
I heard not long after the incident that it may not have been suicide and it's all come full circle again. I do suspect foul play but I doubt an enquiry will get anywhere. They never do. Cover-ups always remain covered-up. Diana - nothing was really confirmed Iraq War enquiry - same thing In the case of Ian Tomlinson, I think it's absolutely dreadful that the police officer hasn't been put in prison. -------------   
|
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 20 2010 at 10:46
Diana - Nothing to confirm. Mitchell and Webb summed it up perfectly in this sketch t'other day: Iraq War enquiry - If you mean the current one (Chilcot), it's ongoing and there have been quite a few interesting things to come out of it so far. We won't see Blair tried as a war criminal as a result, but if nothing else it will provide a wealth of material for future historians to go through and catalogue the manifold failings of the government and armed forces in the vain hope that humanity can sometimes learn from its mistakes. And regarding David Kelly, yes there needs to be a new, thorough inquiry but it won't happen under this government and will have been permanently swept under the carpet by the next. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 20 2010 at 11:03
|
Re; David Kelly, I found this interesting article in the Torygraph, by Andrew Gilligan, who broke the 'dodgy dossier' story. He seems to believe the findings of he Hutton enquiry.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7947544/David-Kelly-was-not-murdered.html - The Telegraph ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: August 20 2010 at 11:09
|
That's what I mean, David. There's nothing official to confirm, just speculation. The same applies to 9/11 (if you believe there are some dodgy things going on). We'll never know the truth (let's face it, what we have been told isn't the truth). -------------
|
Posted By: Rabid
Date Posted: August 21 2010 at 19:40
|
How many more Boom & Bust governments has the UK got to endure ? Personally, I think that ANY political party that proves it's incompetence should be banned from ever trying again, and slowly boiled to death in elephant jizz.
Just thought I'd add my own moderate views.
Politicians?
 em' . ------------- "...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..." |
Posted By: Rabid
Date Posted: August 21 2010 at 19:55
A**hole.....maybe they should bring back conscription, so that one of YOUR family can get killed fighting a war they never should have been involved in, in the first place. Let's see what your views would be, then.
It's a shame that the legal technicalities never had the chance to be questioned in a court of law, then, is'nt it?
Good on Blair for donating his profits to the British legion.......yeah, GREAT PR, isnt it ?
Moron.  ------------- "...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..." |
Posted By: Rabid
Date Posted: August 21 2010 at 20:30
We probably should have accepted them.
At least we'd be better off than the p*ss-poor state this country's now in.
Politics has blighted my life, from day ONE, and I'm fkn sick of it.
Hypocrytical, lying, incompetent t***s, the lot of em'. It's all a big game to THEM.
Maybe, a good start for them, would be to realise that it's people they're representing, not statistics.
------------- "...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..." |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: August 21 2010 at 23:50
|
Scottish Independence. That is all I want. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: August 21 2010 at 23:53
But with Scottish Independence, how will the British Government have Prime Ministers? A lot of them have been Scottish. 
-------------
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: August 21 2010 at 23:55
Clearly England, Wales, and Northern Ireland will have to produce some. |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: August 22 2010 at 03:10
|
Scotland can't afford independence (and much as Salmond claims the oil would save them,, both that idea and their entitlement to it is pretty f**king questionable), it already receives considerable preferential treatment and I have no idea how much of a problem that'd be for our armed forces except that it'd be a big one (aren't something like 30% of our armed forces Scottish?). And also, without Scotland, the chance of the Conservatives being removed from power in the next thirty-odd years goes to about zero. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: August 22 2010 at 10:51
|
Indeed, there's a lot of Labour support in Scotland and without them, England would suffer with the Tories in power. I can't see Scotland being able to support themselves anyhow. -------------
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: August 22 2010 at 11:06
If you aren't willing to get killed over something stupid you shouldn't join the military. It's still sad, of course, but every conflict in history has been kind of stupid, really.
