domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on May 15, 2023 18:30:21 GMT
Danny Kruger at the Nat Con conference today: The Tory Party needs to treat the infection of nationalist evangelical Christianity very quickly. Just when you think they couldn't get any crazier... they do I'm sure all those blue wall Tories who defected en masse to the LDs and Labour will love it, just the thing to rejuvenate southern Toryism.. Not!  |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 15, 2023 18:32:21 GMT
I hesitate to give them airtime, but here are two observations regarding the NatCon conference. 1) When an organisation like Momentum, which some view as extreme left, became prominent in Labour circles, the broadcast media were not slow to adopt a negative stance, labeling them as far left, extreme, etc. Much of what we have seen at NatCon is far more extreme than Momentum, but the reporting is strangely fact based, analytical, mainstream. Not unexpected, but deeply alarming. 2) The Americanisation of the British Right continues apace, and this has major consequences for the UK. It is bringing extreme views into normal discourse. That the statements from some over restricting education, particularly for women, and the reprise of anti-expert rants by the Home Secretary (even while she argued against Trumpifying the Tory Party - that was genuinely funny, although I suspect the joke was unintentional) have not provoked a storm of condemnation from moderate Conservatives is telling. The party is lost, somewhere in the mid-Atlantic, reliant on lifeboats sent out by far right US billionaires. My second observation is that this is happening, and needs to be recognised by other parts of the UK. I can't see any sign that the Conservative Party has it within itself to challenge this, and England is being led by the right increasingly towards a US style of politics, where extremism, partisanship, gerrymandering are considered normal. Historically it has been the Conservative Party itself, allied to the threat of a leftward tilt with Labour, that has held the line against extremism, but the defences are now in ruins. There is no one left to defend the right flank in British politics. This has implications for the UK. Basically, if you can, get out. Scotland needs to wake up to the fact that this isn't going away, and the English conservative domination of British politics is getting worse, more dangerous - not better. Agree your points 1 and 2 alec (especially 1), but the polling evidence and the voting reality is that there is much less appetite for this stuff in England (or Britain) than in the US. I think it looks like the road to electoral oblivion. England may well be 'small c' conservative, but I don't think it is remotely NatCon. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on May 15, 2023 18:44:28 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 18:49:15 GMT
Agree your points 1 and 2 alec (especially 1), but the polling evidence and the voting reality is that there is much less appetite for this stuff in England (or Britain) than in the US. I think it looks like the road to electoral oblivion. England may well be 'small c' conservative, but I don't think it is remotely NatCon. I think you're missing the point though ... as was demonstrated in Germany in 1933 , they only have to win once. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on May 15, 2023 19:04:11 GMT
Mind your polity! I was referring to Uk wide elections which - like most national elections worldwide - do not allow citizens of other countries to vote (unless you’re Irish of course!). commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8985/My suspicion - and it is only that - is that all elected politicians try and enfranchise the electorate they feel suits them best. So I suspect the different franchises for Uk and Scottish elections suit those in power in those countries. The main point I was making is that it is not a little Englander right wing Tory idea to suggest if you want to vote in a country you should be a citizen of that country. It is the norm around the world. Becoming a citizen should mean something surely? And the right to vote seems like something. The no taxation without representation argument doesn’t really hold given that, for example, permanent residents here can vote in local elections here and still vote the country they are a citizen of. So they can vote in national elections in their country of citizenship and local elections in their country of residence. Seems fair. And if they want a national vote here they can change citizenship. My friends loved Canada but always felt British. They kept their UK citizenship and happily came back to retire. They probably voted in the UK for the 15 years you are allowed to after you leave the country. Interestingly the Tories are trying it get this 15 limit removed so overseas voters can vote for life. Labour is opposed. I suspect they’ve both been told overseas voters are more right wing so these are policies of self interest. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05923/ |
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 15, 2023 19:15:42 GMT
domjg - "It's bonkers as this is not America. There is no host here for this far right 'Christianity' virus to latch onto. Even actual Christians here are very different and tend to be loc in my experience at least. This will get them zero support and lots of ridicule. One thing I still admire about this country and which is not about to change is that we 'don't do God'." The US also has it's mainstream Christian groups, and I'm not so sanguine about the evangelical right making the scene in the UK as you are. The fastest growing churches in the UK are from the evangelical wing.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on May 15, 2023 19:26:35 GMT
