steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 29, 2022 8:53:05 GMT
With reference to political parties past activities
In 1940 many of the Tory party leadership were calling for trying to get a peace settlement with murderous lunatic Adolph Hitler, the leader of the national government Winston Churchill relied on the support of his labour party national government colleagues to see off the attempt to surrender.
I don't blame existing Tory supporters or politicians for this treachery ( unless of course they would have tried to do the same) it's odd that one of our contributors seeks to apply similar levels of approbation to a political party now that wouldn't have made the same choices as it did in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Nov 29, 2022 8:57:03 GMT
Just an addendum to my 1970 World Cup reverie. Interestingly, Wilson timed the GE of that year four days before the Final in Mexico was due to be played. Maybe, if he and his strategists really thought an England victory was both likely and electorally beneficial, he might have timed the election for the following Thursday. The fact that he declined to do so suggests that the football played little part in his thinking.
More generally though, one of the many reasons I always want rid of Tory Governments is because England only ever win World Cups under Labour Governments!
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 29, 2022 9:18:42 GMT
crossbat11 I think that will be bad news for the England world cup winning T 20 cricket team, sorry guys you have to give the trophy back.
|
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Nov 29, 2022 9:25:41 GMT
JiB: "If there's one major factor responsible for failure of public services, regulation and regulated services in the UK now it is the 2010-15 coalition."
What puzzles me about your twin obsessions with brexit and the LD role in the coalition is that they are totally inconsistent with each other.
On brexit, you argue that the 51.9% - 48.1% result means that brexit cannot be challenged or reversed any time soon. The people have spoken and that's that. "Get over it". At the same time, you accept that people didn't know what form of brexit they would get, and voted on the basis of assurances that were never fulfilled.
On the Coalition government, you avoid mentioning the combined 59.1% of the popular vote achieved by the two parties involved, and focus instead on the LDs' divergence from parts of their manifesto. Some of their voters didn't get what they were led to expect. Just like some brexit voters.
If you argue passionately for the irreversible legitimacy of a 51.9% vote, despite the broken promises that ensued, it's a bit odd to be so obsessed with a coalition resulting from a 59.1% vote, followed by broken promises.
All this happened over 12 years ago. As you brexiteers love to say: Get over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Nov 29, 2022 9:27:50 GMT
crossbat11 I think that will be bad news for the England world cup winning T 20 cricket team, sorry guys you have to give the trophy back. Yes, I should have been more specific! Football World Cups, not any sporting World Cup. Much as I am a lover of our summer national sport, I think football may have a slightly bigger reach than cricket and, therefore, our success or failure in it, more likely to impact the national mood! |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 29, 2022 9:35:07 GMT
Danny - "The study doesnt show that at all." Yes it does. Your ability to misinterpret science remains undimmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Nov 29, 2022 9:38:21 GMT
I think this is a particularly thoughtful piece from, in my opinion, one of our more unsung political commentators, Gaby Hinsliff. In this article, I think she captures Starmer's strategy and tactics on Brexit quite well, or at least the controversial rationale behind them. Some of us have said similar things on this forum too. Essentially, Starmer is megaphoning messages to Leave voters whilst dog-whistling reassurance to Remain voters. His gamble is that he wins back some 2019 defecting Leave voters whilst retaining the largely remain voting core Labour vote. It's Ming Vase handling stuff, and a tricky circle to square, as it would be for any Labour leader trying to cobble together an election winning coalition of voters, but I can see where Starmer is going with all this. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/29/keir-starmer-softer-brexit-labour-leader-leave-voters-remainers |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 9:38:31 GMT
A 20 year old New Lab Policy. ! Haven't checked how successful it was then. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 9:40:18 GMT
'Most Important Election Issues' infographic from R&W's latest. Note Immigration is 3rd most important issue at 28% (+2 on the week). Folks can look for themselves lower down the list for things hardly anyone is interested in (although likely to be high variation between the nations on something like thinking Scottish Independence is an important issue) View AttachmentSunak's personal Top Three issues. Apparently. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 9:42:32 GMT
