UK Politics II

[VarysTheSpider]

The simple fact is that talking about "indiginous" British people - despite repeating that "skin colour is irrelevant" - is codewords for "white people" and the other panellists were completely right to attack that point.

I think the trouble is that by attacking that point they miss the woods for the trees. The cut-off point in time for being indigenous is always going to be arbitrary, it could be 1945 as easily as the end of the ice age. You have to read between the lines I think, when Griffin talks of the "indigenous British people" he is, I believe, trying to speak for people who believe that they shouldn't have to be in competition for jobs and houses with immigrants. That part of being born British means going to the front of the queue here. It's a sense of entitlement issue, I think. I don't agree with it at all (but then, I live in a trendy London village, not a sink estate in Dagenham) but it bears consideration. And when the panellists get drawn into discussing the ice age or the vikings, they sort of miss the point.

[The Iceman of the North]

I don't think they "miss the point" as much as exposing it for the ridiculous argument it is, especially in this economy.

[Black Wizard]

I found it quite irrutating that Nick Griffin was trying to sell the BNP as a Christian Party, even though their views are wholly un-Christian. He cannot claim to uphold Christian values when he wished to exclude non-whites from the UK. In either the parable of the Mustard Seed or the Yeast Jesus implies that the Kingdom of God is for everyone, not just the Jews. He basically meant that everyone is equal and has the right to be included in everything, so if the BNP wish to be a Christian Party then they should welcome all blacks and muslims with open arms.

[VarysTheSpider]

I don't think they "miss the point" as much as exposing it for the ridiculous argument it is, especially in this economy.

I think they do both, actually, but in this economy I guess it's important to multitask.

[williamjm]

I was reading an interesting article a couple of days ago suggesting that some of the BNP's existing supporters were quite disgruntled with Griffith's appearance on Question Time because they thought he looked weak being so defensive against the other panellists and they were also unhappy about his attempts to claim the BNP weren't racist because that's a large part of the reason they voted for the party. There was a lot of media attention given to the alleged danger of the QT appearance making him look respectable and therefore boosting the BNP's support, but it could also backfire. Griffith might try to play the martyr about being victimised on the program, but I would think a lot of the people who would consider voting for a fascist leader would be less keen about a weak-looking fascist leader and even the pretty pathetic attempts he makes to make the party seem more moderate can alienate his base - and extremist political parties of any type always seem prone to in-fighting.

[Blue Roses]

Silly, but it did make me laugh.........

Blair can't really become President of Europe, can he? There must be millions of us who've been slowly managing to forget about him for the last two years, recovering as he fades into the past, the way torture victims rebuild their lives day by day, and now this dreadful figure we thought had gone forever might be back ruling us again. It's like finding out your new boss is the PE teacher who used to thrash you with his belt when you were in the shower, or your local councillor is Hughie Greene, or having Black Lace move in next door and sing Agadoo every night.

This is someone who made himself one of the most despised people in Europe, so loathed that Britain came bottom of the Eurovision Song Contest because of an orchestrated protest. So that's the ideal President of a continent, the person who had even the judges in a music contest saying "Hello – Lithuania here, ooh what a splendid night and hard to choose between so many dreadful tunes, the only easy part is giving nought to the warmongering running dogs of poodle-boy Blair's blood-soaked United Kingdom."

Anyway, isn't he supposed to be Middle-East peace envoy? Surely he won't want to give that up just while he's achieving such staggering success in that post. But this appears to be what happens to him; he wrecks a place, then gets the job of uniting it. Even Bin Laden didn't have the cheek to say "Aha, there's a vacancy for President of the New York Tall Buildings Appreciation Society. I think I'll put in for that."

In support of Blair, David Miliband said the post should go to someone who's a "well-known international leader", and who is "not a shrinking violet". And it's true, Blair fits into both those categories – as does Robert Mugabe. Or maybe this explains why Karadzic didn't turn up for his trial – he's busy planning his campaign, in which his slogan will be "I'm no shrinking violet", at which point Austria will put forward Josef Fritzl as a compromise candidate.

