General UK Politics Thread

[Hereward]

I'm having a wobble on the plan. If a whole raft of New Labour tossers are going to be defecting to the LibDems to get away from a newly left-wing Labour Party, I question the point. This country doesn't need another corrupt, unprincipled, slavishly pro-American, illiberal, high tax for the middle class, pro-Big Business party. It has plenty of them already.

[VarysTheSpider]

The flavour Cameron prefers, is one that I fear will be extremely unpalatable to people in my position (cutting tax credits, means-testing child benefit, etc.) It's naked self-interest on my part. ;)

I fear this is why we'll never be rid of this party. They've bribed a lot of people so much that they've managed to build themselves a core vote of clients who won't vote in the wider interests of the country if it poses a threat to a standard of living they've become accustomed to and expect as a matter of course. A lot of truth in the saying that you get the kind of government you deserve, I suppose. But at least, for now, they're outnumbered.

Wiser heads know that it's all game-theory, of course. Labour know (or at least, used to know) that people hated voting Conservative. This served them extremely well. They kept on side the centre-left vote with the tried and tested (and failed) method of tax, borrow and spend, while making centre-right policy to outflank the Tories; from crime to Trident; from privatisation to foreign wars. Aka, the 'Third Way'. No doubt many a glass of wine was raised to the ease with which people are manipulated.

It was a damn fine strategy, really, but it's brought us exactly to where we are now. The people who espouse the 'lesser of two evils' fallacy as a valid voting criterion share as much a part of the blame as the people it helped empower and misrule us for so long. In its original foreign-policy usage it justified Pinochet, Saddam Hussein and the Vietnam War. As an idea it has more blood on its hands than all the hypothetical alternative-futures combined can hope to wash clean. Blame gets old, though - the important thing is not to let it happen again. Maybe Cameron and his government will be crap. I don't know. But there can be damn worse things for our political system at the moment than to suffer four years of Conservative government if it tells politicians of all parties that they will be judged on their own merits and if they fuck up, they will pay.

These videos are brilliant... and slightly disturbing. Loving Darling's gormless expression.

[Usotsuki]

"Absolute shower":

Never have I expected to encounter such a disorganised, shambling collection of hygiene-challenged incompetents pretending to be a group of anything at all.

I need far, far more vodka of a much, much higher quality before I can even consider investing the time and effort it will require to raise you to the level of being merely a national embarrassment rather than a clear affront to all that is good and pure.

[mormont]

As I don't have any credit cards or loans, and was too cautious to take on a massive mortgage in the belief that rising house prices would take care of it, I don't particularly relish paying exorbitant rates of tax for the rest of my life to bail out the people who did and the companies that encouraged them to do so. I do want hefty public spending cuts, even though that will affect my work radically, but not to the exclusion of all else. So, I know and accept I will pay more.

I have no credit card debt, loans or indeed debt of any type, since I am too poor to afford to buy a house. Yet the Tories have given every indication that it is on people like me that the cuts will fall, rather than the people who bought houses they couldn't afford. Those people will do just fine, because the Tories want their votes. Both parties do, so they refuse to even talk about sorting that issue out.

I fear this is why we'll never be rid of this party. They've bribed a lot of people so much that they've managed to build themselves a core vote of clients who won't vote in the wider interests of the country if it poses a threat to a standard of living they've become accustomed to and expect as a matter of course. A lot of truth in the saying that you get the kind of government you deserve, I suppose. But at least, for now, they're outnumbered.

My standard of living is probably lower than yours, and can't really drop without risking poverty for my kids. I regard the description of fair and reasonable support for my children from the state as a 'bribe' rather than the basic right it actually is, as patronising nonsense that fails to even demonstrate a basic understanding of the issue.

But there can be damn worse things for our political system at the moment than to suffer four years of Conservative government if it tells politicians of all parties that they will be judged on their own merits and if they fuck up, they will pay.

So you're telling us that the Tory government will be the lesser of two evils, because at least it shows that parties can be voted out? You don't think that the whole problem with New Labour was that they learned that lesson too well, and so spent their entire time in office calculating cynical ways to avoid it?

