The Politics Thread

As if we needed another reason to hate Trump

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/foo...arsenal-kit-on-white-house-lawn-a3518296.html

Explains his matey-ness with TCM (That **** Morgan)!!

 

Then as the saying goes, the people get the government they deserve.
But as I said, first try and get all of the electorate off their arses to vote.

 

Has anyone else spotted how the Lib Dems are suddenly being talked up ahead of this election? Let's be honest here, it would take a Herculean effort for them to do worse than they did in the 2015 election, but what's the best they can achieve? Retake their third spot in Westminster from the SNP? At the end of the day, even if they have a great election, they're still going to be little more than coalition partners.

What I'm more interested in seeing is how the UKIP collapse plays out. The assumption is that the 'kippers will drift back to the Tories, but while that's likely anywhere south of Watford, I very much doubt that will be the case in the constituencies further north where they've been preying on disenfranchised voters, where it's more likely that they'll stay at home - in which case that boosts Labour's chances as the wheels have fallen off the Tory Trojan horse.

 

I suspect that many voters who unfairly punished them and not the Tories
in 2015 for the coalition may come back into the fold. In which case an on
paper reduction of the Tory majority. In Scotland, I doubt they will recover
seats from the SNP.

UKIP.
The 2015 and referendum results showed that leaving the EU does not
mean that sufficient voters in Labour "brood-mare" constituencies are
going to abandon Labour for UKIP in a general election.

The above is mainly why I am going for the result to be a reduced Tory
majority, or hung parliament.

 

No surprises here then...

 

Unfairly? Not only was Clegg little more than an enabler for the Cameron/Osborne axis of weasel, the fact they went back on their election pledges one after the other within their first six months in power - and at least once tried to fob off the public by saying something along the lines of "It was just an election pledge, it didn't mean anything!" they were always going to lose a glut of seats in response to that. The only surprise was that losing half their seats was something to expect, but losing 85% of their seats was an eye-opener.

It's not Labour voters that UKIP prey upon, it's Anyone But Labour voters they prey upon - which has been a mine that the Lib Dems have used many times over the years, most successfully in 2010.

This is where UKIP are in trouble: for years they have claimed to be an anti-establishment party (but let's not get bogged down in proving what a farce that claim is...) yet now they're stuck between continuing to claim they're the party for the disenfranchised or having to tell their followers to vote Tory to get what they want - which in a lot of constituencies isn't going to achieve an awful lot as the Tories are hardly going to have a 40% swing in their favour off the back of the UKIP vote, and as I said that's more likely to have your average 'kipper stay at home.

No, no, no - it'll be a landslide and salt will be cast upon the smoldering ruins of Labour HQ so no politics will grow there again, and anyone who disagrees gets a stint in Room 101.

 

Sure. The free tuition stuff was a hard one for them to have to bite.

I was more interested in whether they would throw the toys out of the pram
at the first opportunity when in coalition to cause unworkable govt, or
whether they would step up to the job at hand. IMHO they did that, but
did not deserve the scale of the punishment. A punishment that in fact
helped get the Tories in with a majority (act in haste, repent at leisure) .

 

There was also the flustercuck that was the alternative vote referendum, which Clegg utterly botched from the outset: rather than demand assurances on the referendum, or even enforce a three line whip, he just assumed it would go ahead in good faith - and it was torpedoed by the Tories the second it was in the water, as did their mates Murdoch, Dacre and Desmond at every opportunity.

 

Having read a lot of Orwell's work, I find it interesting how people have differing views on what they deem to be Orwellian and their interpretations thereof.

Parts of the statement above I agree with such as mass surveillance, systematic character assassination (which has been with us for ages now) and the national broadcaster controlling the narrative. However, to effectively call this election a decision of whether you want to live in a free country (implying that is to remain a part of the EU) or not (to repatriate rule of law to parliament) I find questionable...

In 1984, "The Party" was an unelected bureaucratic organisation that rules without question and those that opposed would be swiftly dealt with (as Winston Smith soon found out). The world was in perpetual war (ring any bells?), fought between Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia - all superstates formed from numerous countries which emerged from a global atomic war.

One could argue that the EU is the early formations of Eurasia, which is a system of unelected bureaucrats enjoying unlimited amounts of power, immunity and opulence (through their chauffeur driven limos and cocktail parties) - none of which any of us has the power to stop due to a lack of any democratic process to elect or remove them.

