General politics discussion thread

[Chris B]

So, when you say you 'don't support the BNP', what you actually mean is that you 'do support the BNP, as long as the ethnics they dislike don't live near you'?

Erm, not quite.

 

I never mentioned anything about ethnics not living near me, did I? I said that the BNP are a non-entity up here in Scotland.

 

Scotland = near you.

 

England = not near you.

 

The number of ethnic minorities who could be potentially damaged by the BNP gaining power in Scotland = nonexistant.

 

The number of ethnic minorities who could be potentially damaged by the BNP gaining power in England = really quite high.

 

I can put it on flashcards or something.

[Carbomb]

the BNP are very much pro-Britain

 

Chris is already arguing one side here, so I'd like to address this.

 

If you wouldn't mind, I'd like you to clarify what "pro-Britain" means, because declaring yourself "pro-Britain", festooning yourself with the Union flag and talking about "fighting for Britain" is an easy and vague route to go down. From what I can see, nothing the BNP does really works out as pro-British; if anything, it's damaging to the UK.

 

Returning to an agrarian economy after hundreds of years of industrialisation would be ridiculously damaging. Fuck, Britain STARTED the Industrial Revolution. How do they propose to maintain the power of our economy through pure agriculture, especially when our standard of modern living is derived from the benefits of having once been an imperial power, all of which was only achievable through being industrialised?

 

The stance on race is ridiculous enough in itself. How is it pro-British to marginalise and alienate nearly 10% of the British population, many of whom add to the workforce and pay taxes?

 

As to the stance on Europe, I'd consider it pro-British if they rejected Europe in favour of a clear, outlined plan as to what they plan to do to replace the economic benefits we get from preferential trading with other European states. As it is, there's nothing but a vague wave in the direction of "old-style trade agreements".

[David]

I can put it on flashcards or something.

I think you may have to mate, as I haven't got a fucking clue what you're on about now.

 

I never mentioned anything about the level of ethnic minorities who could be potentially damaged by the BNP gaining power in Scotland being nonexistent.

 

I said that the BNP will never really be able to get a foothold in this country, and as such won't be spending very much of their new-found Euro wealth within Scottish borders, and that I didn't give a toss about how many votes the BNP manage to win in England.

[Chris B]

Harry, I assume you wouldn't have an issue with people voting for parties who would make things difficult for ethnic minorities in Scotland, would you?

[David]

If you wouldn't mind, I'd like you to clarify what "pro-Britain" means.

Apologies, I should have said 'pro-union'.

 

The BNP are pretty clear on wanting the United Kingdom to remain as it is, whilst i'm very much a supporter of Scottish independence.

 

Harry, I assume you wouldn't have an issue with people voting for parties who would make things difficult for ethnic minorities in Scotland, would you?

I personally don't have an issue with who anyone wants to vote.

 

It's their right to vote for whichever party they choose, isn't it?

[Chris B]

Harry, I assume you wouldn't have an issue with people voting for parties who would make things difficult for ethnic minorities in Scotland, would you?

I personally don't have an issue with who anyone wants to vote.

 

It's their right to vote for whichever party they choose, isn't it?

 

See, personally, I have an issue with anyone who supports fascism. Sure, they have the right to do it, but they're still either scum or deeply, deeply stupid. I also have issues with anyone who votes in support of a party that aims to treat people differently due to the colour of their skin, their beliefs or their sexuality.

[David]

See, personally, I have an issue with anyone who supports fascism. Sure, they have the right to do it, but they're still either scum or deeply, deeply stupid. I also have issues with anyone who votes in support of a party that aims to treat people differently due to the colour of their skin, their beliefs or their sexuality.

Good for you.

[Chris B]

See, personally, I have an issue with anyone who supports fascism. Sure, they have the right to do it, but they're still either scum or deeply, deeply stupid. I also have issues with anyone who votes in support of a party that aims to treat people differently due to the colour of their skin, their beliefs or their sexuality.

Good for you.

 

 

You'll be glad to know you're not in the 'scum' list.

[David]

You'll be glad to know you're not in the 'scum' list.

As difficult as it may be to comprehend, I really couldn't care which 'list' you see fit to add me to.

 

Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me, although I respect your right to hold it.

 

Keep fighting the good fight chief.

[Glen Quagmire]

Examples please Mr Quagmire

 

Not sure what examples you're exactly after, but Thatcher clearly led a new-ish wing of the Conservatives to the right of the "One Nation" grouping that had dominated the Conservatives for several decades, with the inspiration coming from Enoch Powell even if most of them would not say so at least in public. Thatcher managed to build a personality following around her that did not tolerate dissidence and held a very low opinion on any questions on either her judgements or her supporters - her authority was not to be challenged. "Thatcherism" is still talked about in Britain and beyond, no one talks about "Majorism" because he didn't seek to build a party around his own core beliefs.

 

Bullshit. I reckon Major was on a hiding to nothing. Great Chancellor shot leader.. more of a custodian as no one else wanted to be scapegoat after Thatcher/ John Smith galvanised the party and provided the beginnings of change had he not died it would have been Smith to Blair potentially.

 

You're going from one thing to another several times in the one sentence The little personality Major had was very effective in 1992 although the premature triumphalism of Kinnock contributed as well to the end result along with some of the media cries (don't get started on the likes of The Sun etc). I actually don't think Major was a bad PM myself but his party and its weak majority in the Commons badly hampered him being torn by the Wets whose power grew once Thatcher was ousted, the Thatcherites whose influence was starting to wane very slowly, and a small but very loud Eurosceptic group. Despite that after Black Wednesday his cabinet managed to get the economy back running well and he did some good work in Northern Ireland that he doesn't get full credit for. Had John Smith led Labour into the 1997 election, I don't think Labour would have won the landslide Blair got, but he still would have won a comfortable victory as despite Major's best attempts, the Conservatives were a walking PR disaster.

 

 

Doubt it the british press have forever been strong on orators... Brown is a shit orator, he is essentially reprising the Major role above as fall guy.

 

I reckon the appeal of orators in the media has been waning in recent years more towards politicians who are importing American-style PR and coming out with smart-arse comments to pimp their style over their substance and often being done by attacking the opponent rather than actually putting themselves forward. Brown isn't a great orator, I agree, but I reckon he would have been seen better as a quiet, unassuming leader who wished to get the job done without much fuss. Sadly for him, he is about to become the next Major, falling with a party behind him collapsing. I reckon he regrets not calling a snap election in 2007 now.

 

Labour have been threatening this all along tbh. Take your pick from a number of Ministers and hangers on from Vaz to Mandy to Jowell and so on and so on. There has been more scandal in 'New' Labour than under the Tories.. whether that is new media or a different society is certainly an argument that is worth pursuing though and something I wouldnt like to call.

 

I don't think British society is any different in tolerating their politicians sleaze regardless of what party they're attached too. The digging up of expenses hit pretty much all parties in the Commons but the mud has stuck to Labour the most and the most recent "Despatches" report is reminiscent of the sleaze of the Tories in the 1990's. In my opinion the age we now live in is now subject to so much information overload and less tolerating of authority whose respect hasn't been fully earned is that the scrutiny of politicians is now under a much bigger eye than it ever has been. The political system in the UK need a radical overhaul as both main parties cannot really hold much trust with the public and vice versa.

 

Ken Clarke says Hi... Torys havent been united since Peel repealed the Corn Laws if you examine closely.

 

Always thought Clarke was one of the most pro-EU Conservative MPs out there, and if I remember rightly appeared in public a few years ago together with MP's from Labour and the Lib Dems to promote the UK being more involved with the EU (a scene like that is a rare occurrence in UK politics). Anyway, the Tories raison d'etre has always pretty much been about power, a sense of compromise on compromisable beliefs directed by the mood of the times.

 

Nick Clegg is a nothing man.. he has strong values and is a great politician, but isnt a leader. Chris Huhne should have potentially won the leader ship voter.. there is also a valid case to get Charlie back as leader.

 

Vince Cable would make an excellent Prime Minister.. No shit, takes no prisoners and talks sense. Whomever was the next government would be a fool not to invite him to be at least Chancellor.