Blair's supporters also say the new President has to be someone who "stops the traffic" when he arrives abroad. So the whole campaign revolves around his celebrity status. And in a way he is a political version of Paris Hilton, desperate for whatever role will keep up his global profile. If he gets the job he'll probably arrange for the meetings to be covered by the paparazzi, so the reports will begin "Tony Blair, 53, seen falling out of Beijing's exclusive 'Long March' nightclub, glared at photographers when they suggested he'd been involved in a flare-up with Colonel Gadaffi over a bottle of tequila spilt on the Libyan leader's strapless snakeskin top at last night's climate change summit after-party."

Because fame is his only selling point, unless the argument for electing Blair will be that, faced with today's global challenges, Europe needs a strong voice that can speak up loudly in favour of doing whatever America tells it to.

That may be why his only definite ally so far is Berlusconi. Which means if Miliband was honest he'd say "Tony's the ideal candidate to unite Europe and America – in one continent he's known as the most strident supporter of the most unpopular President ever, and in the other he's endorsed by a man who at 70 can still surround himself with prostitutes. Top that." In any case, many countries could be bankrupted after he's flown in to stop the traffic, when they receive Cherie's demand for an appearance fee.

Typically, it's claimed Blair hasn't officially put himself forward yet, and the story has been derided as "only speculation", even though he's been lobbying for months. As ever, you almost wish they'd make more effort with the lying. But there's marvellous potential here, since his main rival is the current Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker, who said, "If called upon I would have no reason to refuse".

So can you imagine the feverish dealing and smearing Blair's team will be organising against Luxembourg, with rumours being spread that they're building missiles that could reach the edge of Luxembourg, and issuing hypnotic stamps.

But it means this could end gloriously, if only whoever the people are who decide these things have it in them – to make Tony Blair, in his quest for the job he wants so so much, lose to the Prime Minister of bloody Luxembourg. Is there any way we can influence this? There must be bribes that can be made, like they do with the Olympics. Someone must come up with a plan – it'll be the cathartic boost the country and the world so desperately needs.

[email protected]

[Usotsuki]

I too would welcome a period of quiet reflection from Mr Blair, three or four decades should suffice. Still there is the hope that the UK media obsession with the prospects of the somewhat tarnished former Saviour of the People is mere parochialism run amok.

The Daily Telegraph had a fairly long and extremely firm opinion piece the other day which examined the heroic stand of Václav Havel against the Lisbon Treaty and the impact on Darling Tony's employment opportunities.

However since the President of the Czech Republic is Václav Klaus, it did slightly undermine the article's air of authority. It's entirely possible that the pundits of the UK are focussed on Tony Blair because they can only name three politicians from continental Europe and Hitler and Mussolini are both dead whilst Berlusconi is a very busy man indeed.

[Werthead]

Isn't Sarkozy still backing Blair as well? I went to check but kept falling asleep before I could find the answer.

In other news, the British government continues its fine policy of soliciting 100% independant advice based on rigorous scientific research and then firing the advisor when he doesn't give the 'right' answer.

I'm pretty sure it's not that controversial to say that cannabis is not massively more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco and keeping cannabis as Class C only makes sense if you also address alcohol and tobacco as well is not logical. Sure, Daily Mail voters may not like the idea, but Labour's lost them anyway. This move just makes Gordon Brown look a bit silly and petty.

[VarysTheSpider]

Well done to David Nutt, he was a drop of sense and reason in a sea of cynicism and shit. :( I'll smoke one for him.

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said the sacking had been "an inevitable decision" after Prof Nutt's "latest ill-judged contribution to the debate".

BANG! And the vote is gone!

[Slick Mongoose]

Reality is always an ill-judged contribution to politics.