Mind your polity! I was referring to Uk wide elections which - like most national elections worldwide - do not allow citizens of other countries to vote (unless you’re Irish of course!). commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8985/My suspicion - and it is only that - is that all elected politicians try and enfranchise the electorate they feel suits them best. So I suspect the different franchises for Uk and Scottish elections suit those in power in those countries. The main point I was making is that it is not a little Englander right wing Tory idea to suggest if you want to vote in a country you should be a citizen of that country. It is the norm around the world. Becoming a citizen should mean something surely? And the right to vote seems like something. The no taxation without representation argument doesn’t really hold given that, for example, permanent residents here can vote in local elections here and still vote the country they are a citizen of. So they can vote in national elections in their country of citizenship and local elections in their country of residence. Seems fair. And if they want a national vote here they can change citizenship. My friends loved Canada but always felt British. They kept their UK citizenship and happily came back to retire. They probably voted in the UK for the 15 years you are allowed to after you leave the country. Interestingly the Tories are trying it get this 15 limit removed so overseas voters can vote for life. Labour is opposed. I suspect they’ve both been told overseas voters are more right wing so these are policies of self interest. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05923/“I suspect they’ve both been told overseas voters are more right wing so these are policies of self interest.” - That may well have been the case with those who years ago followed the colonial dream and emigrated to Australia, Canada, South Africa etc and also of course with the many UK citizens who retired to Spain and to a lesser extent France. The more recent generations of the globally or Europe wide itinerant are, I would guess, far more socially liberal however. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 15, 2023 19:34:36 GMT
Agree your points 1 and 2 alec (especially 1), but the polling evidence and the voting reality is that there is much less appetite for this stuff in England (or Britain) than in the US. I think it looks like the road to electoral oblivion. England may well be 'small c' conservative, but I don't think it is remotely NatCon. I think you're missing the point though ... as was demonstrated in Germany in 1933 , they only have to win once. But they have never won on an agenda that is anything like that. It doesn't resemble the Conservatism of the 1980s or 1990s and Cameron's wins in 2010 and 2015 were socially liberal. In 2019 Johnson's key themes were ending the Brexit impasse and levelling up, the latter something that you could imagine Labour offering. The British Social Attitudes Survey and the Census suggest Britain is becoming ever less religious and more liberal in its social attitudes. The US right has the advantage of solidly 'redneck' areas they control and the ability to gerrymander through political control of constituency boundaries and judicial appointments - it is arguable that without that even the Republicans would be in serious trouble as the reality is they are outnumbered US-wide. The UK situation is very different. What I do find alarming is the readiness of the UK media and the Tory Party itself to tolerate any wacky far-right nonsense as acceptable, when even mildly leftist ideas are beyond the pale. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 15, 2023 19:39:42 GMT
Mind your polity! I was referring to Uk wide elections which - like most national elections worldwide - do not allow citizens of other countries to vote (unless you’re Irish of course!). commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8985/My suspicion - and it is only that - is that all elected politicians try and enfranchise the electorate they feel suits them best. So I suspect the different franchises for Uk and Scottish elections suit those in power in those countries. The main point I was making is that it is not a little Englander right wing Tory idea to suggest if you want to vote in a country you should be a citizen of that country. It is the norm around the world. Becoming a citizen should mean something surely? And the right to vote seems like something. The no taxation without representation argument doesn’t really hold given that, for example, permanent residents here can vote in local elections here and still vote the country they are a citizen of. So they can vote in national elections in their country of citizenship and local elections in their country of residence. Seems fair. And if they want a national vote here they can change citizenship. My friends loved Canada but always felt British. They kept their UK citizenship and happily came back to retire. They probably voted in the UK for the 15 years you are allowed to after you leave the country. Interestingly the Tories are trying it get this 15 limit removed so overseas voters can vote for life. Labour is opposed. I suspect they’ve both been told overseas voters are more right wing so these are policies of self interest. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05923/Well, that depends. When the UK was in the EU, resident EU citizens (and some others) could vote in local elections. Just not General Elections. Also, dual/triple etc., nationals living in the UK, who also have UK citizenship as one of these nationalities have always been allowed to vote in General Elections. This all raises the question as to whether long term overseas residents in the UK should be allowed to vote in General Election; or even whether there should be an automatic path to UK citizenship for long term residents. Polling on this subject would be interesting, and I would imagine would show that those resident for 20+ years should be allowed to.vote in UK elections. Those just resident for less than 10 years should not. And with a tight contest between those with 10-20 years' residency tenure. Yes, those with settled status can apply for nationality after a certain period of time but even so the argument against extending full voting rights to long term residents is quite weak. |
|
|
|
Post by expatr on May 15, 2023 20:08:04 GMT
Danny Kruger at the Nat Con conference today: The Tory Party needs to treat the infection of nationalist evangelical Christianity very quickly. It's bonkers as this is not America. There is no host here for this far right 'Christianity' virus to latch onto. Even actual Christians here are very different and tend to be loc in my experience at least. This will get them zero support and lots of ridicule. One thing I still admire about this country and which is not about to change is that we 'don't do God'.
Diverse, all parties, largely peopled who've always seemed reasonable people of goodwill, only one with a voting record which is even in the same ballpark as these crazies.
A few points.
Practicing Christians in GB basically have voting patterns more or less identical to everyone else.
This is equally true of mainstream evangelicalism (which is increasingly churches of black origin in the UK), hence the Archbishop of C (who self identifies as an evangelical) being pretty condemnatory of immigration policy and economic injustice (though his own track record is something to be repented of on the latter, perhaps).
There has always been a US influenced fringe in the UK (led by people who went to Billy Graham rallies 70 years ago) which has been right wing extremist but the point was it was a fringe. Indeed the very word evangelical is an extremely tricky one which has changed its meaning numerous times over the last 500 years. It has changed to mean religious fundamentalist with racist, right-wing political views over the last 30 years - hence a lot of people who would use the label (outside of the US) would be confused to be lumped in with this lot.
As Tom Holland has pointed out, it's certainly arguable that "woke" as it is actually practiced owes a lot more to Christianity than 'cultural marxism' (not surprising as the latter is a fever dream invented by right wing extremists) - rather in the manner of the Labour Party owing more to Methodism than Marx. NI is different...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 20:38:24 GMT
I think you're missing the point though ... as was demonstrated in Germany in 1933 , they only have to win once. But they have never won on an agenda that is anything like that. It doesn't resemble the Conservatism of the 1980s or 1990s and Cameron's wins in 2010 and 2015 were socially liberal. In 2019 Johnson's key themes were ending the Brexit impasse and levelling up, the latter something that you could imagine Labour offering. The British Social Attitudes Survey and the Census suggest Britain is becoming ever less religious and more liberal in its social attitudes. The US right has the advantage of solidly 'redneck' areas they control and the ability to gerrymander through political control of constituency boundaries and judicial appointments - it is arguable that without that even the Republicans would be in serious trouble as the reality is they are outnumbered US-wide. The UK situation is very different. What I do find alarming is the readiness of the UK media and the Tory Party itself to tolerate any wacky far-right nonsense as acceptable, when even mildly leftist ideas are beyond the pale. One can imagine a scenario for example where a Starmer led government fails to deliver expected change for whatever reason, and a sense of disillusionment sets in. Under FPTP, a Braverman led Conservative Party doesn't need majority support, just enough votes at the right time and in the right places to get them over the line...... Let us not forget that Boris Johnson's 2019 landslide coalition lasted less than 3 years.
The Brexit vote shows what is possible when complacency sets in.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 15, 2023 20:43:03 GMT
It's bonkers as this is not America. There is no host here for this far right 'Christianity' virus to latch onto. Even actual Christians here are very different and tend to be loc in my experience at least. This will get them zero support and lots of ridicule. One thing I still admire about this country and which is not about to change is that we 'don't do God'.
Diverse, all parties, largely peopled who've always seemed reasonable people of goodwill, only one with a voting record which is even in the same ballpark as these crazies.
A few points.
Practicing Christians in GB basically have voting patterns more or less identical to everyone else.
This is equally true of mainstream evangelicalism (which is increasingly churches of black origin in the UK), hence the Archbishop of C (who self identifies as an evangelical) being pretty condemnatory of immigration policy and economic injustice (though his own track record is something to be repented of on the latter, perhaps).
There has always been a US influenced fringe in the UK (led by people who went to Billy Graham rallies 70 years ago) which has been right wing extremist but the point was it was a fringe. Indeed the very word evangelical is an extremely tricky one which has changed its meaning numerous times over the last 500 years. It has changed to mean religious fundamentalist with racist, right-wing political views over the last 30 years - hence a lot of people who would use the label (outside of the US) would be confused to be lumped in with this lot.
As Tom Holland has pointed out, it's certainly arguable that "woke" as it is actually practiced owes a lot more to Christianity than 'cultural marxism' (not surprising as the latter is a fever dream invented by right wing extremists) - rather in the manner of the Labour Party owing more to Methodism than Marx. NI is different...