I agree. I don't know anything about this issue, but as an American I am constitutionally bound to support the word independence in any form. Except for the secessionist parties in the US, those guys are crazy. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: August 22 2010 at 13:19
Yes! Exactly! And I understand that pain. I am terribly sorry that conservatives would pretty much never leave control. I'd hate to see that... But I feel strongly about this. Eventually people will have to get tired of them an vote labour back in. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 22 2010 at 19:26
|
I'd support independance for Albion, or perhaps even for Wessex if we could float the Isle of Wight off as an off-shore tax haven.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Rabid
Date Posted: August 22 2010 at 21:32
I totally agree, but I don't think that a soldiers sense of duty should include protecting Capitalist interests in other countries. After all, they're on a Tour of Duty...they're there to be sent where they're told to go, and it's their duty to do it. Nobody knows why Blair sent in UK troops illegally, only HE knows that, but I can't see why ANY soldier should lay down their life for an illegal war. Blair seems to think that he can just 'walk away from it'.....I doubt that. Perhaps he just wanted to 'make his mark in history', just like Thatcher did with the Falklands. I can't think of anything else he might be remembered for, except being an odious reptilian c**t.
New Labour? Old bollocks.
Same as it ever was.
(Maybe I better stop, on the politics....just seems to wind me up to fever pitch, every time.)
------------- "...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..." |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: August 22 2010 at 21:39
Fine. But as long Scotland gets their independence I am happy. Whoever else wants to is cool, but not really a priority for me. |
Posted By: Rabid
Date Posted: August 22 2010 at 21:44
It's a shame we have'nt got a Labour Party....all we've got is New Labour, and I don't exactly see them reinforcing ANY of the Labour Party ideaology. Point IS, if you ain't a fat-cat, you're gonna suffer, no matter WHO is in power.
Maybe they should privatize the political system and have the UK represented by private tender.
They've done it to everything else.
Scumbags.
------------- "...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..." |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: August 22 2010 at 21:46
Guess politics really are the same everywhere |
Posted By: Rabid
Date Posted: August 22 2010 at 22:00
Unfortunately, yes.
 ------------- "...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..." |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: August 22 2010 at 22:02
|
I used to not believe "the death of liberalism" theory...but I'm beginning too. Seems pretty much the world, (at least those very few of the world in charge) have turned from it and a system set up where really, it cant be done. Greece is an example. Either that or 'liberal' is not that left in reality and Im just way out there  |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 23 2010 at 03:30
'Liberal' certainly isn't synonymous with 'left'. Liberalism is all about individual freedoms and thus individual responsibility. This can be a positive thing when applied to ideas of freedom of speech and equality, but it gets distinctly right-wing when applied to economic concerns (i.e. freedom = consumerism, loosening controls on banking and business, reducing the public sector and allowing 'the markets' to shape society). That is effectively the agenda our current coalition government is taking - social and economic liberalism, with the emphasis squarely on the latter. |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: August 23 2010 at 03:32
| This is true. |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 23 2010 at 08:34
| Is anyone following the Labour leadership contest? Its been rattling on for months now without anything remotely exciting happening. It seems as though the real contest is between Milliband senior or Milliband junior and neither have indicated the slightest hint of fundamentally rethinking Labour's policies. They really don't seem to have noticed just how unelectable they've become, do they? |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: August 23 2010 at 08:47
|
I've been keeping track of it, David. Last time I looked, Diane Abbott was actually beating Ed Balls and wasn't far behind Andy Burnham. But yes, it's between David and Ed Millband and unfortunately, the former is in the lead. Not that I like either of them that much but Ed is the better of the two, as he's more in touch with the Unions and is more of a Brownite. -------------
|
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 08:23
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nick-clegg-there-is-no-future-for-us-as-leftwing-rivals-to-labour-2082689.html - Clegg confirms what we already knew. I can't believe I supported this opportunistic, ideologically bereft sham of a politician during the election. Never again. Unless Labour elect a leader prepared to stand up to the right wing zealots attempting to dismantle our society to please a handful of multi-millionaires, someone with the courage to renounce their party's abhorrent past and lead them away from authoritarian attacks on civil liberties, unwinnable military conflicts and damaging micro-management and target-setting culture in the public sector then, quite frankly, I'm through with politics. |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 08:34
What Labour need to realise is that there is a huge realignment of British politics going on here, and I think that it will end up in England, at least, with two main political parties a la Democrats & Republicans, with the Lib Dem Orange people such as Clegg joining a centre right Tory party. Cameron would dearly love to get rid of the nutters in his party as did Labour with the Trots a few years back, and Clegg and his pals are a way of acheiving this. Your analysis of Labour's needs is spot on. In fact, these weaknesses are what made me join Plaid Cymru in Wales. Labour has to realise that the type of statist response in terms of civil liberties, the public sector, where I work, and all manner of things, has had its day. Above all else, Labour needs to realise that it was actually the left wing/labour movement which were the original libertarians in our country, not the barking mad right wing. ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 08:51
|
What I don't understand, as an outsider, is why didn't this Clegg dude join with Labor if there is realignment going on. Why wouldn't they choose to join labor to fight the conservatives, as opposed to helping the conservatives? Then again, Cameron doesn't seem all that "right-wing", at least compared to Republicans. I think Cameron would be a Democrat in the US. Perhaps the real story in the UK is that there is no real Right? (Aside from a handful of purists here and there) In all three of your main parties, are they not simply "shades of Left?" Not stating any of this as fact, I'm just thinking out loud. I don't know much more about Euro-politics than the media here tells us.....which ain't much!  ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 09:28
Clegg wanted power. Labour had been in government since 1997, with their popularity waning year on year. After Blair left and Gordon Brown was 'installed' as our new Prime Minister (no election, not even an internal leadership election within the party), Labour's support dwindled to the point where an election victory was extremely unlikely. Many had always assumed the Lib Dems had more in common with Labour on an ideological level, but Clegg had no interest in joining forces with an unpopular party and an almost universally disliked leader.
He is a moderate within his party, and this has certainly been the key to his success, but he is a long long way from being a left-leaning politician. His economic agenda and stance on the role of the state is vehemently right wing.
Actually, the trouble seems to be that there is no real LEFT within the three main parties. During Labour's 13 years in power they quickly turned away from traditional left wing politics in favour of a staunchly centrist and, eventually, centre-right ideology. Meanwhile, after a string of shortlived and unsuccessful leaders, the Conservatives under David Cameron successfully moved towards occupying more or less identical territory. This is what led to many left-leaning voters (and one or two MPs) defecting to the Lib Dems, a party who had opposed the Iraq invasion and had generally played up their role as a left-leaning voice of dissent. Now, following Clegg's decision to unite with the Conservatives and abandon these leftist values Britain is left with a centre-right coalition government and a currently leaderless opposition party (Labour). Whether or not Labour return to their leftist roots or continue down this course of moderate, middle-ground, middle class mediocrity will depend on who they elect as their new leader. I'm not feeling very optimistic. |
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 09:32
You could turn that the other way though, and state that from my Swedish viewpoint there are only shades of Right in US politics |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 09:36
Interesting indeed. Thanks Trouser for the lesson!  But if there is no real Left, how is it that you have such a generous welfare state? Doesn't the UK accessibility to Health/Education/Welfare assistance rival that of Scandinavian social democracies? Wouldn't that be nearly impossible without a healthy (and "real") Leftist share in your government? ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 09:47
These were established long ago; 1911 in the case of the welfare state and 1948 in the case of the NHS. Any government who seriously tried to scrap either of these would have a revolution on their hands. The current government is already readying itself to slash benefits (allegedly in attempt to force people into work - speaking as someone who's been more or less unemployed for two years now, I can't quite see how that's going to work until they put some f**king effort into job creation) and is diverting money away from state education. The fact that bastions of public service like the NHS, BBC, state education etc. still remain is, in my opinion, a testament to the left-leaning nature of our society. This is why it baffles me that no mainstream politicians in the UK seem willing to stand up for left wing principles any more. |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 09:53
|
So, fair to say that you have a population very comfortable with the generous social systems, but a political class who are contemptuous of this (to varying degrees) and insistent that the degree of Gov. social expenditure cannot be sustained, due to population/aging dynamics (too few babies, too many oldsters)? They want to "reform" the system to be more lean, while the public rejects this? It would seem a ripe recipe for the emergence of a true Leftist. Don't you have a Green Party? In the US the Greens represent the most fervent Left. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 09:53
Indeed. I think triangulating for the political middle-ground is as much a phenomena in the UK as it is here in Sweden. But here that is true for both the Right and the Left (the Left more or less silently accepts tax cuts from the Right, the Right speaks about building the best welfare state in the world) However, there are obvious risks. Populist ideas tend to sneak in to the debate in such a climate and the political debate becomes deflated and anaemic, a sort of culture of agreement, where progressive and dissenting forces find it hard to voice their opinion. Political vision suffers so that political stability can prosper. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 09:56
|
UK parties are left when compared to the two US parties, though obviously not as left as David, Steve and myself would be happy with. Greens in this country are left-ish, but have some weird and incompatible ideas on science, technology and manufacturing that makes them unattractive to most voters. ------------- What? |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 09:59
Some interesting points raised here certainly. I think you know full well your conclusions are embedded in your question. Whether you like it or not, a left wing party with a traditional socialist agenda became unelectable in the UK circa 1983. (You could even argue that for the majority of Europe to boot) Neil Kinnock and John Smith were keenly aware of this shift in the groundswell of the electorate and sought to air-brush any overtly socialist principles out of their party's manifesto accordingly. Naturally, this met with stiff resistance from a trade union movement that Labour has always feared alienating due to their valuable buttressing support. I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing but at least give credit to Kinnock, Smith and Blair for realising 'middle class mediocrity' just might represent the ceiling for most of the working class voters in the UK. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 10:01