I think this is a particularly thoughtful piece from, in my opinion, one of our more unsung political commentators, Gaby Hinsliff. In this article, I think she captures Starmer's strategy and tactics on Brexit quite well, or at least the controversial rationale behind them. Some of us have said similar things on this forum too. Essentially, Starmer is megaphoning messages to Leave voters whilst dog-whistling reassurance to Remain voters. His gamble is that he wins back some 2019 defecting Leave voters whilst retaining the largely remain voting core Labour vote. It's Ming Vase handling stuff, and a tricky circle to square, as it would be for any Labour leader trying to cobble together an election winning coalition of voters, but I can see where Starmer is going with all this. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/29/keir-starmer-softer-brexit-labour-leader-leave-voters-remainersInteresting piece. I like this :- "Thrilling as that poll majority for rejoining the EU looks, it’s almost certainly a majority for something that isn’t on offer, which is going back to 2015. (Watch it vanish if voters are told that the price of rejoining might be adopting the euro.)" and the acknowledgement that Sunak is on this track too :- "First, the paper argues, the government should build goodwill with our neighbours – something Sunak is in fairness now attempting – and seek a workable solution to the flaws in the Northern Ireland protocol." |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Nov 29, 2022 10:00:19 GMT
colinThe power for Starmer is that he's reclaiming lost Labour voters but also shooting a few Tory foxes along the way. I don't really see much dividend for Sunak beyond reviving Farage. And that dividend, should it materialise, is payable to Starmer. 👍😎
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 29, 2022 10:06:43 GMT
Times article (being widely reused by other press*) on Braverman finally getting round to copying NewLAB policy: A 20 year old New Lab Policy. ! Haven't checked how successful it was then. This from 2005 (PM Blair, HSec C.Clarke*) assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251091/6472.pdfHistoric analysis is tricky for various reasons (eg timing of a specific 'push' factor wave, who you count as 'genuine' or not, etc). However, as well as the 'direct' numbers then the purposes of much tougher approach is to act as a 'deterrent' (eg why spend £thousands to come from Albania/other safe nation to UK and risking your life to do so, if you know you'll just be sent straight back to your home country). So whilst not the best graph to use then note the huge rise from the beginning of NewLAB to around 2005 and the big drop towards the end of NewLAB era for 'refugees granted asylum'. www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/refugee-statisticsAs well as improving bilateral relations with France then a 'no nonsense' approach to fast-tracking 'false' claims should help break the business model of the criminal gangs involved in people trafficking. As we've discussed before then mandatory ID cards who be another very useful part of the solution. * NewLAB had 6 HSecs during their period in power. Not sure there was ever a huge difference between them** but y'day I mentioned Blunkett as someone who I specifically remembered as taking a strict approach. Although maybe like Patel->Braverman it needed someone even stricter (eg C.Clarke) to actually start doing something about the problem. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Secretary** I lived abroad for quite a bit of NewLAB's era so wasn't really paying that much attention to who was H.Sec at specific times. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 29, 2022 10:16:57 GMT
Those thinking there are solutions to the immigration issue need to look at this image - www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/28/migrants-travel-from-nigeria-to-canary-islands-balanced-on-ships-rudderIn a world of 8bn souls, with gross inequality on a global scale, and with global heating really starting to kick in, the notion that we can defend our borders with legislation is Canute-like in it's irrelevancy. These people sat on top of the rudder of an ocean going vessel for 11 days. Legislate against that! Unless we in the west collectively deal with population control, economic rebalancing and climate change (that we' primarily, have caused) then global populations will move, in greater and greater ways. Our only other option is defended hard borders where in due course, we will have to start shooting people to keep them out. Our world is going to change, markedly. The idea that we can keep dark skinned people out is for the birds, and we either accept patrolling borders by force or wholesale global reform that will mean we need to make major sacrifices. We need to get used to this. All else is witless gurning. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Nov 29, 2022 10:17:16 GMT
A few click thrus from that interesting piece (interesting stuff does usually spark a more interesting discussion) and I stumbled across the below twitter link. I noted y'day that Cooper is trying to outflank Braverman on being stricter about immigration and look forward to seeing more specifics on how NewLABv2 intend to do so (eg bring back Blair's plan for ID cards). |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 29, 2022 10:19:10 GMT
Well there is actually a plan to build massive Wind Farm over-capacity* but the problem with wind is that whilst the AVERAGE load factor might be 40% (rounded) then it varies a lot - see the load duration curves in the below link (which I'll repost on the Energy Specific thread)https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors Had a look, but it failed to provide the information I was seeking. I heard an expert interviewed, who said matters were better than they appear on simple numbers like this, because the weather across the Uk normaly varies such that when its calm in one place, it is usually windy somewhere else. So that between installations available capacity tends to average out and cover most of the lulls, so there was an effective national wind generation capacity almost always. I thought he said something like 1/3 of nominal capacity is the effective minimum always. There is no comment on that page about this. Obviously it suggests a national plan of where to site turbines would be necessary. No. Nooooo. No. Nuclear is an always on technology. If you build enough nuclear to supply demand when there is no wind, then you do not need wind at all. It would be pointless to switch off the nuclear so you can use the wind. Always on generation is fundamantally incompatible with randomly on. Unless you intend to use it eg a nuclear permanently attached to a hydrogne generator to produce gas. But since nuclear is pretty expensive, its entirely possible its just simpler and cheaper to build no nuclear and use surplus wind when its blowy to make the gas. .Wasnt this discussed at some length before and it was concluded gas made mostly of hydrogen has been used in the past? I found a link which suggested typical composition of town gas made from coal is 50% hydrogen, 35% methane, 10% carbon monoxide, 5% ethylene. But they need to be placed where they need to be placed. Or would his constituents rather have their electricity cut off? Or pay double? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 29, 2022 10:27:58 GMT
Bingo. The concept of 'freedom of movement' was fundamentally misunderstood by those who are not mobile themselves and think instinctively in terms of people staying in one place long term. Some do of course but many, esp the younger European generation (generation EasyJet as some have named them) do not. Npw I think about it, exactly the same effect happens within the UK. Visited Scotland a few years ago which has a shotage of workers. But quite a lot of scots who said they went away to England to find work and a career, but then retired back to Scotland. I even know someone from Northwen England who decided to abandon his comfortable situation here in the south and move back home so he could get settled there before retirement overtook him. Both examples where freedom of movement prevents permanent migration. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Nov 29, 2022 10:35:17 GMT
oldnat Obviously I can't speak for everyone who on balance wants the union to continue. But personally I'd like to see a federal system with members of the constitution nations elected to a federal government of the UK by PR. Given this is essentially liberal democrat policy it's not remotely accepting the status quo.
As to a Federal UK, my first political party was the Scottish Liberal Party as it seemed obvious that Scotland's domestic affairs should be decided in Scotland (as they had largely been through the 18th to early 20th centuries, before the excessive centralisation in Whitehall/Westminster began in 1945.
Like many in the indy movement, I think that the UK could have transformed itself into a modern decentralised state, but there was little interest in that in the largest polity, so nothing changed until Labour became alarmed at the rise of the SNP and invented the notion of "legislative devolution" - a considerable improvement, but keeping ultimate control at Westminster which is a wholly different concept from Federalism.
It was the Tory/Lib Dem UKGov that rejected the idea of a 3 option referendum in 2014, although polling over many years suggested that a considerable majority in Scotland would have preferred "Home Rule" - a Scottish Parliament controlling all Scotland's affairs except defence and foreign affairs. That the debate was polarised into a binary choice between independence and the UK Union was a choice made by the GB parties.
The devil lies in the detail of Federalism. Is it to be more similar to a centralised model like the Kingdom of Spain, or that of the Kingdom of Denmark, which gives Home Rule to Faroes and Greenland, and even permits them to leave the political union with mainland Denmark should they so choose? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 29, 2022 10:40:42 GMT
Our departure from the European union is just as widely an issue of interest to the public as it was when the decision to hold the 2016 referendum was made and the on going slow motion train wreck isn't likely to make people lose interest. Its a bit like the situation in China. They cannot politically admit draconian lockdown was a mistake and has to end, and the longer it continues the worse civil disobedience will become. On which incidentally, an expert this morning opined that although the chinese made vaccine is worse at preventing cases of covid, it is actually better at preventing deaths (because its based on live virus so gives a broader spectrum response). Which is kinda what matters now. Further he reckoned their numbers on people who have had at least two doses are pretty good. Its only numbers getting a third booster which isnt so good, and it has been conceded in the UK that a booster has most of its effect as short lasting protection against immediate infection, not in increasing your protecion against serious disease. So there is no reason not to release lockdowns based upon the Chinese vaccine program. Its a political problem to admit this has already gone on long past the time it was medically beneficial-if it ever was. And maybe, it has suited China to impose draconian control of people's movements using covid as an excuse. Wouldnt it be an irony if the real reason we ended up having lockdown is because China started using it and it seemed to work...but their real reason to do so was to impose strict state control on citizens freedom of movement. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 10:46:21 GMT
With respect to @crossbat's comment on the LOC echo chamber. There were just over 200 posts today. (My count was v rapid). There is room for interpretation but my count is 86 Labour posts, 42 "other" including one or two posts by those LOCs who cannot make their minds up & Carfrew 22 posts (!) who seems more ROC than LOC to me but we count as other. Plus the following stridently anti-Labour voters Lexiteer 16. Colin 9. OldNat 17 Mercian 10 So 86 Labour. 64 Other. 52 Anti-Labour. 84 posts, or getting on for half, were contributed by 6 posters! of which 52 are anti-Labour, plus Carfrew (22) & Crossbat (10). Some LOC echo chamber. It’s worth pointing out that most “Labour” posters are actually LOC/desperate to see PR in our lifetime, which means it would then be unlikely that Labour - or any other party - were ever over 50% in a General Election. So more a means to an end, far from a certain one but the best we’ve got at the moment. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 29, 2022 10:47:55 GMT
Danny - "The study doesnt show that at all." Yes it does. Your ability to misinterpret science remains undimmed. Wouldnt it be better for your argument to explain what you think is wrong with my analysis? Cant do that? Oh dear. I could have written a longer reply, I could have even pointed out some limitations in my counter arguments, as plainly you arent going to. Instead you use insults, which really ought to get you banned from the board for persistenty insulting fellow contributors, not just me. Is the situation really that you have read the article, and you agree with me about its errors, but simply refuse to enter into debate because there's no actual rebuttal possible? They use the wrong value for the deceased's life expectancy, and that destroys their conclusions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 10:50:53 GMT
Amusing to read our resident Lib Dem with his anecdotal musings about the impact of Brexit and the "failing" state of the UK. If there's one major factor responsible for failure of public services, regulation and regulated services in the UK now it is the 2010-15 coalition.
They didn't have the political "big boy pants" to rescind hard fought for legislation, they just defunded the public authorities and brought about their deregulated utopia that way.
Sh**sters.
View Attachment You’ve never mentioned this before. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Nov 29, 2022 10:59:29 GMT
You are misrepresenting what I wrote as usual. The Twenty-Seventh Amendment to the USA Constitution was presented to the States for ratification on September 25, 1789 but did not reach the threshold until May 5th 1992. Those Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights were quickly approved, but this one which prevented Congress from voting themselves pay-rises while in office was not. Do you really think it is desirable that individual states can hold up amendments to the constitution? It is notable that the amendments to prohibit slavery (Thirteenth to Fifteenth) were passed in the period just after the Civil War, at a time when the Southern States had not been re-admitted so they were forced to ratify them when they rejoined the Union.
