Continuation General UK Politics III - Dumb and Dumber

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

It feels as if we're in the early-mid 1990s, with a Tory government that's been in power too long and a change is desperately needed. But the difference this time is there isn't an alternative which convinces enough voters it would be a competent replacement. Back then we had John Smith looking as trustworthy and sensible as an old-style bank manager, allaying the fears of more reactionary voters about what Labour might do if given power. Sadly he didn't live to see it, but fundamentally, then as now it was a wide open goal, the Tories were a complete ******** and all Labour had to do was look electable. Under Smith (and eventually Blair) they did.

I still maintain that if had not been for that disasterous decision to make an alliance with the Tories, the Liberal Democrats would be in a pretty good position.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by 3point14

True.

I suspect this is part of the problem...

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAte..._disaster_our/

Yes,it is a problem. but that does get Labor off the hook for not finding a way to fight it. You seem to think that Labor can do no worng and incapable of error, and when they lose it is never their fault.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by erwinl

In the end it is the British voter that is ultimately at blame.
No matter if Labour, or Corbyn in particular, was not the perfect antidote against the Tories, in the end the voters went with the Tory option.
No matter by voting for Tory, or by abstaining voting for Labour.

If the effective choice is between A and B, and the only way to stop A is by letting B win, then every vote not for B (be they for C or abstaining) is in effect a vote for A.
This is the unfortunate result of the British (and American) political system.
Maybe a better system is needed? One where minor parties can also be of influence and where the endresult of a majority government does automaically mean they have the vote of the majority of the voters behind them.
Does mean that there have to be compromises and a willingness of working together with people of other parties though.

On the other hand, we have several Democracies who are in constant crisis because small parties have too much power in Parliament..I give you Italy and Israel.
Problem with the small party solution is that small parties tend to be even more driven by ideology and don't want to compromise then the major parties.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Yes,it is a problem. but that does get Labor off the hook for not finding a way to fight it. You seem to think that Labor can do no worng and incapable of error, and when they lose it is never their fault.

No. I just think they're not to blame for Brexit. And that the playing field is not level.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by 3point14

No. I just think they're not to blame for Brexit. And that the playing field is not level.

Which dodges the questions.
And how to you level the playing field, outside of throwing away freedom of speech and shutting down the Tory press,which IMHO would pretty much be the ball game as far as freedom goes in the UK.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Which dodges the questions.

Which questions? I was responding to your accusation. There isn't a question in the post to which I was responding.

Quote:

And how to you level the playing field, outside of throwing away freedom of speech and shutting down the Tory press,which IMHO would pretty much be the ball game as far as freedom goes in the UK.

I don't know. A more equatable voting system would go some way towards it. And investment in public education to teach people how to spot when they're being lied to. But I can't see either of those happening.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I still maintain that if had not been for that disasterous decision to make an alliance with the Tories, the Liberal Democrats would be in a pretty good position.

Yes, maybe but only as a coalition partner IMO.

They don't have the blue collar support the other parties enjoy.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I still maintain that if had not been for that disasterous decision to make an alliance with the Tories, the Liberal Democrats would be in a pretty good position.

That was a result of the leaders of both parties sharing political ideals that were not the mainstream of their own parties - they were both liberals (in the truest use of the term not your weird USA use )

[wobs]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I still maintain that if had not been for that disasterous decision to make an alliance with the Tories, the Liberal Democrats would be in a pretty good position.

What would/might have happened if they hadn't?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by wobs

What would/might have happened if they hadn't?

New election - with Labour and the Libs going into an election pact?

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Vixen

"Markets Shudder as Pound Slides at Scale of Challenge Facing Truss".

How long before the pound is at parity with the dollar, I wonder.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

How long before the pound is at parity with the dollar, I wonder.

Good question.

Of course a falling pound creates its own inflationary pressures (and political headaches) for the government to deal with.

A typical response would be to raise interest rates (to both bolster the currency and to restrict money supply) but that's not something you want to do if you're just about to borrow another £100bn to support energy company profits.