[kiko]

is anybody outside of the UK seriously giving a damn about Tony Blair as whatsover in Europe? I certainly never hear anything of it except in this thread.

Serously, as if a former British (or French or German for that matter) ruler would have a chance at becoming Europe's first head honcho.

[lacuna]

is anybody outside of the UK seriously giving a damn about Tony Blair as whatsover in Europe? I certainly never hear anything of it except in this thread.

Serously, as if a former British (or French or German for that matter) ruler would have a chance at becoming Europe's first head honcho.

Always seemed harmless to me.

Well, mostly harmless.

Question is, does he know where his towel is?

[Usotsuki]

It's a New Year so time for some old and well-loved arguments.

Labour's vote is hardening, increasing the prospect of a hung parliament after next year’s general election and providing a boost for Gordon Brown, a new survey shows.

The Sunday Times by-election model, constructed by Professor Colin Rallings and Professor Michael Thrasher of Plymouth University, is based on actual votes cast in the dozens of by-elections that take place for council seats each month.

It shows that although David Cameron’s Conservatives have a 10-point lead over Labour as the year draws to a close, the gap has been narrowing since the summer.

There's a more detailed breakdown of possible results at electoralcalculus.co.uk but the site seems to be suffering from a severe hangover so:

Con majority government 62% Conservatives govern on their own

Lab majority government 10% Labour govern on their own

Con - Lib coalition 14% Lib Dems only have enough seats to support the Conservatives

Lab - Lib coalition 8% Lib Dems only have enough seats to support Labour

Lib Dem choice of government 5% Lib Dems have enough seats to choose which party governs

Fragmented parliament 0.8% Lib Dems do not have enough seats to form a two-party coalition

[Hereward]

Bacon sandwiches have been forced down and a crafty Jaegermeister has been chugged. The site lives.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/

I think they may be over-estimating Labour's support, just as Tory support was over-estimated in 1997, 2001 and 2005. If you attempt to shore up the ultra hardline vote, you might do well enough when turnout is incredibly low, but you're really going to suffer in a General Election. I suppose, in that case, it depends just how low turnout goes. Usually, when there's a crisis turnout is high, but I don't imagine there's much appetite for a period of Tory slash and burn governing, even if many people reluctantly recognise there's a need for it.

I'm still going to bet on a decent Tory majority, even with the unprecedented swing they need. I reckon around 40. I am desperate for Labour to lose, as I'm sure you would have guessed, so I'm in something of a quandry. I want to vote LibDem, but my constituency is one the Tories need to win if Labour is to be unseated and the LibDems are not well fancied. Decisons, decisions...

[MinDonner]

...but at what cost?!?

Anyway, all the times I previously remember a forecast of a hung parliament, it has failed to materialise. I'd be happier to see one of those than a full Tory majority, as it might give us some chance of breaking this 2-party system, but realistically I reckon Cameron's going to walk it. :crying:

[Usotsuki]

Usually, when there's a crisis turnout is high, but I don't imagine there's much appetite for a period of Tory slash and burn governing, even if many people reluctantly recognise there's a need for it.

It's this that makes me think that a hung parliament is plausible even if not yet the most likely outcome. I live in one of the safest Conservative seats in the country and even here the positive appetite for a Tory government seems fairly low.

Then again I'm wrong a lot- I even thought Neil Kinnock was going to be Prime Minister at one stage. :blush:

[Daeric]

You know what we could do, make an appeal of facebook, theres bound to be enough mindless drones to vote lib Dems!

[Maltaran]

You know what we could do, make an appeal of facebook, theres bound to be enough mindless drones to vote lib Dems!

Oi - I resemble that remark.

[Daeric]

As in mindless drones floating about Facebook, not that you are a mindless drone for wanting to vote lib dems, unless you know you really really want to be a drone then knock yourself out.

[MinDonner]

If a FB campaign succeeded in getting the Lib Dems into power, I think I would actually die laughing. Today the Christmas single, tomorrow No 10! :lmao: