Jump to content

UK Politics: Who Pays the Andyman?


Tywin Manderly

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Why did you vote for Brexit then?

EU membership boosted UK efficiency and competitiveness. The economy is probably 10% larger now than it would be if we had stayed out of the EU in 1972.

You know how compound interest works, yes. The losses from leaving the EU year-on-year may be small; they will stack up though. You have consigned our nation to relative economic decline. 

Over the course of of 47 years, our economic performance would depend far more on decisions taken over tax, spending, and regulation, by domestic governments, than upon EU membership.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, karaddin said:

What I find interesting here is that you'd consider yourself a conservative (I think? At the very least significantly to the right of me) but we don't really disagree on the fundamentals of this conversation - just where we'd draw the lines.

And 20-30 years ago I feel like your views are pretty in line with where most right of centre people were at. Recently the 5% (or whatever the very small minority was) of our countries that want American style culture war have worked in conjunction with American business and religious interests to import said culture war and attack the institutions that are widely popular so the ultra wealthy can sweep in and suck up more wealth.

This is horrible. In America I've never understood the whole pervasive antiunionism that infects the majority of our population. Especially when they have been one of the few buttresses against the kind of naked aggression that protects people from losing pensions benefits, healthcare and safe workplaces.

Had we maintained the strong collective workers organizations then we couldve solved so many of the problems you see with attacks of the powerful on the weak. When you are few you are weak, collectively you have strength and protection. The ultra wealthy you've referenced, are always coming to suck up what you have, whether it's property or pensions.

I hope the other developed countries learn from our mistakes and protect themselves from the wolves. I'm afraid we have already lost our fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Over the course of of 47 years, our economic performance would depend far more on decisions taken over tax, spending, and regulation, by domestic governments, than upon EU membership.

 

Removing trade barriers, via customs in the 1970s and then via regulatory barriers from the early 1990s, opened up the UK to competition. Poor companies were less protected from EU rivals and bad European companies were less protected from our best industries and services.

Nick Craft at Warwick university came up with the 10% estimate. Mrs T never wanted to leave the EU when in office; she persuaded the Japanese to invest in the UK via a promise that we would never leave the common market.

You voted for a traitor, Johnson, who connived with the French to threaten his own Parliament with medicine shortages. I detest Corbyn and all he stands for but it is a pretty pass when conservatives like me think a Labour minority government would have been better for the future prosperity and unity of the UK in the long term than a Tory government. 

You have covered yourself with shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, karaddin said:

What I find interesting here is that you'd consider yourself a conservative (I think? At the very least significantly to the right of me) but we don't really disagree on the fundamentals of this conversation - just where we'd draw the lines.

And 20-30 years ago I feel like your views are pretty in line with where most right of centre people were at. Recently the 5% (or whatever the very small minority was) of our countries that want American style culture war have worked in conjunction with American business and religious interests to import said culture war and attack the institutions that are widely popular so the ultra wealthy can sweep in and suck up more wealth.

Yes, I'm generally a centre-right or moderate conservative. And I think my divergence from conservative orthodoxy on things like the environment, as well as increased taxation (if spent well), is probably what makes me a moderate. I'm somewhere between Turnbull and Howard on the Liberal party spectrum, nowhere near Tony Abbott.

I suspect in the UK I might have been a New Labour Blairite or a soft Tory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2019 at 4:10 PM, Free Northman Reborn said:

Piers Morgan’s latest column is a beauty. Apart from calling out Remoaners for the undemocratic whiners they are, and telling Hollywood celebs to but out of politics, he also points out that Corbyn is so radical he makes AOC look like a centrist. 

Why are there so many Marxists in the world these days? A discredited ideology that just won’t die.

I'm guessing your outrage about celebrities being political really only extends to those that don't share your and Morgan’s political  views. I'm guessing you saw nothing wrong with any of the political stuff Clint Eastwood or say Duck Dynasty has done throughout the years because they’re conservatives. So, yeah if generally you don't want people you disagree with to be political or talk loudly about politics it's understandable, but no need to pretend that they are committing greater sin by virtue of their status or shouldn’t do anything in regards to politics because of their status. It’s a rather silly ad-hominem attack.  I don’t like a lot of view points expressed by say Jenner or Eastwood in regards to Trump. It would be childish to act as though they shouldn’t comment on him just because they’re Hollywood celebrities.

Also, dude, again leaving the EU will lead to a swarm of immigrants who are not part of the ”West”(whatever you think that is), to be brought over and leave the country more vulnerable to be exploited by much larger and/or much more powerful countries. If the entire point of leaving is to preserve british sovereignty or culture(even if you can't tell me what parts where threatened by it), Brexit by all appearances looks to be doomed fail. 

On 12/13/2019 at 6:49 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

My understanding is the PM is the PM until he or she is replaced by someone else. So if this election had been a hung parliament Boris would still be PM until some group of parties would get a majority in Parliament to vote for a new PM. Only if Boris lost his seat would he not be PM the day after the GE if no party got an outright majority.

 

Because capitalism is failing the vast majority of humanity. While it works extremely well for a few it depends on exploitation of masses of people to benefit the few, which makes it long term unstable.

Probably. Though @karaddin is right when she says some people are turning against it not because they've been hurt by it-which to be fair they probably have been in ways they don't see-but because they dislike some of the side-effects of it not reaffirming their traditional view of the world. Like companies selling more things with messages that don't specifically cater to their race, sex, or religion, or conservative ideals in general. Plenty of these people complain about ”forced diversity” in Media. They treat a diverse cast of characters in terms of race, sex, or sexuality whether in film or TV as some transgression and label it as am pandering to minorities. Ignoring what they call ”pandering” has always been done. It's just that the media they consume pandered to whites, heterosexuals, and males far more heavily. Honestly, it's not rare to find stories of creators or writers being told they can't include x character for being not a none-heterosexual or been blacklisted because of their sexuality. Now more Corporations are trying harder to appeal to every demographic or more demographics, because of those other demographics also have money. 

It's a totally natural part of capitalism. Sell as much of your product as you can to whichever groups you could sell to. 

Unfettered capitalism should allow Social-media platforms preferring to only let certain people use their product. Under capitalism Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube should be able to bar any person From their product. Plenty of social-conservatives such practice should be recognized as illegal. 

Reagan himself was in favor of Open boarders:https://www.google.com/amp/s/jimheath.tv/2019/01/ronald-reagan-backed-open-borders-amnesty-his-gop-is-truly-dead/amp/

It wasn't because he liked Mexicans. The man was a massive racist.  It's because an open border between Mexico-US could be economically lucrative-especially to companies who would like a hard-working, Cheaply hired workforce. He did it because as a capitalist it makes sense. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Removing trade barriers, via customs in the 1970s and then via regulatory barriers from the early 1990s, opened up the UK to competition. Poor companies were less protected from EU rivals and bad European companies were less protected from our best industries and services.

Nick Craft at Warwick university came up with the 10% estimate. Mrs T never wanted to leave the EU when in office; she persuaded the Japanese to invest in the UK via a promise that we would never leave the common market.

You voted for a traitor, Johnson, who connived with the French to threaten his own Parliament with medicine shortages. I detest Corbyn and all he stands for but it is a pretty pass when conservatives like me think a Labour minority government would have been better for the future prosperity and unity of the UK in the long term than a Tory government. 

You have covered yourself with shame.

As it happens, I voted for an independent in Luton South, which is safely Labour.  But, if I had to choose between Corbyn and Johnson, I would choose Johnson, like 95% of Conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the questions that still remains about a Johnson premiership is what he'll actually do with this majority.

To an international outsider like me, Boris is portrayed as a type of political chameleon with no real ideological tendencies, unless you count personal self interest as an ideology. The sort of guy who sees which way the crowd is headed and then opportunistically dashes in front to say "Follow me!" His big-spending promises were certainly not out of the Tory playbook, even if they were cooked up, and he was mayor of a progressive city, where I understand London is still considered a relative stronghold for Labour. I gather his record as mayor was not considered arch-conservative.

So I think the real question to ask is...what is the makeup of the Conservative caucus and the likely composition of the cabinet? Are most of the elected MPs old-school moderate Tories or did a massive bunch of rabid right-wing Brexiteers get in? Which group of the party is Boris going to have to pander to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See my previous post. You're not entirely wrong about Johnson, though his upbringing and nature do incline him towards personally racist, sexist and homophobic views. But these views are not so strong that he would allow them to get in the way of his ambition. In his time as London mayor, he tried not to express those and to present a more moderate, socially liberal image: and even now, he claims to be a 'One Nation Tory' despite not actually fitting into that tradition and apparently having only a vague idea of what it means.

But he leads a party that has been trending for a generation in a direction that pushes right-wing purist ideology over competence. Being anti-European was the most important part of that but you will find plenty of Tory MPs who are pro-death penalty, anti-immigration, anti-equality, pro-free market in everything, pro-military, and pushing small state, radical tax cuts, etc.

Previously, Johnson was beholden to these people. It remains to be seen whether having a significant majority changes that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I'm guessing your outrage about celebrities being political really only extends to those that don't share your and Morgan’s political  views. I'm guessing you saw nothing wrong with any of the political stuff Clint Eastwood or say Duck Dynasty has done throughout the years because they’re conservatives. So, yeah if generally you don't want people you disagree with to be political or talk loudly about politics it's understandable, but no need to pretend that they are committing greater sin by virtue of their status or shouldn’t do anything in regards to politics because of their status. It’s a rather silly ad-hominem attack.  I don’t like a lot of view points expressed by say Jenner or Eastwood in regards to Trump. It would be childish to act as though they shouldn’t comment on him just because they’re Hollywood celebrities.

Also, dude, again leaving the EU will lead to a swarm of immigrants who are not part of the ”West”(whatever you think that is), to be brought over and leave the country more vulnerable to be exploited by much larger and/or much more powerful countries. If the entire point of leaving is to preserve british sovereignty or culture(even if you can't tell me what parts where threatened by it), Brexit by all appearances looks to be doomed fail. 

Probably. Though @karaddin is right when she says some people are turning against it not because they've been hurt by it-which to be fair they probably have been in ways they don't see-but because they dislike some of the side-effects of it not reaffirming their traditional view of the world. Like companies selling more things with messages that don't specifically cater to their race, sex, or religion, or conservative ideals in general. Plenty of these people complain about ”forced diversity” in Media. They treat a diverse cast of characters in terms of race, sex, or sexuality whether in film or TV as some transgression and label it as am pandering to minorities. Ignoring what they call ”pandering” has always been done. It's just that the media they consume pandered to whites, heterosexuals, and males far more heavily. Honestly, it's not rare to find stories of creators or writers being told they can't include x character for being not a none-heterosexual or been blacklisted because of their sexuality. Now more Corporations are trying harder to appeal to every demographic or more demographics, because of those other demographics also have money. 

It's a totally natural part of capitalism. Sell as much of your product as you can to whichever groups you could sell to. 

Unfettered capitalism should allow Social-media platforms preferring to only let certain people use their product. Under capitalism Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube should be able to bar any person From their product. Plenty of social-conservatives such practice should be recognized as illegal. 

Reagan himself was in favor of Open boarders:https://www.google.com/amp/s/jimheath.tv/2019/01/ronald-reagan-backed-open-borders-amnesty-his-gop-is-truly-dead/amp/

It wasn't because he liked Mexicans. The man was a massive racist.  It's because an open border between Mexico-US could be economically lucrative-especially to companies who would like a hard-working, Cheaply hired workforce. He did it because as a capitalist it makes sense. 

 

A close friend of mine claims that people forget that Capitalism is “amoral”.  We bring what moral beliefs we carry with us into that system.  The real mistake for both proponents and opponents of Capitalism is to claim that it is a moral system unto itself.  

For Proponents because they devalue human life and human happiness in favor of pure profit as though such could ever be a truly moral position.

For Opponents because they attempt to claim the former are all who advocate for Capitalism ignoring those who do bring other moral principles to such a belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only just read this now but this is an excellent piece from Peter Oborne on why actual conservatives should not support Boris Johnson - and ought to have supported Corbyn if necessary in the recent election. 

Guardian - Boris Johnson wants to destroy the Britain I love. I cannot vote Conservative

Oborne is also keeping track of all of Johnson's voluminous lies and misrepresentations here - The lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations of Boris Johnson and his government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These seem to be the primary names floating for the next labour leader. Interesting to see that Starmer is the only male.

I am still mulling over my own thoughts on this. I wouldnt dislike Starmer becoming leader but havent really fully considered the other potential candidates yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I've only just read this now but this is an excellent piece from Peter Oborne on why actual conservatives should not support Boris Johnson - and ought to have supported Corbyn if necessary in the recent election. 

Guardian - Boris Johnson wants to destroy the Britain I love. I cannot vote Conservative

Oborne is also keeping track of all of Johnson's voluminous lies and misrepresentations here - The lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations of Boris Johnson and his government.

I'm afraid Oborne is a twit.  Tories for Corbyn are a tiny sect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I am keen on Jess Phillips getting the job. Starmer is OK but I think they need someone more northern to get the red wall back. 

Please, please, please Labour do not choose Long-Bailey. 

Lot of time for her. However, the right wing press would go after her in a way that Starmer is not vulnerable to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Rayner for being basically the complete opposite of Johnson - single mother from a council estate who left school at 16 with no qualifications when she got pregnant and has worked her way up through the unions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starmer has a lot of pluses, including the fact the Tories put through his honours, him being a knight will go down well with some older voters, he's not been in Parliament long enough to be tainted by Blair, he clearly wasn't a die-hard Corbynite and he's a reasonable Commons speaker.

The negatives are perhaps age (57 now, 62 at the next election, young enough for the job but people may prefer a younger and more energetic candidate) and he's also a Londoner born in London with a London constituency, which makes winning over the north perhaps a little more difficult.

Phillips and Rayner are both popular in some quarters but have a lot of hate-press going on and they both became prominent under Corbyn, no matter their individual feelings towards him. Nandy has a lot of their pluses in terms of being from the north and retaining her seat in the face of fierce opposition, but she was also fairly consistently (if mildly) critical of Corbyn. She also successfully predicted some of the shit that went down.

All of that said, the raw number crunching suggests that this "Lots of people in the north and Wales stopped voting Labour and voted for the Tories instead" narrative may be "slightly" exaggerated.

 

The Conservatives increased their vote share from 13,636,684 to 13,905,520. That's an increase of 268,836. Nothing to be sneezed at but not overwhelmingly huge (42.4% to 43.6%), which got them +48 seats. By comparison the LibDem vote rose from 2,371,910 to 3,696,423, a vastly more impressive gain of 1,324,513 votes (7.4% to 11.6%) which garnered them, er, -1 seats (once again proving that FPTP is almost as broken as the US electoral college). The SNP vote increase was from 977,569 to 1,242,372 (264,803 or 0.9%) which garnered them +13 seats. The Green Party vote increase was from 525,665 to 835,579, which was an increase of 309,914 (1.6 to 2.7%) which garnered them exactly +0 seats.

Assuming the UKIP vote transferred almost entirely to the Brexit Party, that result was 594,068 to 642,303, or 1.8 to 2% share (OG UKIP's final vote this year was 22,817, or behind the formidable electoral powerhouse that is the Yorkshire Party), so they ended up having a fairly negligible impact.

So the real story was what happened to Labour. They went from 12,878,460 to 10,269,076, so lost 2,609,384 votes (40% to 32.1%, -60 seats). That's a huge loss but this media idea that a lot of them went to vote Conservative instead appears to be overstated. In fact, it looks like the majority went LibDem and Green, which makes rather more sense. Or they stayed home and didn't bother voting at all, which may be even more likely.

The Tories did sweet fuck all to win this election in terms of numbers. Labour certainly lost it, but the LibDems and the Greens actually did pretty damn well, the LibDems increasing their vote numbers by half again. The LibDem problem is that they didn't win their new votes in seats where it actually meant anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Lot of time for her. However, the right wing press would go after her in a way that Starmer is not vulnerable to. 

Jess would be my choice. Curious why you think she'd be more vulnerable to media attacks than Starmer. She got skeletons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Werthead said:

So the real story was what happened to Labour. They went from 12,878,460 to 10,269,076, so lost 2,609,384 votes (40% to 32.1%, -60 seats). That's a huge loss but this media idea that a lot of them went to vote Conservative instead appears to be overstated. In fact, it looks like the majority went LibDem and Green, which makes rather more sense. Or they stayed home and didn't bother voting at all, which may be even more likely. 

I saw Lord Ashcroft's voting day polling statistics which analyses vote switching among other things. I've seen it suggested that Labour Leavers were less loyal than Tory Remainers but that polling data suggests they were both 64-66% loyal to their 2017 party. However, there may have been more Labour Leavers than Tory Remainers to begin with?

There's also a familiar pattern where Labour dominate in the 18-45 age range while the Tories dominate among older voters, particularly getting 62% of the over-65s.

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/12/how-britain-voted-and-why-my-2019-general-election-post-vote-poll/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Jess would be my choice. Curious why you think she'd be more vulnerable to media attacks than Starmer. She got skeletons?

Not really, but Jess is more overtly left-wing than Starmer and she is a very vocal feminist, which has contributed to her Twitter feed being a daily dumpster fire of apocalyptic proportions thanks to MRAs. That said, she's also clashed with the far left wing of the party, getting into a huge clusterfuck fight with Diane Abbot a few years ago over gender equality (which concluded with Phillips telling Abbot to fuck off).

Nothing too bad, but it's stuff that would be weaponised against her, and she'd face criticism from both sides of the debate. On the plus side, she has a profile and people know who she is (people advocating Long-Bailey seem to keep forgetting that no-one in the real world knows who the hell she is), her straight-talking style is a vast improvement on Corbyn, she's good on her feet, will still be relatively young at the next election (43 in 2024) and she has a reasonably safe seat which didn't take a hammering in this election (by contrast, Nandy's majority is still reasonable but that 15% drop is a lot worse than Phillips' 2%).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...