 

If there's one thing Charles Kennedy could do right now as leader, it would have been to have held the Lib Dems as a centre to centre left party as a significant alternative to both New Labour and the Conservatives. Cable doesn't want to be party leader and I reckon he would be right, he recognises his own limitations and doesn't carry the style factor that Clegg and Cameron has that appears to be so important these days. He isn't the God that some people make him out to be but I reckon he does have a wise head on his shoulders about getting the country's finances in the short term to be more prudent. Todays budget saw Darling borrow some of Cable's ideas and I'd have no doubt that Osbourne (if he is the next Chancellor) will do the same. If the election produces a hung parliament, Cable as Chancellor with Cameron as PM in a Tory-LibDem pact would be a strong possibility with Clegg getting himself a major cabinet role (likely health or foreign secretary), as both Clegg and Cable have drifted their party more to the right from Kennedy's & Menzies leadership.

 

I duno this could be the election that breaks the Camels back.. dependant on the Budget tomorrow you may see alot of protest votes and a squew parliament returned.

I'm not sure what a "Squew" parliament is?

[Glen Quagmire]

It's very unlikely this will be the lowest turnout ever as historically turnout is usually much higher when the election is likely to be closer.

 

If, however, there's a hung parliament and we wind up with a second election within a year, you'll probably see a slump in the turnout along with a big drop in the Lib Dem vote.

Normally I'd agree that a close election would bring a high turnout like it did in 1992, but I get that there is just apathy among many voters who don't see much difference among the main parties and don't trust them. The Tories and Labour have not been any closer in terms of ideology than they have been in the last decade. The Liberal Democrats are not much further from both parties either. What we have now in the UK with the biggest three parties is that in terms of the economy they are largely centre-right though under Brown Labour have moved slightly leftwards towards the centre with a Keynesian approach to dealing with the recession. The only notable differences is that Labour still hold the idea of a large public sector with loose immigration and the Liberal Democrats don't share the same streak for top-down authority that both Labour and the Conservatives have though to be honest apart from some economic policies that are traditional Tory holds like inheritance tax, I really don't know what the Conservatives under Cameron clearly stand for altogether. If it wasn't for the history between the two parties, a Grand Coalition in peacetime between Labour and the Conservatives could actually work like it did in Germany between the CDU and SPD last decade for a term.

 

If there is a second election in a year like in 1974, it will depend on the circumstances of how the first election turned out and the events that follow it that are difficult to predict right now. However I could only see the Lib Dem vote drop if another election was to be held in such a short space of time if they were to drop a complete clanger in trying to form a government - I cannot see Clegg enter a coalition as a minority partner unless he got at least a referendum on PR.

[patiirc]

Personality politics entered the UK a while back in the form of Thatcher who deliberately made sure that the political focus in the country made her the centre of attention. When she was ousted by her own party, John Major's leadership provide some respite from this though in his favour for that he was more preoccupied in holding the Conservative Party together and he had the image of a quiet, unassuming figure that allowed his cabinet ministers to get on with their jobs themselves more than Thatcher did.

 

Glenn, in respect of your statement, examples that Thatcher brought personal politics into as opposed to media icon creation and confirmation that John Major was an expert 'juggler' rather than 'just the guy guiding the ship' would be useful cheers.

 

So Thatcher was authoritarian that makes it personal politics how exactly? we we lambasted by what she was wearing what football team she supported what Dennis' take on everything was and Mark's social life and so on. The Americanism afaik crept in Blairs reign and has just got effing stupid now. its no longer about the politics its about the man/ women behind it which is retarded. People vote on personality rather than Policy. Politics goes X-Factor if you will

 

I do the whole train of thought in a sentence things on occasion, but to answer you. Major was seen as a guide iirc from the 1990 leadership battle, he had done well as chancellor taking over from Lawson and was seen as a calmative influence on the party, nothing more nothing less. If was transposed to modern politics he is Nick Clegg. Good at what he does in the background just not utterly amazing at the front as it were.

 

John Smith had utterly galvanised the Labour Party after Kinnocks resignation in a way that Blair picked up on the reflective glory whn Smith passed away.