Oooh, please expand on this. As a former US Green, what is it about the UK Greens that makes you say that. I'm curious why the party I know from here is not wildly more popular in Europe, they seem to embody the progressive values I hear are desired by many of you. So I'm curious about the bolded. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 10:02
Very well put. In the UK's case at least, I think we should also acknowledge the role of a largely right wing press. One of the Labour leadership candidates (one who is, sadly, very unlikely to win) talked despairingly in a recent interview about Gordon Brown's constant attempts to please readers of the Daily Mail (a comically right wing populist paper). By paying disproportionate attention to the media, politicians grant the media disproportionate power. |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 10:13
I've flirted with voting green in the past but there are definite barriers. For example, whilst perusing their manifesto during the last European elections I noticed a proposal to ban all zoos. Now, as a committed vegetarian, ardent animal lover and advocate of animal welfare I'd be the first to recognise the cruelty of keeping animals in captivity, especially in unsuitable climates and conditions. This could be addressed through tighter regulation, and the EU is the perfect body to shape such legislation. But to simply call for a blanket ban shows a total naivety, and fails to acknowledge the important roles zoos play in conservation and education. Similarly unscientific and blinkered policies on GM foods, homepathic/alternative medicine and the like detract substantially from their often excellent environmental and social policies. The other major barrier for a lot of would-be voters is our electoral system, which makes it almost impossible for a minority candidate to gain power. |
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 10:15
In Sweden the two main problems people have with the Greens is their compact resistance to nuclear power and the fact that they want to raise the petrol tax a lot. They don't consider nuclear power safe enough, and as it's not a renewable source of energy (even though it's nearly CO2 neutral), they think the money should go into developing alternative sources of energy instead. This (understandably) make traditional left-voters in industry unions a bit uncomfortable, energy-intensive as their workplaces are. They won't close down reactors on purely ideological reasons though (even though that's the ultimate goal, naturally), but it still makes many feel a bit uneasy about them. Raising of the petrol tax. Doesn't sit well with the rural areas. Thirdly, a very progressive stance on most social issues, even with Swedish standards. But will still be the third largest party if the numbers stay the same until Monday  .They'll get my vote tomorrow. Oh, and they actually have a rich history of not so great ideas. Born from alternative, 70s, live-in-a-cabin-in-the-woods-with-goats-in-the-living-room, prog-listening hippies. Hrm. But they've grown up. |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 10:23
This is all true, times and attitudes change. I personally believe that Britain is ready for change once again and, if the right people make the right decisions, we could see a genuine, united left emerge before the end of the decade. As unemployment continues to rise, benefits are slashed, our public services are squeezed and prices continue to rise I believe there will be a real appetite for an alternative. What I'm less sure about is Labour's willingness to be that alternative. |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 10:42
@Finnforest, I think a majority in the UK is 326 seats... the Coalition Gov't has a margin of 37 or so, while a 'Rainbow Coalition' (Labour, Lib Dems and various nationalist parties and our one and only Green MP) would've had a tiny majority and been beholden to the whims of absolute minority parties. In political terms, it just wasn't plausible in a country where parliament has to ratify just about all of the executive's decisions. It would've been completely impossible for a Lib-Dem Labour coalition to work for a lot of reasons. Not least a fair number of individual Labour party members pathetically trying to make personal political capital from hammering Brown/declaring they'd lost the election/attacking the notion of Mandelson's 'Rainbow Coalition' idea and trying to knock down the Lib Dems. If Labour had approached the last election as a party and not as individuals, they might have kept enough of the vote to be able to form a coalition now. What everyone has to understand here is that the chance to push through electoral reform is a literal once in a lifetime chance (if even that). Such reform is certainly the most important thing politically for the country in the long term. If Clegg gets a trajectory towards meaningful electoral reform here by a successful AV referendum (which both of the other parties have supported when it looked like they were at a disadvantage but disdained when actually in power), then I can't fault him. |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 10:46
What kind of reform is this that is so badly needed? What would it achieve going forward? ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 10:46
| How many parties are currently represented in the UK parliament? |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 10:55
I emigrated to Australia in 2000 so do not have any sort of feel for the current British political climate but if what you say is apparant (and my friends in the UK seem to support your view) there may be some genuine optimism for credible change in the offing. It just occurred to me after I read your post that there are voters in the UK whose formative years were spent entirely within Thatcher's 4 terms at Number 10. As you state, the dissent will not be sourced from any ideological platform, but the genuine fears and hardships inflicted upon the population. T'was ever thus alas. -------------
|
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 10:58
|
The few Green candidates and spokespeople I've met appear to have little understanding of the comprehensive government or the economics they espouse and they lean towards a degree of left I'm not really comfortable with. Regrettable, really. If they stuck to being primarily an advocacy of a more neutral pro-environmental approach rather than trying to pick up old Labour's rather oversized clothes, they might be more electable. @Finnforest, I think the conception of Left/Right is very relative. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say almost everyone in the UK would consider the Republican party the extreme Right, and a lot of them wouldn't really consider the Democrats to constitute the Left. As has been said, the media has a disproportionately right-wing mindset, as does the education system. I was basically taught that right-wing economics was the correct answer in school (and this is only a few years back) and only really reconsidered it independently and after seeing a couple of speakers who genuinely understood and believed in the principles of the left-wing economic policy they were defending (Dave Nellist in particular). |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 11:06
Um, 10 and an independent, I think. Though about 6 of those are specifically nationalist parties limited in location to Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland, and the 7th is the Greens with one MP. Also, LIIINUS!!!  |
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 11:11
|
BLOB! But electoral reform...it's all about parliamentary representation better reflecting the results of the popular vote, if I recall correctly? |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 11:14
|
Very interesting Rob, that the Greens there are viewed as somewhat naive, I think they suffer from that here too. Although Ralph Nader gave the party a very seasoned head for a few cycles. Beware the common perceptions of the US though. As with the UK I think these media perceptions are too simple, things are always more complicated. It's overstating to believe that all Rs are knuckle dragging extremists, and that all Ds are centrist. IMO, anyway. I personally know many moderate conservatives among my friends and family, and I know many Ds who are truly to the Left. But I'll leave it that, this is the UK thread, not a US thread. That is why I was so interested in your perceptions in this thread....its great to get the guy on the UK street view rather than what we read in the media. Thanks guys, nice to learn a bit about the UK's politics  ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 11:17
Our parliament is elected on a first-past-the-post basis. The Labour and Conservative parties get between them an inflated (by tactical voting) 65-70% of the vote most elections but normally at least 85% of the seats (most of the rest are grabbed by nationalists and the Lib Dems). They also tend to win solid majorities from what are far less than half of the electorate. At the last election the Lib Dems gained a small increase in percentage share of the overall vote and still lost six seats. Blair won a majority of comfortably over 60% (I think) of the seats available from only 43.2% of the vote... I don't think that's democratic... at best, it's democracy based on an obviously outdated local perspective and at worst it's a self-perpetuating system that ensures the over-representation of some areas and the primacy of the two main parties. Really, we need a democratic system rather closer to straight proportional representation (the single transferrable vote sounds most appealing of the options we currently use in various non-parliamentary elections in the UK to me) but alternative vote will at least correct some of the representation problems we have here and will hopefully make it harder for the currently leading party to sweep electoral reform under the rug whenever they're not under threat of losing power. |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 11:20
|
Oh, proportional representation, that I get. I just didn't realize that was what was meant by electoral reform.