You are right in that, so to clarify, when I call Cates an evangelical Christian it is because it is her self-description. I have often wondered what Jesus of Nazareth would have made of some of his self-proclaimed followers. They often seem more Old Testament than New to me. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 15, 2023 20:47:38 GMT
But they have never won on an agenda that is anything like that. It doesn't resemble the Conservatism of the 1980s or 1990s and Cameron's wins in 2010 and 2015 were socially liberal. In 2019 Johnson's key themes were ending the Brexit impasse and levelling up, the latter something that you could imagine Labour offering. The British Social Attitudes Survey and the Census suggest Britain is becoming ever less religious and more liberal in its social attitudes. The US right has the advantage of solidly 'redneck' areas they control and the ability to gerrymander through political control of constituency boundaries and judicial appointments - it is arguable that without that even the Republicans would be in serious trouble as the reality is they are outnumbered US-wide. The UK situation is very different. What I do find alarming is the readiness of the UK media and the Tory Party itself to tolerate any wacky far-right nonsense as acceptable, when even mildly leftist ideas are beyond the pale. One can imagine a scenario for example where a Starmer led government fails to deliver expected change for whatever reason, and a sense of disillusionment sets in. Under FPTP they don't need majority support, just enough votes at the right time and in the right places to get them over the line...... Let us not forget that Boris Johnson's 2019 landslide coalition lasted less than 3 years.
The Brexit vote shows what is possible when complacency sets in.
The antidote to that would be proportional representation. Maybe the parliamentary arithmetic will align correctly one day ...  |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 15, 2023 20:54:55 GMT
Mind your polity! I was referring to Uk wide elections which - like most national elections worldwide - do not allow citizens of other countries to vote (unless you’re Irish of course!). commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8985/My suspicion - and it is only that - is that all elected politicians try and enfranchise the electorate they feel suits them best. So I suspect the different franchises for Uk and Scottish elections suit those in power in those countries. The main point I was making is that it is not a little Englander right wing Tory idea to suggest if you want to vote in a country you should be a citizen of that country. It is the norm around the world. Becoming a citizen should mean something surely? And the right to vote seems like something. The no taxation without representation argument doesn’t really hold given that, for example, permanent residents here can vote in local elections here and still vote the country they are a citizen of. So they can vote in national elections in their country of citizenship and local elections in their country of residence. Seems fair. And if they want a national vote here they can change citizenship. My friends loved Canada but always felt British. They kept their UK citizenship and happily came back to retire. They probably voted in the UK for the 15 years you are allowed to after you leave the country. Interestingly the Tories are trying it get this 15 limit removed so overseas voters can vote for life. Labour is opposed. I suspect they’ve both been told overseas voters are more right wing so these are policies of self interest. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05923/
Glad, however, that you recognise that UK and Scotland are different "countries" - despite the latter being part of the former! That does demonstrate the inadequacy of using the term "country" in political dialogue - in much the same way that "national" can (and does) refer to different polities within the same UK state, as well as the UK state itself. Sloppy use of language reveals sloppy thinking.
From your comment, I assume that you would like the entitlement of certain Commonwealth citizens, resident in the UK to vote in Westminster elections, rescinded. It does seem a strange anomaly, based entirely on the UK's glorious imperial history of stealing other people's lands.
The projected change in the 15 year rule is quite interesting. I can see the argument that emigrants from England might be more likely to vote Tory, but could this be another Tory gerrymandering cockup? If it comes in, there will be 6 additional SNP votes from my family in the USA. They all have dual citizenship, but lived in Scotland as children. None of them give a damn about UK politics, but are all Scottish football supporters and, as they would be wholly unaffected by any election here, would "vote for Scotland" - just for the hell of it.
At the same time, they have no wish to vote in Scottish elections, as they don't live here, and see no reason to have a say in how Scotland is run.