[Derfel Cadarn]

I think a Tory victory could bring some 'interesting' times to Scotland. To my knowledge the Tories have very little influence in Scotland and so will be unconcerned about screwing Scotland over (again) since they've little to lose in Scotland anyway. Labour's Scottish support may be crumbling but they know that an SNP screw-up and/or motivation to keep the Tories out might swing things around for them. If the Tories got into power whilst the economy was going well, it would likely see support for independance increase. The recession pretty much ensures Scottish independance is off the table at the moment.

On the flipside, Labour aren't above cutting Scotland's money in a clumsy attempt to make the SNP look bad by failing to deliver. Wanting to stave off the risk of increasing support for Scottish independance, a Tory government may well leave Scotland to it's own devices with enough cash to keep the SNP grumbling to a minimum, counting it worthwhile if it keeps the Union secure.

To digress slightly, if memory serves, the SNP were actually opposed to devolution, pushing for full independance and not wanting the separate Scottish parliament. The cynical part of me susepcts that with everything controlled from Westminster, the SNP could continue to blame the bad times on the English and say how good things would be if Scotland governed itself. With Scotland having it's own government, the SNP's fear likely was that the Scottish people would soon realise politicians will bugger it up regardless and that independance isn't a magical cure-all.

[mormont]

To digress slightly, if memory serves, the SNP were actually opposed to devolution, pushing for full independance and not wanting the separate Scottish parliament.

At one stage, yes, but we're talking about thirty years ago. You can still find some 'fundamentalists' in the party who decry devolution, but they are a very small rump and they know they lost the argument a long time past.

The cynical part of me susepcts that with everything controlled from Westminster, the SNP could continue to blame the bad times on the English and say how good things would be if Scotland governed itself.

They've already started. The SNP government must be one of the few in the world to benefit from breaking manifesto pledges: 'we wanted to do this but the nasty London government are cutting our budget!'

[Derfel Cadarn]

At one stage, yes, but we're talking about thirty years ago. You can still find some 'fundamentalists' in the party who decry devolution, but they are a very small rump and they know they lost the argument a long time past.

I'm sure there was also SNP opposition to it just before the referendum in 1997. I can't remember how widespread it was, if it was just a few fringe elements but I definately remember some opposition.

Certainly when the SNP took charge of Scotland there were elements within the party who wanted to go straight to independance without bothering with an independance referendum. They seemed to interpret a vote for the SNP as being a vote for independance rather than a "fuck you, Labour". Pretty moot for the time being, not helped by certain Scottish banks/building societies being in dire straits.

[williamjm]

Certainly when the SNP took charge of Scotland there were elements within the party who wanted to go straight to independance without bothering with an independance referendum. They seemed to interpret a vote for the SNP as being a vote for independance rather than a "fuck you, Labour".

Are you sure about this? I know politicians can sometimes be a bit divorced from reality, but I suspect that even they might notice some problems in suggesting that a new SNP government could somehow declare independence when it had about 35% of the vote and a minority government that would have to ally with an anti-independence party to get any bill passed.

[mormont]

I'm sure there was also SNP opposition to it just before the referendum in 1997. I can't remember how widespread it was, if it was just a few fringe elements but I definately remember some opposition.

You're probably thinking of Alex Neil, who did speak out against the referendum and got a lot of coverage, since he has a high media profile. But official SNP policy has been in favour of devolution since the 1979 referendum when they campaigned for a devolved Scottish parliament, albeit as a 'stepping stone' to independence.

Certainly when the SNP took charge of Scotland there were elements within the party who wanted to go straight to independance without bothering with an independance referendum. They seemed to interpret a vote for the SNP as being a vote for independance rather than a "fuck you, Labour". Pretty moot for the time being, not helped by certain Scottish banks/building societies being in dire straits.

Not sure I recall anyone but a few slightly detached letter-writers to the Scotsman suggesting no referendum was necessary, particularly as a referendum was pledged in the SNP manifesto. Nor will you get anyone in the SNP to admit that the present economic circumstances have made the issue moot.

[Lyanna Stark]

If they cut the already weak support for parents in this country I will be forced to move back to Sweden for sure. We'll already be practically living on one salary while I'll be off on maternity leave. :stunned:

[Zoë Sumra]

A US "shock jock" is threatening to sue the Home Secretary for banning him from the UK for his views and making this public.

A US radio shock jock barred from entering the UK said he would sue for defamation after his name appeared on the Home Office's list of 16 "least wanted".

Michael Savage, who hosts far-right talk show The Savage Nation, called Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, a "lunatic" and said he was outraged that he had been named alongside hate preachers and a member of Hamas.