As each new directive and treaty is ratified, more powers leave each nation state which are then transferred to the centralised control of the elites in Eurasia, or in this case we could say Brussels. So how exactly is that freedom? Freedom to move should not be confused with freedom to choose and I think that is the fundamental difference between some of the arguments from the remain and Brexit camps.

I could go on for hours to be fair but I would just start to ramble. That's just a fraction of the thoughts I have about this interesting statement.

 

Please keep up...... #3420

 

The parallels certainly apply to May's vision for the grim future

The Party was an unelected bureaucratic organisation that rules without question - Exactly like Theresa May's government, which was not elected yet has spent the past nine months stomping a path through everything in order to force their agenda onto everything.

those that opposed would be swiftly dealt with - When Michael Heseltine disagreed with May's handling of the Britait negotiations, not only did May remove him from that role she also fired him from his other advisory roles, such as industrial strategy.

a system of unelected bureaucrats enjoying unlimited amounts of power, immunity and opulence - Cameron appointed 189 peers to the House of Lords during his tenure, which is 20% of the number of Lords currently in the House. I cannot help but notice that, in spite of May's rhetoric about "saboteurs" there is no move to overhaul the House.

none of which any of us has the power to stop due to a lack of any democratic process to elect or remove them - The FPTP system does a fine job of stultifying the democratic process, as at best it has reduced British politics to a two-party system - and May's already trying to wield this against the SNP.

As each new directive and treaty is ratified, more powers leave each nation state which are then transferred to the centralised control of the elites in Eurasia - Honestly, you can just replace the last word of that sentence to "Westminster" and the sentence is just as accurate. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own governments, yet they are more powerless now than ever.

 

That's something of an exaggeration, HBIC. The Student grants issue stands out of course, but simply by entering into a coalition means there had to be compromises.
They deserve some credit for reining in some of the worst excesses of the Tories and are probably the only moderate progressive party still standing. They also have a leader whose own principals have remained strong - including the only one to have opposed the Iraq war!
But the chances of them regaining sufficient seats to be of influence in the next parliament are thin to say the least.

 

There's a difference between compromising and bending over while Cameron & Co borrowed the concrete dildo that needed breaking in as, seven years down the line, it would be meeting someone who at that time was in Barnsley's youth team.

Also, your claim that Farron was the only party leader to vote against the Iraq War is wrong for two reasons:
i.) Tim Farron didn't become an MP until 2005, meaning he did not have a Commons vote at the time of the Iraq War
ii.) Jeremy Corbyn voted against it: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/19/uk.houseofcommons3

 

I stand corrected on the 'leader' points - I should have said that the LibDems were the only major party to vote against the Iraq War.
However I stand by their contribution to the Coalition.

 

The Party was an unelected bureaucratic organisation that rules without question - Exactly like Theresa May's government, which was not elected yet has spent the past nine months stomping a path through everything in order to force their agenda onto everything.
~ The Tories were elected, just a change of leadership so I think that’s a somewhat cynical view of the situation. I take your point but we have elections to change that and have just been given one. If we really want rid of her, we have the power to do that. We can’t if Jean Claude Drunker needs to be removed can we. We're stuck with him and their answer to every problem is more Europe, more integration i.e tranference of powers.

those that opposed would be swiftly dealt with - When Michael Heseltine disagreed with May's handling of the Britait negotiations, not only did May remove him from that role she also fired him from his other advisory roles, such as industrial strategy.
~ My viewpoint was actually describing the proles, not opposition politicians which do not even exist in Orwell’s 1984 - just Goldstein who was a revolutionary. So this doesn’t just apply to political opposition within the corridors of power, it also applies to us on the outside as well.

a system of unelected bureaucrats enjoying unlimited amounts of power, immunity and opulence - Cameron appointed 189 peers to the House of Lords during his tenure, which is 20% of the number of Lords currently in the House. I cannot notice that, in spite of May's rhetoric about "saboteurs" there is no move to overhaul the House.
~ The House of Lords is a whole other argument especially when you consider how many Liberal peers there are - that's a total joke it itself! Surely we’re creating another HOL that will effectively control power absolutely at the very forefront of power via the European Parliament. The Lords are merely sent bills to vote on that have already been approved via Parliament. The EU creates laws behind closed doors without debate or public oversight. Which do you prefer?

none of which any of us has the power to stop due to a lack of any democratic process to elect or remove them - The FPTP system does a fine job of stultifying the democratic process, as at best it has reduced British politics to a two-party system - and May's already trying to wield this against the SNP.
~ The FPTP system needs to go, that's for sure but it won't anytime soon and we both know why. But any voting system is better than no voting system. Last time I checked, a two party system (or more) that can be removed or voted out is a far better option than one immovable superstate which is where the EU is clearly headed.