Different polities have different rules about non-resident citizens voting. There is no "right" answer. |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on May 15, 2023 21:13:21 GMT
I hesitate to give them airtime, but here are two observations regarding the NatCon conference. 1) When an organisation like Momentum, which some view as extreme left, became prominent in Labour circles, the broadcast media were not slow to adopt a negative stance, labeling them as far left, extreme, etc. Much of what we have seen at NatCon is far more extreme than Momentum, but the reporting is strangely fact based, analytical, mainstream. Not unexpected, but deeply alarming. 2) The Americanisation of the British Right continues apace, and this has major consequences for the UK. It is bringing extreme views into normal discourse. That the statements from some over restricting education, particularly for women, and the reprise of anti-expert rants by the Home Secretary (even while she argued against Trumpifying the Tory Party - that was genuinely funny, although I suspect the joke was unintentional) have not provoked a storm of condemnation from moderate Conservatives is telling. The party is lost, somewhere in the mid-Atlantic, reliant on lifeboats sent out by far right US billionaires. My second observation is that this is happening, and needs to be recognised by other parts of the UK. I can't see any sign that the Conservative Party has it within itself to challenge this, and England is being led by the right increasingly towards a US style of politics, where extremism, partisanship, gerrymandering are considered normal. Historically it has been the Conservative Party itself, allied to the threat of a leftward tilt with Labour, that has held the line against extremism, but the defences are now in ruins. There is no one left to defend the right flank in British politics. This has implications for the UK. Basically, if you can, get out. Scotland needs to wake up to the fact that this isn't going away, and the English conservative domination of British politics is getting worse, more dangerous - not better. Agree your points 1 and 2 alec (especially 1), but the polling evidence and the voting reality is that there is much less appetite for this stuff in England (or Britain) than in the US. I think it looks like the road to electoral oblivion. England may well be 'small c' conservative, but I don't think it is remotely NatCon. The same could have been said about the USA twenty years ago. Ignoring this threat is to encourage it. Or will Labour supporters want to recognise the "legitimate concerns" of NatCon believers? |
|
|
|
Post by James E on May 15, 2023 21:15:05 GMT
A bit of analysis of Opinium's recent English regional cross-breaks. Overall, the 8 Opinium polls since the start of March show an average of Lab 43%, Con 28%, so a swing of about 13% compared to GE 2019. By English region the averages are: London Lab 53% (+5) Con 24% (-8) Swing 6.5% South Lab 38% (+16) Con 34% (-20) Swing 18% Midlands Lab 45% (+12) Con 32% (-22) Swing 17% North Lab 50% (+7) Con 25% (-14) Swing 10.5% These movements follow the same pattern as with my previous analysis of R&W, Deltpoll and YouGov. And as I have noted before, Opinium's detailed figures are very close indeed to YouGov's. For the past 5 YouGovs we have averages of: London: Lab 52%, Con 24%: swing 6% South: Lab 37%, Con 33% : swing 18% Midlands: Lab 43%, Con 32% : swing 16% North: Lab 52%, Con 23% : swing 12% There is a further point on which Opinium and YouGov are very similar: the Conservatives' regional vote retention. Overall, YouGov show the Tories keeping 60% of the 44.7% overall GB share they took in 2019, and Opinium 63%. Both show the Tories doing rather better than average in London, retaining 75% of their vote share, which is down from 32% to 24% with both. In the South the Tories retain only 63% with Opinium and 61% with YouGov. So the Tories' vote-losses in the South entirely proportionate to GB as a whole, but are high because they had most support there in 2019. In the Midlands, it's even worse as their retention is just 58% with Opinium and 59% with YouGov. And in the North, they retain 64% with Opinium and 60% with YouGov - very much the same proportions as the South - or GB as a whole. This differential regional pattern makes a huge difference when it comes to seats. A uniform 13% as per Opinium's headline average (with lower swings of 10% in Wales and 7% against the SNP in Scotland) would see Labour making 130 gains, so a total of 332 seats and a majority of 14. However, using the differing English regional figures (and the same as above in Wales and Scotland), we get 174 Labour gains due to all the long-range ones in the South and Midlands. This would give a majority of 102. www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on May 15, 2023 21:26:07 GMT
I was assuming that leftieliberal would approve of that franchise. It wasn't clear to me what Foreign Nationals are allowed to vote, as Turkish Passport holders are explicitly excluded. I do, however, approve of allowing convicted criminals the vote in certain circumstances as it was an ECHR case that the UK Government refused to accept. One of the principles of rehabilitation of offenders is to reintegrate them into society and that has to include them getting the vote back. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on May 15, 2023 21:27:41 GMT
Agree your points 1 and 2 alec (especially 1), but the polling evidence and the voting reality is that there is much less appetite for this stuff in England (or Britain) than in the US. I think it looks like the road to electoral oblivion. England may well be 'small c' conservative, but I don't think it is remotely NatCon. The same could have been said about the USA twenty years ago. Ignoring this threat is to encourage it. Or will Labour supporters want to recognise the "legitimate concerns" of NatCon believers? "Or will Labour supporters want to recognise the "legitimate concerns" of NatCon believers?" - That's cheap. We do need to be extremely vigilant but these kind of attitudes have never been absent fro the US. It's definitely not just a case of the last 20 years. This stuff is completely alien to British social discourse and I can't see any way that can change. Outside of African and East Asian communities evangelical Christianity is just not really a thing |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 15, 2023 21:55:11 GMT
Agree your points 1 and 2 alec (especially 1), but the polling evidence and the voting reality is that there is much less appetite for this stuff in England (or Britain) than in the US. I think it looks like the road to electoral oblivion. England may well be 'small c' conservative, but I don't think it is remotely NatCon. The same could have been said about the USA twenty years ago. Ignoring this threat is to encourage it. Or will Labour supporters want to recognise the "legitimate concerns" of NatCon believers? I'm not ignoring it. I am very alarmed about the trends in the Conservative Party, given it is one of the two major British political parties. However, I don't see it as a winning proposition and nor do many Conservatives. What more moderate Tories lack is the guts to throw these people out of their party wholesale and it may indeed be too late to do so. I take your last sentence to be a reference to trans issues. I don't believe Starmer as has ever used the phrase "legitimate concerns" (nor have I in my comments on this site as I appreciate it is a loaded term), although I am happy to be proved wrong if you can find a reference. What he has said is that if you want to make a change you have to take the public with you and the more recent polling on this issue demonstrates that unfortunately the Scottish Parliament ultimately failed to do this: www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23256763.gender-recognition-reform-polls-people-say/Just to emphasise, I support the change the Scottish Parliament proposes and oppose the UK government veto. The only thing I would contend is that Trans rights activists have on occasion been too ready to dismiss all concerns expressed by women as due to bigotry (and certainly there was plenty of that from the far and Christian right), when some came from very dark and terrible places of women who have suffered horrible abuse by men. A degree of sympathy and understanding was needed in dealing with winning those people round (which was doable I think) by assuaging their fears that that was not always forthcoming. Just telling them they were transphobes and not recognising their trauma was just going to force them into the arms of the genuine bigots. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 15, 2023 21:58:18 GMT
The same could have been said about the USA twenty years ago. Ignoring this threat is to encourage it. Or will Labour supporters want to recognise the "legitimate concerns" of NatCon believers? "Or will Labour supporters want to recognise the "legitimate concerns" of NatCon believers?" - That's cheap. We do need to be extremely vigilant but these kind of attitudes have never been absent fro the US. It's definitely not just a case of the last 20 years. This stuff is completely alien to British social discourse and I can't see any way that can change. Outside of African and East Asian communities evangelical Christianity is just not really a thing
You are exhibiting British exceptionalism with that comment. As someone noted above, it's that kind of complacency that allows any state to walk blindly into government sponsored bigotry, prejudice and, ultimately, totalitarianism. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on May 15, 2023 22:33:47 GMT
Mind your polity! I was referring to Uk wide elections which - like most national elections worldwide - do not allow citizens of other countries to vote (unless you’re Irish of course!). commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8985/My suspicion - and it is only that - is that all elected politicians try and enfranchise the electorate they feel suits them best. So I suspect the different franchises for Uk and Scottish elections suit those in power in those countries. The main point I was making is that it is not a little Englander right wing Tory idea to suggest if you want to vote in a country you should be a citizen of that country. It is the norm around the world. Becoming a citizen should mean something surely? And the right to vote seems like something. The no taxation without representation argument doesn’t really hold given that, for example, permanent residents here can vote in local elections here and still vote the country they are a citizen of. So they can vote in national elections in their country of citizenship and local elections in their country of residence. Seems fair. And if they want a national vote here they can change citizenship. My friends loved Canada but always felt British. They kept their UK citizenship and happily came back to retire. They probably voted in the UK for the 15 years you are allowed to after you leave the country. Interestingly the Tories are trying it get this 15 limit removed so overseas voters can vote for life. Labour is opposed. I suspect they’ve both been told overseas voters are more right wing so these are policies of self interest. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05923/
Glad, however, that you recognise that UK and Scotland are different "countries" - despite the latter being part of the former! That does demonstrate the inadequacy of using the term "country" in political dialogue - in much the same way that "national" can (and does) refer to different polities within the same UK state, as well as the UK state itself. Sloppy use of language reveals sloppy thinking.
From your comment, I assume that you would like the entitlement of certain Commonwealth citizens, resident in the UK to vote in Westminster elections, rescinded. It does seem a strange anomaly, based entirely on the UK's glorious imperial history of stealing other people's lands.
The projected change in the 15 year rule is quite interesting. I can see the argument that emigrants from England might be more likely to vote Tory, but could this be another Tory gerrymandering cockup? If it comes in, there will be 6 additional SNP votes from my family in the USA. They all have dual citizenship, but lived in Scotland as children. None of them give a damn about UK politics, but are all Scottish football supporters and, as they would be wholly unaffected by any election here, would "vote for Scotland" - just for the hell of it.
At the same time, they have no wish to vote in Scottish elections, as they don't live here, and see no reason to have a say in how Scotland is run.
Different polities have different rules about non-resident citizens voting. There is no "right" answer.I agree there is no right answer. My only minor beef is with people being able to vote in two national elections (and by this I mean “national” as in countries recognised by the UN as independent voting members of the General Assembly not national as in members of FIFA!)”. So happy for Scots to vote in Scottish and UK elections in our slightly weird kingdom of nations. As others have noted the weird thing post devolution is the lack of an English assembly. But I think that particular boat has sailed, at least until if and when Scotish independence is off the agenda and we feel the need to sort out a new solution to our unusual nation of countries. |
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on May 15, 2023 22:35:31 GMT
neilj Oddly enough UK citizens in work don't actually much fancy training in these technically quite difficult and not particularly pleasant or well paid tasks. Primarily because they are already doing something else. If you could pick three tasks least suitable for the cohort of people currently not working these forms of manual labour with technical skills would be near the top of the list. Braverman and our very own jib wish to keep those with the requisite skills set out of the country or make the terms and conditions of their stay here so onerous that they couldn't be bothered to apply. It will be interesting to see how many unemployed former Conservative MPs, who lose their seats in the next General Election, decide to avail themselves of the opportunities of Brexit and retrain as fruit pickers. I actually liked this headline: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65593353"Train fruit pickers and lorry drivers to cut migration, says Suella Braverman" Why stop at training them to cut migration. Why not train Fruit pickers (and lorry drivers) to do a better job at being politicians After all, if London cabbies are generally reckoned to have an opinion on everything and a solution to nearly everything, then training lorry drivers how to implement policies that will cut migration seems like a o brainer. Oh wait. Maybe that's not what she meant... |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 15, 2023 22:43:11 GMT
Hello everyone, just a quick post to let you know the news from the Times that BJ is buying a £3.8 million mansion with a moat. It didn’t say whether the most was to keep him in or keep others out.
also Shapps says energy bills will start falling in six weeks, though couldn’t see any indication as to how much they might fall. So it could just be 50p…
and we’re getting a new trade deal with Switzerland! It’s possible this may not set the polls alight
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on May 15, 2023 22:48:24 GMT
"Or will Labour supporters want to recognise the "legitimate concerns" of NatCon believers?" - That's cheap. We do need to be extremely vigilant but these kind of attitudes have never been absent fro the US. It's definitely not just a case of the last 20 years. This stuff is completely alien to British social discourse and I can't see any way that can change. Outside of African and East Asian communities evangelical Christianity is just not really a thing
You are exhibiting British exceptionalism with that comment. As someone noted above, it's that kind of complacency that allows any state to walk blindly into government sponsored bigotry, prejudice and, ultimately, totalitarianism.That endemic sexism, racism, homophobia etc was just culturally embedded and been forever. It was unthinking for the most part. It wasn't self consciously ideological like these new far right wing, Orbanesque, pseudo evangelical movements are. Don't get me wrong I recognise them as vicious and dangerous and great vigilance is required, especially elsewhere in Europe. I just don't honestly think they'll do much more here than make the Tories even more unelectable than they already are. We need to watch them like hawks though and every new crazy utterance needs to be widely publicized and taken down. Maybe you're right though. I'm always telling others that this country is not immune to the things afflicting other countries. Maybe I'm hoisting myself by my own petard. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on May 15, 2023 22:49:31 GMT
The same could have been said about the USA twenty years ago. Ignoring this threat is to encourage it. Or will Labour supporters want to recognise the "legitimate concerns" of NatCon believers? "Or will Labour supporters want to recognise the "legitimate concerns" of NatCon believers?" - That's cheap. Maybe. Or maybe hireton and Lakeland Lass are pointing up a deadly threat. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 15, 2023 22:53:47 GMT
More from the NatCon thing:
“The Conservative Party should focus on the “values” of working-class voters in the north rather than “retreating” to its traditional “affluent” supporters in the south, two emerging leaders on the right of the party will say today.
Danny Kruger, MP for Devizes in Wiltshire, and Miriam Cates, MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge in South Yorkshire, will make speeches at a conference in central London that will call on Rishi Sunak to adopt bolder policies for the next election.
The prime minister will also face criticism at the conference from Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business secretary and ally of Boris Johnson, who will say the government’s expansion of childcare support is “fundamentally anti-Conservative”.”
Times
|
|
|
|
Post by eor on May 15, 2023 23:11:00 GMT
Social media happened. Skip back not many years and to get anything leaked a minister would have to convince a newspaper or broadcaster that a) it was true, and b) to run with it and risk jeopardising the goodwill of more senior people in the relevant party that they relied on for a lot of their regular political content. Now anyone can anonymously leak anything that they feel will benefit them personally in a given moment, in the sure knowledge that it'll be amplified by a whole range of people who either assume it is true, or want it to be true or just like the picture it paints. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 15, 2023 23:13:06 GMT
... 2) The Americanisation of the British Right continues apace, and this has major consequences for the UK. It is bringing extreme views into normal discourse. That the statements from some over restricting education, particularly for women, and the reprise of anti-expert rants by the Home Secretary (even while she argued against Trumpifying the Tory Party - that was genuinely funny, although I suspect the joke was unintentional) have not provoked a storm of condemnation from moderate Conservatives is telling. The party is lost, somewhere in the mid-Atlantic, reliant on lifeboats sent out by far right US billionaires. I thought the 'British Right' was supposed to have been bought by Russian billionaires/Putin? Or are we talking a New World Order conspiracy theory where Davos attendees and others arrange things for their own benefit? I expect they started Covid so that they could make money out of vaccines, and the Ukraine war to exploit grain and oil shortages? I'm not quite sure how they made money out of faking the Moon landings but I'm sure you'll be able to explain. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 23:34:31 GMT
Danny Kruger at the Nat Con conference today: The Tory Party needs to treat the infection of nationalist evangelical Christianity very quickly. Just when you think they couldn't get any crazier... they do Some people might not be aware that Kruger is the son of Prue Leith, of Bake Off fame (among much else). Her atheist philosophy has clearly not rubbed off. I have seen her one woman show locally a couple of times in recent years, (free, as part of a rewards scheme, I should probably add). She is a remarkable woman, with a very full life experience, and is an enthralling raconteur. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prue_Leith |
|
|
|
Post by eor on May 15, 2023 23:49:23 GMT
Mind your polity! I was referring to Uk wide elections which - like most national elections worldwide - do not allow citizens of other countries to vote (unless you’re Irish of course!). commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8985/My suspicion - and it is only that - is that all elected politicians try and enfranchise the electorate they feel suits them best. So I suspect the different franchises for Uk and Scottish elections suit those in power in those countries. The main point I was making is that it is not a little Englander right wing Tory idea to suggest if you want to vote in a country you should be a citizen of that country. It is the norm around the world. Becoming a citizen should mean something surely? And the right to vote seems like something. The no taxation without representation argument doesn’t really hold given that, for example, permanent residents here can vote in local elections here and still vote the country they are a citizen of. So they can vote in national elections in their country of citizenship and local elections in their country of residence. Seems fair. And if they want a national vote here they can change citizenship. My friends loved Canada but always felt British. They kept their UK citizenship and happily came back to retire. They probably voted in the UK for the 15 years you are allowed to after you leave the country. Interestingly the Tories are trying it get this 15 limit removed so overseas voters can vote for life. Labour is opposed. I suspect they’ve both been told overseas voters are more right wing so these are policies of self interest. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05923/Well, that depends. When the UK was in the EU, resident EU citizens (and some others) could vote in local elections. Just not General Elections. Also, dual/triple etc., nationals living in the UK, who also have UK citizenship as one of these nationalities have always been allowed to vote in General Elections. This all raises the question as to whether long term overseas residents in the UK should be allowed to vote in General Election; or even whether there should be an automatic path to UK citizenship for long term residents. Polling on this subject would be interesting, and I would imagine would show that those resident for 20+ years should be allowed to.vote in UK elections. Those just resident for less than 10 years should not. And with a tight contest between those with 10-20 years' residency tenure. Yes, those with settled status can apply for nationality after a certain period of time but even so the argument against extending full voting rights to long term residents is quite weak. I think the two things should be separate - whether you would take UK citizenship is sometimes less aligned with commitment to living and being here than it sounds, cos every country treats the other end of this question in their own way, and some that are very demographically significant for the UK (like India) don't allow dual nationality, so to accept UK citizenship is to choose to stop being Indian. Whilst others (like the US) are fine with multiple citizenships but have such an insane approach to bilateral taxation that you'd have to be out of your mind to not jump wholly one way or the other. To me it feels like if you're living here awhile, then who the government is affects you more and more, and so you should have a say in that. Likewise if you've moved away, after a while it has less and less impact on you who the government here is. So I'd go with a reciprocal rule based on residency - live here for x years and you can vote in a GE, likewise after x years living abroad your right to vote in a GE is suspended until you move back. Dunno what x should be - 15 years is a number that rings a bell but that seems too long on both sides, something more like 10 feels fair? |
|