You do come across as someone whose moniker is the antithesis of your beliefs.You do come across as someone whose belief in Scottish Independence has left you delusional. The point I was making, which clearly went over your head, was that once you have a codified constitution, changes which are straightforward under a system that has no codified constitution can become very difficult. The example I chose is an extreme one to make my point. That Scotland could have an independence referendum in 2014 was a result of not having a codified constitution for the UK because it allowed the Government of the day to authorise one under Section 30 of the Scotland Act. The Brexit referendum of 2016 could only take place because of Article 50 in the Lisbon Treaty which amended the Constitution of the EU to allow countries to withdraw. For half a century from the founding of the Common Market in 1957 this was not constitutionally possible. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Nov 29, 2022 11:11:42 GMT
Clearly, something I feel very strongly about. 😡 Where are these "hand-picked" judges in the UK. As far as I know the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary does not "hand-pick" judges of the Supreme Court unlike the President of the United States, who has that power under the US Constitution. Have you been failing to take your medication again?  |
|
|
|
Post by ladyvalerie on Nov 29, 2022 11:18:52 GMT
It is clear to me that the American Constitution, set up by “the founding fathers” and treated by many as a biblical text is not fit for purpose in the way it regards women. I’m a British woman and prefer my Constitution which takes account of changing social norms and mores. You, a Scottish man, may well feel differently.
I'd rather look to Ireland, where the people have amended their constitution from the archaic "social norms and mores" they once had, and which can't be reversed by a simple majority in their Parliament.Well done you! Here we go again. You’ve no idea what I’m “totally happy about” Another lecture from you telling me what I’m thinking and what I should be thinking Obviously you know far more about women’s rights than I do. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Nov 29, 2022 11:29:55 GMT
crossbat11 I think that will be bad news for the England world cup winning T 20 cricket team, sorry guys you have to give the trophy back. Yes, I should have been more specific! Football World Cups, not any sporting World Cup. Much as I am a lover of our summer national sport, I think football may have a slightly bigger reach than cricket and, therefore, our success or failure in it, more likely to impact the national mood! Applies to Rugby Union World Cups as well (2003). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 11:30:00 GMT
A few click thrus from that interesting piece (interesting stuff does usually spark a more interesting discussion) and I stumbled across the below twitter link. I noted y'day that Cooper is trying to outflank Braverman on being stricter about immigration and look forward to seeing more specifics on how NewLABv2 intend to do so (eg bring back Blair's plan for ID cards). As I tried to explain yesterday , I have no respect whatsoever for the willful naivety of the Open Borders bleeding heart liberals. They do neither the host country nor the the un-inetgrated newcomers any favours and merely roll the pitch for Far Right "solutions" |
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Nov 29, 2022 11:36:11 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 11:36:20 GMT
colin The power for Starmer is that he's reclaiming lost Labour voters but also shooting a few Tory foxes along the way. I don't really see much dividend for Sunak beyond reviving Farage. And that dividend, should it materialise, is payable to Starmer. 👍😎 Well I think its the same objective as Starmer really. To present a departure from constant loggerheads with EU. Starting with a resolution of the NIP ( I seem to remember he promised Biden by April ??). Moving on , via better personal relationships with Macron, and bi lateral/multilateral engagement on Ukraine, defense, energy etc ........to a place from where something might be accomplished on the trade front. I agree that Sunak will probably be preparing this ground for Starmer. |
|
|
|
Post by ladyvalerie on Nov 29, 2022 11:43:54 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2022 11:44:17 GMT
Those thinking there are solutions to the immigration issue need to look at this image - www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/28/migrants-travel-from-nigeria-to-canary-islands-balanced-on-ships-rudderIn a world of 8bn souls, with gross inequality on a global scale, and with global heating really starting to kick in, the notion that we can defend our borders with legislation is Canute-like in it's irrelevancy. These people sat on top of the rudder of an ocean going vessel for 11 days. Legislate against that! Unless we in the west collectively deal with population control, economic rebalancing and climate change (that we' primarily, have caused) then global populations will move, in greater and greater ways. Our only other option is defended hard borders where in due course, we will have to start shooting people to keep them out. Our world is going to change, markedly. The idea that we can keep dark skinned people out is for the birds, and we either accept patrolling borders by force or wholesale global reform that will mean we need to make major sacrifices. We need to get used to this. All else is witless gurning. Apart from your uneccessary use of "dark skinned" , you echo what I was trying to evidence yesterday. Our border is merely a secondary line of defence in this respect to EU's southern and Eastern borders, which thousands of migrants, both economic and refugees, continue to breach in complete rejection of the absence of legal routes open to them. Frontex is in no different a place than Border Force-except their numbers are much much bigger. |
|