As each new directive and treaty is ratified, more powers leave each nation state which are then transferred to the centralised control of the elites in Eurasia - Honestly, you can just replace the last word of that sentence to "Westminster" and the sentence is just as accurate. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own governments, yet they are more powerless now than ever.
~ Sorry, but that makes no sense to me, especially seeing how much influence the SNP now has and is wielding. In the context of UK governance vs the EU (which is what I’m highlighting essentially); when EU treaties are passed, powers are transferred from the UK (and other nation states) to the centralised EU superstate, not the other way around. Once gone, they are extrememly hard to repatriate - impossible jn fact.

As for anywhere other than England or more accurately London/Westminster having zero influence, I think this is due to a disease that runs through the political class in London not even acknowledging there is a country outside the capital. Like it or not, they only started to take notice of the rest of us since June 23 last year and it was long overdue.

 

The cynical way of looking at things is to claim that Jean Claude Juncker is an unelected figurehead, which is patently untrue.

Juncker was the chosen candidate of the European People's Party ahead of the 2014 European parliamentary elections. The EPP won the largest number of seats in that election, in countries as diverse as Germany (the EPP's home nation), France, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Croatia, and Juncker's home nation of Luxembourg. As the EPP won the most seats, their elected candidate became president.

An argument can be made for the fact there was no EPP equivalent standing in the UK, as in the European parliament Labour count as Social Democrats, the Tories as Conservatives, Lib Dems as Liberal Democrats, Greens/SNP/Plaid Cymru as Greens and UKIP as Holy **** Little Englanders Have Given These Chancers 24 Bloody Seats...sorry, "Europe of Freedom and Democracy" that means that the British voting public DID have the chance to vote Juncker in - but they don't have the chance to vote him out because Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious means Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious (or whatever empty platitude May wants to use this wee)

Compare this to Theresa May's premiership: not only does she not have a mandate, as the electorate voted for Cameron's mandate in 2015 while she was Home Secretary, but she didn't even win a vote to become Tory leader as Gove and Boris flamed out while Leadsome stepped aside at the last minute to allow May to sweep into power. Short of divine rule or a military coup, that's as unelected as a leader can get.

It's worth pointing out that, when May was Home Secretary, anyone who disagreed with her tended to find themselves looking for a new job - for example the current head of the National Trust, who May happened to find an excuse to publicly smear a couple of weeks ago when she was looking for a distraction as she was off to visit our 9/11-committing, ISIS-funding, refugee-murdering allies in Saudi Arabia.

It's also worth remembering she was hardly calling off her attack dogs at the Daily Mail when they launched their Two Minutes Hate on the supreme court, while she's been more than happy to demonize the British public on numerous occasions during her premiership, most obviously using the word "saboteur" for anyone who doesn't shut up and fall in line with her vision for a united Airstrip One.

There's a simple counter-argument to this: the snooper's charter. Theresa May, who at the time was Home Secretary, wanted it passed into law sometime between 2013-14 but it repeatedly got blocked: in 2013 it failed to get passed when Clegg pulled his support, while in 2014 it failed to get through when various ISPs told May they would not comply with her demand that they hand over people's browsing data nor would they reduce encryption on secure data so the government could access it (in other words they told her she was being an idiot and she should **** off) - yet it got bulldozed into law last November, ignoring the debate and public consultations completely because It's What Theresa Wants. Is that democratic?

Here's the issue with the "any voting system is better than no voting system" argument: it allows flawed voting systems to remain. Both the FPTP system and the Electoral College, for two obvious examples, are both deeply flawed and practically enforce two-party systems, as all that third-party candidates can hope for is one party fails to win enough seats that they can enter a coalition at best, at worst they're just hoping to nick votes off another party to keep them out of power - neither of which is democratic.

Meanwhile, as I stated before, the EU isn't a monolithic superstate if the voting public can elect members to the European Council, which in turn elects the president of the council. True, there's obvious issues with the alignment of the party grouping (obvious examples include the Lib Dems and the Basque Separatists, Sinn Fein and Alexis Tsipras' party, the DUP with the French National Front, and UKIP with some Dutch Calvinists opposed to universal suffrage...yes, really) but, again, British people were in a position to not elect Juncker as there wasn't a British representative of the EPP, and given the Social Democrats had a surge in votes in 2014 that implies the people of Europe are either turning against the EPP, or turning against their regional representatives.*

* For the last point, I'll just list a few parties that are tied in with the EPP
Christian Democratic Union, Germany (chairperson: Angela Merkel)
Union for a Popular Movement, France (president: Nicolas Sarkozy)
Forza Italia, Italy (president: Silvio Berlusconi)

Can't see why people across Europe might want to vote against that lot, eh?

If the SNP have influence, they'd be able to call for their IndyRef2 - instead they have to meekly ask Westminster for permission, and unless Nicola Sturgeon confiscates Theresa May's insulin and says she won't give it back until they get the referendum, there's no way Ol' Swivel-Eyes will be letting them have one.

...and I bet that's the first you've ever heard about Theresa May being diabetic, isn't it?

Also, the thing with EU laws compared to UK laws is that, while trade, agriculture, fisheries and the environment do have an EU slant to them, as those affect the EU as much as the UK - yet on the other hand things such as health, education, welfare and criminal law are weighted towards the UK...and look what the Tories have done since 2010 to the things they have got power over: systematic destruction of those services so they can force what they want onto the British public. To be honest, seeing what the NHS has been reduced to, I cannot understand why people weren't asking the obvious question about how the EU would allow this - but of course the answer would be that healthcare is the responsibility of the government and the government alone, which doesn't fit into the Narrative of straight cucumbers and bendy bananas.

And to be honest Westminster still isn't paying attention to the wider political landscape. The only time Theresa May was seen in Copeland for that by-election was when she was stood in front of the cameras claiming victory for herself (while the new MP was shoved out of the way of the cameras) - in comparison Corbyn canvassed in both Copeland and Stoke, yet we're told he's not a leader because...?

You can see how little May thinks of the public outside her sphere with her blanket refusal to participate in televised debates and demand that they should not take place as she is not there, and if that didn't make it clear her suggestion of a televised Q&A session where she (and only she) faces a "real" audience makes it abundantly clear, because do you think if you or I or anyone else on this forum applied to be in that "real" audience we wouldn't be vetted within an inch of our lives before being told we didn't make the cut as we didn't fit some unwritten profile or what a "real" audience member is?

 

COWARDICE WATCH

Waffling gargoyle and person responsible for the utter mess the country is now in Nigel Farage, a waste of blood and organs who was recently described as the human embodiment of the feeling when you wake up and think about how many spiders you have swallowed as you sleep, has said he won't be standing as an MP in this election - a decision that certainly wasn't made due to the likelihood of getting utterly humiliated when the vote count is announced.

Meanwhile, unelected Prime Minister Theresa May has supported her claim that she didn't need to be held to account in a televised debate as she would take the election to the people...by being flown by helicopter to a golf course in Bolton where some handpicked Tory supporters, as well as various Tory councillors from fifty miles away on the Wirral, were bussed in to show her "strength" and "leadership" in a perfectly organic and not in any way stage-managed show of nothing at all. This of course made her look more "brave" and much more of a "leader" than what Jeremy Corbyn was doing at the time, which was taking to the streets of Croydon to meet the voters, something no sane leader would do even though Gavin Barwell, the Tory MP for Croydon central, was elected in 2015 with a majority of 165, and has since had to answer a few questions about his electoral expenses...questions that he had two sets of answers for, by the way: one for the electoral commission, and a very different set for the ghostwriter of his election memoir.

 

It's really quite disturbing how May's avoiding any sort of interaction with anyone who'd ask her questions, at the moment.
That's really not how the job's supposed to work.

 

If her idea was to control the Narrative of the election by not engaging with the opposition, which allows the press to continue framing it as the Britait Election (as evidenced by the Wednesday's front pages of the Sun, Mail and Express) it's already backfired as what she's actually done is hand a rod to the opposition to continually hit her with - as evidenced at PMQs the other day where Corbyn repeatedly shut her down by asking if she believed in her policies so much why she was so unwilling to stand up for them in a televised debate.