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I still maintain that if had not been for that disasterous decision to make an alliance with the Tories, the Liberal Democrats would be in a pretty good position.

It certainly cost them some support from folk like me, who voted in 2005 and 2010 for a well-established sitting Lib Dem MP, who previously had a decent reputation as a constituency MP and for being socially liberal.

However, I hadn't really heard of or paid any attention to the Orange Book, as if I had I would have known that a section of the Lib Dems were pretty much rabid free market Tory in their economic views, not even milder One Nation stylee Tory. This is not something which would attract anyone of even mildy left of centre views (that'll be Bernie Sanders, or probably to the left of Sanders, in US terms). Nor had we been made aware that Clegg would go into coalition with the Tories at the time we cast our early, postal votes, as if we had our voting would have been different.

The lack of contrition for the policies of the coalition, whose negative effects we are still experiencing, is something some of us find hard to forgive.

Whether not doing any of that would have put them in a "good position" is more debatable, as, aside from a surge of support in the 80s for the Social Democrats after they bailed on Labour, neither component of the Lib Dems have enjoyed consistent electoral success in terms of votes and even less in terms of seats.

[PS for any Brits reading, I am familiar with the 19th century differences between Liberals and Tories on free markets and the rest, but most of the present day Tory party are a different set of beasts and beliefs.]

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by dudalb

This is why I am not crazy about the way the Parties in the UK end up selecting a leader;IMHO the rank and film party member should have a much more direct say in who will lead the party. the way things stand it is far too easy in both parties for a small clique to get their person in.

In the same way the US Republican party "choose" Trump?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Bollocks.
The membership of the Conservative party voted for Truss, around 160,000 people out of 48 million, or one in three hundred. And an utterly unrepresentative proportion, either by age, location, gender, ethnicity or personal wealth.
Around 64% male, >95% "white British", >80% ABC1, median age 57.

Curiously, although clearly unrepresentative, it's less extremely unrepresentative than I would have guessed. Apart from the 64% male, those might be the stats for Radio 4 listeners. Median age only 57. I'm genuinely surprised.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

How long before the pound is at parity with the dollar, I wonder.

Probably tomorrow - in terms of spending power it is pretty much already below the dollar now.

Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max
From:
USA $1,099
UK £1,199

[Ian Osborne]

Originally Posted by dudalb

This is why I am not crazy about the way the Parties in the UK end up selecting a leader;IMHO the rank and film party member should have a much more direct say in who will lead the party. the way things stand it is far too easy in both parties for a small clique to get their person in.

The problem with that is it's far too easy for people to join a party with the specific intention of electing a poor leader. There's evidence that this actually happened when Corbyn was elected leader – see an online blog suggestion to do just that here. The Labour Party then had to dig into its membership listings and weed out those who were found to support other parties. It took ages to clear up.

[Lothian]

Looks like Boris bumped off Liz.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62836057

Is there nothing that man hasn't ruined?

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by The Don

Yes, maybe but only as a coalition partner IMO.

They don't have the blue collar support the other parties enjoy.

They don't in terms of name / actual votes but [anecdotal mode] I've lost count of the number of people I've talked to who say 'Well I tend to agree with the Liberal Democrats and would love to see them in power but they'll never get in so it's a wasted vote so I'll vote Tory / Labour' [/anecdotal mode].

Mind you, that did decrease after the coalition...not just because they got shafted by the Tories but because they so obviously and naively let themselves get shafted by the Tories. Bad news? Trot out the Lib Dem person to give it. Good news? Trot out the Tory, don't mention the Lib Dems. Compromise on Policy? Yup, you give us what we want and....well eventually we'll allow a vote on proportional representation which won't really be a good version of PR and we'll make sure it's made to sound really complex, campaign vigorously against it and get our press buddies to savage it to death. Fair enough?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by dudalb

When I first went to the UK, I was shocked by what the main papers are like.