------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 11:23
 Pretty sure that 90% of anything we hear about the US here is about the fringes or vast over-generalisations (the Tea Party comes up an alarming amount... a strange celebration of the destruction of privately owned property by a mob). Sure if I knew more about the US's politics, I'd be more aware of the nuances within it. |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 12:09
|
^ Yes Rob, and even the Teas are not presented entirely accurately in the media. What you get in the media are caricatures of the most extreme folks at the front of the rally, not the kitchen table concerns of the throngs of people who are fairly average, lower middle class Americans. It's much better reading to focus on the guy with the Obama-Joker sign than the majority who are simply concerned about their checkbook, job, and kids, the majority who could care less about dressing up like a patriot and getting on television. Teas are often social traditionalists yes, but not every single one is the hatemonger you're told they are. Most of them don't go to rallies, so these kitchen table types are not heard from. You only hear from the most outspoken who like to rabble and be wild. Some Teas are also disaffected, conservative leaning indies who are upset, as the far Lefties are, that their Gov isn't paying more than lip service to their views. So you see Teas defecting from the R party. And I imagine you'll see Lefties defecting the D party if they feel Obama is not delivering, which is the vibe I get from many of the Lefty friends. So perhaps UK and US politics are not so different. But in the US, the Greens are the only place Ds can currently defect to. Perhaps the Left will begin their own version of the Teas in the future, a place to defect and push the Establishment parties from. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 12:43
|
The trouble with the left in this country, aside from a reluctance to move away from outdated statist positions, is the appalling tendency to continually split. It is the single most defining and unappealing aspect of our left wing politics. So, we have The Socialist Party, Socialist Labour Party, Respect, Respect Reform, Communist Party of Great Britain, Socialist Workers Party, and so on and so forth ad nauseum. As soon as one lot springs up, you can bet your bottom dollar that some member within will declare that comrades do not expouse true socialism, and bugger off and start a new "pure" party. Then they will split asunder, and, well, you get the picture. The Green Party suffers from this a little bit from attempting to portray itself as an "old Labour" party and finding out that many comrades will simply not be able to offer their full support, because the socialism portrayed is not "pure" enough. In addition to this, they have the added problem of attempting to make themselves electable under our arcane electoral system. I have been fighting for many years within my trade union to bring together a coalition of like minded, radical, libertarian, yet realistic socialists in order to offer a credible alternative to the right wing. I am of an age now where I realise this will probably never happen, and, depressingly, I am only 45! The Labour Party will not change dramatically under which ever Muppet is elected as leader. Indeed, Tony Benn himself once declared that his party was a shocking disappointment in office. He was right then, and he is right now. It is simplistic to merely blame this on a right wing media, although this doesn't help. It is the party itself which has moved so far away from the traditions and values that made the labour movement great. The splinter parties try to hold on to ritual politics that simply have no place in the modern world. Therein lies the problem. How does a credible left wing party offer a modern alternative to the right wing hegemony prevalent these days, one that commits itself to localism, whilst protecting the weak and vulnerable? One that doesn't bankrupt the bloody country every time it comes to power? Sorry all....rant over ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 12:46
i'd love a proportional representation system over here. The teabaggers would get all the representation they are due. I find it odd that even in this thread US politics are intruding. I was checking in to see what was going on over there, over there, over there... ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 18 2010 at 13:03
|
Only briefly Brian, as we were discussing parallels between US and UK. Other than that I'm more interested in learning about the UK which is why I asked what I did. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 03:27
|
The Labour Party for years have just been Tories with red ties on - they don't support the Unions, though moved money in the right directions but were frightened by criticism for wasting billions on "worthless" causes, the few members who supported the real Social issues were told to shut up in case they frightened off the "voters".
No doubt one of the chuckle brothers will win the Labour leadership election, though as Dianne Abbot, who got my vote, is criticised for promoting "leftist" policy...ironically this is no good for winning votes, so she will never win.
Once the Labour Party led the people, now they are dictated to by invisible Tory voters...many average working people who voted Lib/Tory are traitors, working class snobs, as the very life style they now enjoy was from the Unions and the Labour party battling against the Tory establishment many years ago, privileges many today take for granted - holidays, health service, sick pay, pensions, all fought for by Labour.
There is still a lot of work to do, watch out this winter as the fight hots up against Tory cuts on our hard won and meticulously built social benefits, they''ll be screaming for mercy but don't blame the Unions, the Tories with red ties caused it all...
.
.
.
. ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 05:03
This is precisely the sort of drab class-war bile that makes it impossible for a left-wing party to get elected here. I think that the centre-left policies of new labour are going to remain the best option until the real left wing starts attempting to engage with a broader electorate. |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: September 19 2010 at 05:44
|
^ old fashioned class war bile it may be, agreed , but the class war is still ongoing, there is no point ignoring that it exists as large as ever, the public school tallo-ho types are still running the Conservative party, what more have we got to lose - maybe the real left wing will engage with the broader electorate after this winter, but they'll blame the unions as usual
i am not one of these btw, though sometimes i think i should be...
  .
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|