 

Tony Blair was considered to be PM material since day one before he started messing with new/nu/whatever. Satire at the time Drop the Dead Donkey etc picked this up very very quickly. Although Blair would ultimately change the way the party was heading John Smith had the political 'it' that help Labour to push on following Kinnock . His base (some would argue Kinnocks base) was plain to see and his untimely death took away what would have been a certain win for him.Where the country would have ended up is anyones guess, could have been a fun ride though.

 

Essentially whatever happened John Major was on a hiding to nothing. A dead man walking if you will. Such was the backlash and the need for something 'new; ' the tories would not have got in full stop. I was at the count on that election night and despite the labour MP that got in being and utter cock and arriving only when they could be bothered despite everyone else being there all night. There was an air that change was afoot.

 

The issue now is that people only remember the 'bad' things Tories did and we as a nation have been 'brainwashed/sleepwalking' into a neutered election stance where by its better the devil you know that the devil you dont.

 

 

The point about Brown/ Major comparisons is as I said, both were effectively hung out to dry as scapegoat after the 'other' leaders had done their damage > there would be loads of comparisons between Major and Brown Iam sure when the dust has settle, perhaps now is too close a time to be reflective.

 

Regarding the Ken Clarke thing, yes he is pro Euro, yes, you mentioned Eurosceptics.. My point was that the party has been divided since Peel repealed the Corn Laws in one form or another and at times the Tories are more like a collective of similar views rather than a cohesive party unit. and as such it has always been a juggling act or one of suppresion. The scpetics didnt all go to Ukip they are at times ignore and at others entertained. 2001 Election saw Christ Patten having ago and accusing them of McCarthyism in the press http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...ism-676917.html

 

 

What other Tory sleaze were you refering to other than Sex scandals and Super Gun and Wessex. Iam missing out on these other scandals as was.

Archers purgory was tried long long after the even then there is Aitken and the Hamiltions and cash for questions

Then though, it was more about the integrity. These days its about fucking people over, from Keith Vaz, Mandyx2 (x3?), Jowell, Reid, Straw, Prezza(x2/3) and so on theres even books (albeit I guess satirical on it) New Labour Sleaze... write a book

 

It appears that its not just your morale values it just seems that the scandals are more and more an abuse of power Hillduja (sp) bros, Mortgages/Visas for Brazilians, Ecclestones labour donations and so on theres a nice list herewhich has 4 years of scandal missing!

 

AS for a skewed (ive checked the spelling now ) as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread or the election one if people really voted for whom the wanted then Parliament would be a mesh of parties and would be Coalition agogo.. I expect that there will be some voting to type. Iam in a strong labour seat so my vote is going to be best used as a protest vote, but iam not sure who for yet. but if enough people get usurped there could be a very different political landscape next term.

[Steveo2007]

You'll be glad to know you're not in the 'scum' list.

As difficult as it may be to comprehend, I really couldn't care which 'list' you see fit to add me to.

 

Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me, although I respect your right to hold it.

 

Keep fighting the good fight chief.

I was kind of hoping that the whole "I vote BNP" or "I support the BNP" thing was an act for your own amusement, but you seem to genuinely believe the BNP are the party for you.

 

I have a question. Really? The BNP, really?

Edited March 24, 2010 by Steveo2007

[David]

I was kind of hoping that the whole "I vote BNP" or "I support the BNP" thing was an act for your own amusement, but you seem to genuinely believe the BNP are the party for you.

 

I have a question. Really? The BNP, really?

I have a question for you.

 

After reading what i've posted you have come to the conclusion that I "genuinely believe the BNP are the party for me"?

 

Really? Seriously? Really?

[Chris B]

I was kind of hoping that the whole "I vote BNP" or "I support the BNP" thing was an act for your own amusement, but you seem to genuinely believe the BNP are the party for you.

 

I have a question. Really? The BNP, really?

I have a question for you.

 

After reading what i've posted you have come to the conclusion that I "genuinely believe the BNP are the party for me"?

 

Really? Seriously? Really?

 

You voted for them.

 

It's a pretty big clue.