UK Politics: Winter of Discontent

[Werthead]

Quote

 

I did mention a while back that this "polluting the gene pool" thing would come up. I thought Princess Di's "grey men" might try to prevent the wedding. I think that since this has caused a serious backlash against UKIP this will ultimately help the acceptance of Meghan Markle as a royal, but I also think there are a lot more British people thinking what this woman said but not saying it than many might care to admit.

 

Anti-black racism in the UK is, in my experience, relatively rare, even in a town that's 95% White like mine (although obviously lots of exceptions to that can be found). The Royals also generally have more support than not and Harry is quite popular even with people who otherwise dislike the Royals on principle, as he's down-to-earth, done a lot of work with veterans through the Invictus Games and is a bit of a lad.

The majority of bigotry in the UK right now is aimed at Muslims and "people coming here taking our jobs" which led to the Brexit vote, although confusingly the issues seemed to get conflated. Having conversations with people who voted for Brexit to get rid of Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh but who insisted they had no problem with Polish people is straining for those who enjoy logical consistency in their debates.

[polishgenius]

5 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

While this woman is clearly a scumbag, i have no idea what this has to do with her partner.  Unless i'm mistaken there is no indication he has read, forwarded or sent anything similar. 

If my wife was sending innapropriate texts and i got called in to discuss it with my bosses i'd tell them to f'ck off.

Yeah, while I have no trouble believing that the leader of UKIP is racist, texts sent by someone who isn't him to someone else who isn't him are no indication of that. She wasn't even his girlfriend at the time.

[mormont]

10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

UKIP has had electoral success

Has it?

It's had a fair amount of MEPs elected, mostly because of a PR system that most UKIP members dislike and because turnout in European elections is very low except among those with a hate-on for the EU. That representation will shortly disappear, of course.

It also has five elected members in the Welsh Assembly and some local councilors.

Er, that's it.

UKIP has never had an MP elected. It's never had an MSP elected. It's never had an MLA elected. It's spent fantastic amounts of money on lost deposits. It's never looked even close to winning any significant political power in any part of the UK. And it has never looked further from doing so than it does now. 

What it does have is media coverage. This latest spat is a prime example. I doubt any of us, if asked three days ago, could have named the current UKIP leader, let alone his girlfriend. He is supremely irrelevant to any serious political discussion. Yet it's a headline story that his girlfriend sent some racist texts? The BBC are leading with it. Why? Because the press can't help themselves. they see 'UKIP' and they think 'story'. 

UKIP allows for some - by no means all - of the far right to have a home. But there is, with apologies to Hereward, no shortage of anti-progressive elements in the Tory party. They feel quite at home there. 

The differences between the Republicans and the Tories can't be put down to the existence of UKIP, which I think will be proven as UKIP slides further into irrelevance. 

[The Anti-Targ]

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

Has it?

It's had a fair amount of MEPs elected, mostly because of a PR system that most UKIP members dislike and because turnout in European elections is very low except among those with a hate-on for the EU. That representation will shortly disappear, of course.

It also has five elected members in the Welsh Assembly and some local councilors.

Er, that's it.

UKIP has never had an MP elected. It's never had an MSP elected. It's never had an MLA elected. It's spent fantastic amounts of money on lost deposits. It's never looked even close to winning any significant political power in any part of the UK. And it has never looked further from doing so than it does now. 

What it does have is media coverage. This latest spat is a prime example. I doubt any of us, if asked three days ago, could have named the current UKIP leader, let alone his girlfriend. He is supremely irrelevant to any serious political discussion. Yet it's a headline story that his girlfriend sent some racist texts? The BBC are leading with it. Why? Because the press can't help themselves. they see 'UKIP' and they think 'story'. 

UKIP allows for some - by no means all - of the far right to have a home. But there is, with apologies to Hereward, no shortage of anti-progressive elements in the Tory party. They feel quite at home there. 

The differences between the Republicans and the Tories can't be put down to the existence of UKIP, which I think will be proven as UKIP slides further into irrelevance. 

That's more success than any US 3rd party has achieved.

[mormont]

31 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's more success than any US 3rd party has achieved.

Again, is it?

No US third party has had anyone elected to Congress, certainly, but UKIP haven't had anyone elected to the UK Parliament either. Third parties have been elected to US state legislatures, of course, and comparing a large US state legislature (eg California) to the UK Parliament is probably a more valid comparison anyway. Interestingly, Green party candidates have been elected to both the Cali legislature and the UK Parliament. 

In terms of electoral success, UKIP aren't a third party anyway. They're more like a tenth party. Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the DUP, Sinn Fein, and the Green Party all currently have elected MPs: UKIP don't. Several other parties in addition to the foregoing have managed to win election to the UK Parliament. UKIP never have.

[Hereward]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

Again, is it?

No US third party has had anyone elected to Congress, certainly

They have, just not recently.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Hereward said:

They have, just not recently.

Actually there are currently three third party members of Congress. Bernie Sanders and Angus King are independent senators and Gregorio Sablan is an independent member in the House, though the latter doesn’t have an actual vote.

[SeanF]

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 0:25 PM, lessthanluke said:

Yes but what has that got to do with Conservatives? The Brexit vote wasn't split down traditional party lines.

About two thirds of Conservatives supported Brexit, and two thirds of Labour supporters supported Remain.  The vote did not divide on party lines, but there is a clear correlation between party support and support for Brexit.  Since June 2016, there has been a shift of Remainers to Labour, and Leavers to the Conservatives, so that now about 70-75% of Conservatives support Leave, and 70-7% of Labour supporters back Remain.

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, mormont said:

Has it?

It's had a fair amount of MEPs elected, mostly because of a PR system that most UKIP members dislike and because turnout in European elections is very low except among those with a hate-on for the EU. That representation will shortly disappear, of course.

It also has five elected members in the Welsh Assembly and some local councilors.

Er, that's it.

UKIP has never had an MP elected. It's never had an MSP elected. It's never had an MLA elected. It's spent fantastic amounts of money on lost deposits. It's never looked even close to winning any significant political power in any part of the UK. And it has never looked further from doing so than it does now. 

What it does have is media coverage. This latest spat is a prime example. I doubt any of us, if asked three days ago, could have named the current UKIP leader, let alone his girlfriend. He is supremely irrelevant to any serious political discussion. Yet it's a headline story that his girlfriend sent some racist texts? The BBC are leading with it. Why? Because the press can't help themselves. they see 'UKIP' and they think 'story'. 

UKIP allows for some - by no means all - of the far right to have a home. But there is, with apologies to Hereward, no shortage of anti-progressive elements in the Tory party. They feel quite at home there. 

The differences between the Republicans and the Tories can't be put down to the existence of UKIP, which I think will be proven as UKIP slides further into irrelevance. 

Once a single-issue party starts winning lots of votes, which UKIP did from 2013-2016, it can start to pull other parties in their direction, even if First Past the Post prevents them from winning seats. UKIP's rise in support led the Conservatives to offer a referendum on EU membership in order to head them off.

[SeanF]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 5:57 PM, Hereward said:

First off, could you please can the contemptuous attitude.? I've addressed you respectfully and I would appreciate if you did too.

Now, "many believe"? Source please. And Werthead doesn't count. Now, I'm sure there are some few Conservative MPs who would like to. But they know it would be electoral suicide to do so. The NHS is wildly popular amongst Tory voters. More private companies being involved in providing a service that is "free at the point of delivery" is not dismantling the NHS, no matter what is claimed, particularly as the vast majority of service providers are, and always have been, private.

Source please. It may have escaped your attention, but the Conservatives didn't support Brexit. Government policy was to Remain. Now, to the extent that the Leave vote was down to anti-immigrant feeling, and I'll admit it was one, but only one, of the major causes, that feeling came from UKIP voters most of all, but amongst Labour voters in the north too. The Tory's main heartland of the south voted to Remain. Second, I am comparing the party, not the voters anyway. Conservative Party leadership has consistently and strongly condemned racism and anti-Muslim rhetoric, even after terrorist attacks. Can you same the same about the Republicans?

"Only five countries in addition to the UK met or exceeded the 0.7% of GNI target in 2015. Those countries are the Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden, according to the United Nations. Germany, France, Italy, the US, Japan and Canada each spend 0.4% or less." - the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39653421/uk-foreign-aid-where-does-it-go-and-why

So, you're wrong again.

I'm not talking about cuts to corporation tax, but of government intervention in the free market.

No, I'm not, as I've already explained. You are conflating the Leave camp with the Conservative Party. 

Then you won't be doing a fair and reasonable comparison. In case you haven't noticed, the crazies are in charge of the Republican party. To the extent that there are crazies in the Conservative Party, and there are crazies in every party, THEY ARE NOT IN CHARGE OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Every country has its own political culture.  The USA's political culture is to the Right of that in the UK. There's no way that a party like the US Republicans could flourish here.  There is no doubt a minority of  people within the Conservative Party who would love to scrap the NHS, but everyone knows it would be electoral suicide to suggest such a thing,

[mormont]

46 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Actually there are currently three third party members of Congress. Bernie Sanders and Angus King are independent senators and Gregorio Sablan is an independent member in the House, though the latter doesn’t have an actual vote.

I was distinguishing between independents and third parties, as that seemed relevant to the point at hand. (There are and have been independents elected to the UK and Scottish Parliaments as well, again doing better than UKIP.)

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Once a single-issue party starts winning lots of votes, which UKIP did from 2013-2016, it can start to pull other parties in their direction, even if First Past the Post prevents them from winning seats. UKIP's rise in support led the Conservatives to offer a referendum on EU membership in order to head them off.

You're now dealing in intangibles, whereas the point being made was about 'electoral success', a tangible, measurable thing.

But sure, if you like, you can argue that UKIP won 'lots of votes' (though never as many as to justify the disproportionate media coverage they received, nor as many as other smaller parties did, nor enough to win a single seat) and in so doing pulled the Tory party in a particular direction. But then you have to deal with the fact that UKIP only existed in the first place because disaffected Tories wanted to pull the party in that direction. Which takes us back to the original point: does the existence of UKIP explain the difference between the Tories and the Republicans, by being an 'access point to political power'? Or was the whole thing (and the past tense very much applies: as an electoral force, UKIP is over) more realistically viewed as an internal fight on the right, a la the Tea Party? 

You can pay your money and take your choice. I think the idea that UKIP had 'electoral success', though, is not an accurate description. 

[SeanF]

21 minutes ago, mormont said:

I was distinguishing between independents and third parties, as that seemed relevant to the point at hand. (There are and have been independents elected to the UK and Scottish Parliaments as well, again doing better than UKIP.)

You're now dealing in intangibles, whereas the point being made was about 'electoral success', a tangible, measurable thing.

But sure, if you like, you can argue that UKIP won 'lots of votes' (though never as many as to justify the disproportionate media coverage they received, nor as many as other smaller parties did, nor enough to win a single seat) and in so doing pulled the Tory party in a particular direction. But then you have to deal with the fact that UKIP only existed in the first place because disaffected Tories wanted to pull the party in that direction. Which takes us back to the original point: does the existence of UKIP explain the difference between the Tories and the Republicans, by being an 'access point to political power'? Or was the whole thing (and the past tense very much applies: as an electoral force, UKIP is over) more realistically viewed as an internal fight on the right, a la the Tea Party? 

You can pay your money and take your choice. I think the idea that UKIP had 'electoral success', though, is not an accurate description. 

I think the big difference is that the UK is to the Left of the USA.  The Conservatives have to be to the Left of the Republicans to be competitive in elections.

WRT UKIP, they did win 3.8m votes in 2015, putting them comfortably in third place in terms of votes won.  That is one measure of electoral success. Once the EU Referendum was won, however, the reason for their existence ended, so the party has faded.  I think it was immensely helpful to Eurosceptic Conservatives to have a rival Eurosceptic party to their right.

[maarsen]

18 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

In the Republican vs Tory debate, I think the main difference between the two is UKIP. UKIP has had electoral success, which makes it a viable place for people with anti-progressive views to inhabit, politically. No far right party has had similar success in the USA, therefore they gravitate to the Republican party as they see the Republican party as being their only access point to political power. If there was a far right party that regularly won congressional seats the Republican party would be more politically lined up with the UK Tories.

If all the Nazis and white supremacists could band together in their own political party and guarantee themselves 20 or 30, or even 40 congressional seats, I think they would take that route over continued affiliation with the Republican party. And that woult lead to an ideological clean out of the Republican party.

I did mention a while back that this "polluting the gene pool" thing would come up. I thought Princess Di's "grey men" might try to prevent the wedding. I think that since this has caused a serious backlash against UKIP this will ultimately help the acceptance of Meghan Markle as a royal, but I also think there are a lot more British people thinking what this woman said but not saying it than many might care to admit.

I have to giggle when "polluting the gene poo"l comes up when referring to royal families. They tend to be in the shallow end of the pool due to to  too much intermarriage as it is. They are most assuredly not genetically superior so a fresh influx of genetic material would be welcome.

[Hereward]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Actually there are currently three third party members of Congress. Bernie Sanders and Angus King are independent senators and Gregorio Sablan is an independent member in the House, though the latter doesn’t have an actual vote.

I know about the independents. But independents are, by definition, not elected as members of a party, so don't count as third party.

[Werthead]

Boris Johnson in favour of remaining in the EU rather than accepting a soft Brexit.

I think we all expected the Brexiteers to be difficult and in denial if they were defeated. Them being in denial and difficult in victory was rather more unexpected.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I was distinguishing between independents and third parties, as that seemed relevant to the point at hand. (There are and have been independents elected to the UK and Scottish Parliaments as well, again doing better than UKIP.)

 

42 minutes ago, Hereward said:

I know about the independents. But independents are, by definition, not elected as members of a party, so don't count as third party.

Actually it’s a bit more nuanced than that. While it’s true that self-financed candidates are called independents, there is also an actual Independent party that has a similar structure to the two major parties. Additionally, candidates from smaller third parties (i.e. not the Greens and Libertarians) sometimes get called Independents if the candidate has an actual chance of winning.  For example, Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota running as a member of the Reform party, but everyone called him an Independent.

[williamjm]

10 hours ago, mormont said:

UKIP has never had an MP elected.

While I completely agree with your overall point, this isn't true - Douglas Carswell (twice) and Mark Reckless both got elected to Parliament. That this thread has collectively forgotten their existence probably says something about how big an impact that really had on Westminster.

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

Boris Johnson in favour of remaining in the EU rather than accepting a soft Brexit.

I think we all expected the Brexiteers to be difficult and in denial if they were defeated. Them being in denial and difficult in victory was rather more unexpected.

I find it difficult to be surprised about the revelation that Boris might not have believed in some of the things he has said in the past.

[mormont]

I hadn't forgotten them, as such, but I had forgotten that after defecting they forced by-elections and stood under the UKIP banner, so I stand corrected.

[Slick Mongoose]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42743909

Build that bridge! Build that bridge! And...and... make the French pay for it!

[mormont]

I don't know if this is a deliberate distraction but it is certainly a distraction. Just yesterday, Macron was clear that (contra the UK government position) he would oppose the inclusion of financial services in any post-Brexit deal, which means it simply won't happen. Today, we're all supposed to chuckle at daft old Boris and his bridge that will never happen? That's the takeaway from the Macron summit? Mmm.