In the USA most would be classed as magazines rather than newspapers.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Lothian

Looks like Boris bumped off Liz.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62836057

Is there nothing that man hasn't ruined?

I for one am glad she lived to see Boris off.

Especially after the way he lied to her re proroguing parliament, and partying the night before the Queen had to sit alone at her late husband's funeral.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I for one am glad she lived to see Boris off.

Especially after the way he lied to her re proroguing parliament, and partying the night before the Queen had to sit alone at her late husband's funeral.

No she didn’t that was her choice.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Darat

No she didn’t that was her choice.

Unlike BoJo, she was setting a good example. She was very likely advised to by the 'men in grey suits'.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Unlike BoJo, she was setting a good example. She was very likely advised to by the 'men in grey suits'.

What - sit on your own for no reason? There were plenty of people she could have sat with under the regulations of the time.

[William Parcher]

The Queen has died.

[KDLarsen]

Johnson must be absolutely livid, now he won't get to play the grand statesman during all the ceremonies to come.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by KDLarsen

Johnson must be absolutely livid, now he won't get to play the grand statesman during all the ceremonies to come.

I’m not a Churchill fan but Churchill to Truss, really encompasses the decline of the UK.

[Darat]

According to the kid who was giving her English lesson speech outside number 10 it is to be Charles the Turd.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Darat

According to the kid who was giving her English lesson speech outside number 10 it is to be Charles the Turd.

I wondered. Everyone has been saying "the king" and avoiding naming him as they haven't had an announcement of what name he wants to be called. Truss either got the inside info it's to be "Charles" or she just blundered and nobody managed to stop her. Even money on that one.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

I wondered. Everyone has been saying "the king" and avoiding naming him as they haven't had an announcement of what name he wants to be called. Truss either got the inside info it's to be "Charles" or she just blundered and nobody managed to stop her. Even money on that one.

This is after all the woman who got the Black Sea confused with the Baltic. Whilst she was Foreign Secretary.

[ponderingturtle]

I want King Chuck!

[catsmate]

It's King Charles III.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Vixen

In the USA most would be classed as magazines rather than newspapers.

You are unfamiliar with the NY Post? The Washington Times?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I want King Chuck!

By all means take him.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Lothian

Looks like Boris bumped off Liz.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62836057

Is there nothing that man hasn't ruined?

No, clearly she met Truss and lost the will to live. Her passing will of course mean weeks in which normal politics will be off the table.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by catsmate

It's King Charles III.

A sick spaniel?

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by catsmate

It's King Charles III.

I could have sworn that some years back Charles announced he would not be crowned as Charles III, my faulty memory or a change of heart on his part?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Garrison

I could have sworn that some years back Charles announced he would not be crowned as Charles III, my faulty memory or a change of heart on his part?

I vaguely remember the same, I think his preference was to be another George.

ETA: We didn't imagine it.

Quote:

Back in 2005, multiple reports said the Prince had discussed giving up the title Charles III because of unfortunate associations with previous monarchs named Charles. (Charles I was the only member of the monarchy to be tried and executed for treason, and his son, Charles II, who was known for his legendary love life, ruled during a particularly nasty bout of the plague and the Great Fire of London.)According to The Guardian, Charles, who was christened Charles Philip Arthur George, held private talks with “trusted friends” about the possibility of using his third middle name and reigning as George VII. And former Buckingham Palace press spokesman Dickie Arbiter said by using the name George, Charles would be paying tribute to the both his grandparents.

"It would not just be a tribute to his grandfather [King George VI], but a sort of loving memory to his late grandmother, whom he absolutely adored," Arbiter told the BBC at the time.

But Clarence House quickly denied these claims. "No decision has been made and it will be made at the time,” Charles’ representatives said in response to the news.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

The Queen has died.

So now would be a bad day to point out that a watery tart lobbing a scimitar at you is no basis for a system of government?

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

The Queen has died.

Possibly too soon:

I can't believe Truss' impression on the Queen was so bad that she decided to die instead of having to work with her.