Smith said yesterday she had decided to make public the names of 16 people banned since October so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.

Smith told BBC Breakfast that Savage was "someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country".

[mormont]

Anyone want to bet good money that this never sees the inside of a court? (See also: Sam Allardyce, Nadine Dorries.)

[Usotsuki]

I'm hoping that some of the others sue on the grounds that being linked with Michael Savage is inherently defamatory.

[MinDonner]

Is the Guardian collaborating with the Onion now? "Shock Jock accused of being shocking, sues". Defamation!

[VarysTheSpider]

My standard of living is probably lower than yours, and can't really drop without risking poverty for my kids. I regard the description of fair and reasonable support for my children from the state as a 'bribe' rather than the basic right it actually is, as patronising nonsense that fails to even demonstrate a basic understanding of the issue.

I do apologise, that comment was harsh and unncecessary.

You must know a fall in your standard of living is inevitable though? National Insurance and VAT will soon be going up, to take just two examples. Whichever party gets in, it's eventually going to reach a point where taxes will rises and spending will be cut. Brown knows it as well as Cameron does, he's just too terrified and clever to spell it out too plainly before the next election and even then would likely do it in a deceptive and half-arsed way.

So you're telling us that the Tory government will be the lesser of two evils, because at least it shows that parties can be voted out?

I just don't recognise the false dichotomy. I don't need to compare Labour to the Tories to judge that they no longer deserve to be in power; they've completely failed on their own merits. Behaviour simply does not improve if you refuse to raise your standards, and we have to, or we'll be stuck with this absolute shower of liquid shit forever.

You don't think that the whole problem with New Labour was that they learned that lesson too well, and so spent their entire time in office calculating cynical ways to avoid it?

It's starting to sound like a bit of a chicken and egg problem - did the government start it by basing their policies on the likely Conservative position, or did the electorate start it by judging the government on the likely behaviour of the Tories? Of course nothing happens in a vaccuum - the 'whole problem' encapsulates far more than 18 years of Tory rule - a celebrity culture, the smashing of the unions, the fall of the Berlin Wall, 24 hour news media, and countless others. Whatever it is, and to bastardise a Yes Minister quote, Labour aren't going to change a pattern of behaviour that will have gotten them elected for four terms. The change must come from the electorate; 'if there is hope, it lies within the Proles', to abuse another quote.

[mormont]

I do apologise, that comment was harsh and unncecessary.

No problem. :)

You must know a fall in your standard of living is inevitable though?

I think a fall is inevitable, yes. It's about how the pain is shared, though. Cameron and Osborne have indicated that a disproportionate share (IMO) will fall on parents via cuts in tax credits and child benefit, and while this might be ameliorated for some by some sort of tax break for married couples, working single parents such as myself will obviously not get that compensation.

I just don't recognise the false dichotomy. I don't need to compare Labour to the Tories to judge that they no longer deserve to be in power; they've completely failed on their own merits.

Fair enough. But this doesn't change the fact that you have to pick one of the two, and in common with most elections, it's about choosing the least bad option. Labour have failed on their own merits, yes: but this does not mean that you don't have to compare them with the Tories. You do. I simply don't accept that voting in the Tories under Cameron and Osborne would be 'raising our standards', no matter how bad Labour are. For one thing, they've picked up too many of Labour's bad habits themselves.

[ljkeane]

Fair enough. But this doesn't change the fact that you have to pick one of the two, and in common with most elections, it's about choosing the least bad option. Labour have failed on their own merits, yes: but this does not mean that you don't have to compare them with the Tories. You do. I simply don't accept that voting in the Tories under Cameron and Osborne would be 'raising our standards', no matter how bad Labour are. For one thing, they've picked up too many of Labour's bad habits themselves.

While it's true you do have to make a choice between Labour and the Conservatives, I think most people will be voting based on the failures of the Labour rather than because the Conservatives are viewed as such a potential improvement.

[MinDonner]

Googling Gordon...

[Zoë Sumra]

:rofl:

That's hilarious. And apt.

In other news, the government may now finally do what the European Court told it to do and get rid of innocent people's DNA profiles from the national database. The problem is that they don't intend to do so for twelve years...

[Usotsuki]

Gordon Brown is my shepherd?

I'm too scared to look.

:leaving: