British Politics

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Padme said:

So you want a populist UK government? You can have it within the EU, just look at Hungary.

Hungary are under a Soft Eurosceptic, Orbán. Are you really wanting to use them as an example? Really? It is a logic so flawed that it is little removed from (hypothetical scenario) ''Prime Minister Farage is proof you can have a populist government in the EU''. Two weeks later Prime Minister Farage removes Britain from the EU. Whoops!

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Oh sorry, I wasn't at all talking about the EU. Just about this trend to rail against "the elite". Probably most relevant to American politics.

It depends on what sort of elite you are discussing. You have to remember that every MP in the House of Commons, for all their Oxbridge education and spells ''in the city'', were elected in a general election (or bi-election). They could very well be defeated the following election. The EU Parliament, the one component of the EU that actually is elected and therefore prima facie democratic, possesses no legislative initiative. Power is instead located in the unelected EU Commission who owe their placement to cronyism.  

[soon]

[Padme]

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Hungary are under a Soft Eurosceptic, Orbán. Are you really wanting to use them as an example? Really? It is a logic so flawed that it is little removed from (hypothetical scenario) ''Prime Minister Farage is proof you can have a populist government in the EU''. Two weeks later Prime Minister Farage removes Britain from the EU. Whoops!

Hungary is proof that a populist and Eurosceptic country can be part of the EU. I think it's a contradiction. But it's happening there. Farage is a MEP. Where is his logic? Looking at the current situation it is obvious nobody, populist or not, can remove the UK from the EU in two weeks, not even in two years.

[DieselDaisy]

17 minutes ago, Padme said:

Hungary is proof that a populist and Eurosceptic country can be part of the EU. I think it's a contradiction. But it's happening there. Farage is a MEP. Where is his logic? Looking at the current situation it is obvious nobody, populist or not, can remove the UK from the EU in two weeks, not even in two years.

The best defence you have of the existence of populist parties in the EU is a Eurosceptic only once removed from advocating withdrawal from the EU himself? It is not exactly the best defence of the European Union and its institutions!

Edited April 23, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Graeme]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I get that. And we wouldn't want people who don't share the interests of the populace to rule. But my point is that the concept of the elite, as some distanced ruling class with no concern for the welfare of the common man, is a myth. In normal, well-functioning democracies, the elite is just normal people who rise to the top because they are really good at what the do. They aren't the results of nepotism, people born into privilege who through being part of a particular network are able to attain positions of power. It might be like that in non-functioning societies, but for most part it isn't true for our countries. 

What I do see, though, is that the concept of the elite creates a chiasm between the have-nots and those in various forms of power. And as these two groups diverge, as equality grows, the have-nots will turn to populism to fight what they believe is an uncaring elite who suppresses them. And when you have this defined group, anyone in any sort of power becomes an enemy. You belong to the elite? Then you don't care about me and I certainly don't care about you! So people will fight the elite, and be distrustful to anything they say or stand for, while trying to get persons of the people to replace them (like Trump).

In my experience, people thought to be the elite usually aren't much difference from you or I. They are just very good at what they do and have through merit attained whatever position of power they have. They care much about the same issues like you and me, but, to be blunt, we might not always get that. But then again, we are not the elite.

Maybe your concept of the 'elite' is seen through the lens of a meritocracy because you have grown up in a functioning social democracy where social mobility is much higher and people from all backgrounds really can excel based on their ability in the majority of cases, rather than it being a rare exception that gets used to try and dismiss the rule (i.e. "Person X pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, the reason that most people from that background stay poor is because they're lazy").

I'm far more critical of the 'elite' in the UK because so much of it is based on who your parents were, do they own land? did you go to private school? with whom are your family 'connections'? 

[AtariLegend]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

You have to remember that every MP in the House of Commons, for all their Oxbridge education and spells ''in the city'', were elected in a general election (or bi-election). They could very well be defeated the following election

Absolute horse shit.

More than half the seats in the country are safe seats. There's 100's seats where people would literally vote for an inanimate object. People vote on these seats for parties regardless of candidate, because they were brought up that way.

Take Maidenhead our PM's seat. Last time the area voted against the conservatives was 1868 and it was pretty much either conservative or Tory mostly for the 100 years prior.

Northern Ireland's just as bad, this area I'm in haven't voted for a party without the word unionist, tory or conservative in 300 fucking years except for voting for "liberal in 1865".

Edited April 23, 2019 by AtariLegend

[DieselDaisy]

11 minutes ago, AtariLegend said:

Absolute horse shit.

More than half the seats in the country are safe seats. There's 100's seats where people would literally vote for an inanimate object. People vote on these seats for parties regardless of candidate, because they were brought up that way.

Take Maidenhead our PM's seat. Last time the area voted against the conservatives was 1868 and it was pretty much either conservative or Tory mostly for the 100 years prior.

Northern Ireland's just as bad, this area I'm in haven't voted for a party without the word unionist, tory or conservative in 300 fucking years except for voting for "liberal in 1865".

The people have the right to excise their tribalism though. Or to put it another way, their tribal voting habits are in themselves an expression of democracy. It is a bit different from simply having unelected leaders such as the EU Commission. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Padme]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The best defence you have of the existence of populist parties in the EU is a Eurosceptic only once removed from advocating withdrawal from the EU himself? It is not exactly the best defence of the European Union and its institutions!

No, I just mentioned Hungary as one example. There are populist parties all over Europe, some are from the left and others from the right. A populist party is not my cup of tea with or without the EU institutions.

[AtariLegend]

Do find it interesting that Gavin Esler is a TIG candidate for the EU elections. Used to watch some of his show. 

However Rachael Johnson as a candidate makes a mockery that Chukka's crossbreed of Cameroonians and Blairites are a party of change.

[SoulMonster]

10 hours ago, Graeme said:

Maybe your concept of the 'elite' is seen through the lens of a meritocracy because you have grown up in a functioning social democracy where social mobility is much higher and people from all backgrounds really can excel based on their ability in the majority of cases, rather than it being a rare exception that gets used to try and dismiss the rule (i.e. "Person X pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, the reason that most people from that background stay poor is because they're lazy").

I'm far more critical of the 'elite' in the UK because so much of it is based on who your parents were, do they own land? did you go to private school? with whom are your family 'connections'? 

I think you have a point. Norway is a very egalitarian state. Still, the anti-elitism rhetoric is getting out of hand, it is being used to create division, and people seem to be getting more and more distrustful of people in power just because they are in power as if the default is that you can't get there on merit alone (which I am sure is a huge exaggeration in most Western countries).

[DieselDaisy]

8 hours ago, AtariLegend said:

Do find it interesting that Gavin Esler is a TIG candidate for the EU elections. Used to watch some of his show. 

However Rachael Johnson as a candidate makes a mockery that Chukka's crossbreed of Cameroonians and Blairites are a party of change.

Surely their new name - ''Change UK'' - is a thorough misnomer, as it is the status quo (i.e., staying in the European Union) they are purporting to maintain, not the instigation of change?

PS

Widdy has joined Farage.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6953187/Tory-grandee-Widdecombe-defects-Farages-Brexit-Party.html

Edited April 24, 2019 by DieselDaisy
Post scriptum.

[DieselDaisy]

You have to be a multi-millionaire to mount a presidential campaign, and the Kennedys, Bushs and Clintons are dynasties. There has to be something wrong with that. Trump in contrast was a sleazy yuppie. 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

You're a good guy and we get along, I respect your intelligence/opinion and if you gave me advice I'd at least listen. But in this particular subject I strongly disagree. While I agree nobody should get carried away to the point of spiralling into complete paranoia and dismay - the idea that the ruling class are all just regular folks who worked their way to the top and things like nepotism have nothing to do with it; is a bad joke. That's simply incorrect.

And as far as trusting politicians and people in power; terrible idea. Like very, very bad idea. People should disregard tribalism and embrace wisdom and cooperation and debate and scrutinize until the best possible result is met, for example a President, and then hold them accountable.

Oh look Nobel Peace Prize winner Barrack is drone striking innocents under the guise of fighting for freedom when it's really for America's own self interests and he's continuing Guantanamo Bay even though he said he'd shut it down, I guess he's a hypocritical lying scumbag and the Nobel Peace Prize is a farcical tool. Oh look Hillary Clinton is a deceitful, war mongering psychopath, I'll not support her out of blind tokenism and a pathetic desire to appear #Woke. Oh look Trump is a moronic, demagogic conman, I'll not mindlessly support him. It's really that simple. The concept of "I trust you. I want to have a beer with you." when it comes to people in power is a severely childish grave mistake. Even if it were a perfect and faultless dream of a leader, it would still be a bad idea and if they really were that deserving and of such quality they wouldn't want your trust they'd want your attention and judgement.

Our world is not complicated it's convoluted. Hold them accountable and things will work out.

I never said, or intended to say, they are all good guys. But I think this idea that the majority of them are scum, is wrong. That doesn't mean we should inherently trust them, but we definitely shouldn't distrust them as the default. In my experience most people among the "elite" are just good at what they do and hence they have risen to positions of power in their respective fields. That doesn't mean they are necessarily ruthless or uncaring for other people -- they could just be very good. Again, not saying some of them aren't ruthless or uncaring, or rejecting the fact that for some positions such traits can't help you. Just that this "all politicians are scum" mentality is flawed, and that we are at a moment of division where people's natural distrust of authorities are being exploited for political agenda by populists.

[DieselDaisy]

Well this began well,

“Black women scare me. I put this down to be chased through Amsterdam by a crazy black wh***.”

“I wonder if there’s a c*** / anchovy correlation. One smells like the other.”

When I hear that 70% of pick pockets caught on the London Underground are Romanian it kind makes me want Brexit.”

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1118233/change-uk-candidate-Joseph-Russo-resigns-TIG-Independent-Group-european-elections

And they are meant to be the non-racist Europhiles haha

[Graeme]

When the Express is accusing you of being a racist, sexist arsehole, you really are beyond redemption.

[DieselDaisy]

I'll just leave this here then and politely move on,

[DieselDaisy]

EU Commission standing by Prodi directive pertaining to Scottish Independence. 

In other news, Tommy Robinson standing as Independent - NB, not UKIP - in North West European elections, whilst, Farage has now recruited a ''black gay'', an opera singer, a communist and the former editor of Loaded magazine.

Edited April 25, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

I think Theresa May is the worst Prime Minister in British history - at least post war war history. She might even beat Anthony Eden and Gordon Brown.

Worst,

1/ Theresa May (simply dreadful. She is so bad she even wants to ban wanking!).

2/ Brown (I sometimes have to remind myself he was even prime minister he was such a non-entity).

3/ Eden (Suez)

4/ Ted Heath (instigated biggest loss of sovereignty since 1066)

5/ Bit of a tie between Blair and ''Call Me Dave'' (launched EU Referendum expecting remain only to then bugger-off when the country produced leave leaving the country in paralysis). At least Blair had the Good Friday Agreement and a few other reformist items before he ballsed it all up in Iraq. Probably Cameron then. Callaghan was a bit shit also, granted he inherited a country in terminal decline.

Best,

1/ Supermac

2/ Harold Wilson

3/ Attlee

4/ Thatcher (her record would be superior if you could eradicate her disastrous third term).

5/ Churchill (senile second tenure failing to live up to his glorious war era but largely inoffensive).

PS

I also think Corbyn may just be the worst opposition leader. He makes Kinnock look like a political supremo.

Edited April 27, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[spunko12345]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

I think Theresa May is the worst Prime Minister in British history - at least post war war history. She might even beat Anthony Eden and Gordon Brown.

Worst,

1/ Theresa May (simply dreadful. She is so bad she even wants to ban wanking!).

2/ Brown (I sometimes have to remind myself he was even prime minister he was such a non-entity).

3/ Eden (Suez)

4/ Ted Heath (instigated biggest loss of sovereignty since 1066)

5/ Bit of a tie between Blair and ''Call Me Dave'' (launched EU Referendum expecting remain only to then bugger-off when the country produced leave leaving the country in paralysis). At least Blair had the Good Friday Agreement and a few other reformist items before he ballsed it all up in Iraq. Probably Cameron then. Callaghan was a bit shit also, granted he inherited a country in terminal decline.

Best,

1/ Supermac

2/ Harold Wilson

3/ Attlee

4/ Thatcher (her record would be superior if you could eradicate her disastrous third term).

5/ Churchill (senile second tenure failing to live up to his glorious war era but largely inoffensive).

PS

I also think Corbyn may just be the worst opposition leader. He makes Kinnock look like a political supremo.

Kinnock was a political collosus. A big expansive man.

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

I think Theresa May is the worst Prime Minister in British history - at least post war war history. She might even beat Anthony Eden and Gordon Brown.

Worst,

1/ Theresa May (simply dreadful. She is so bad she even wants to ban wanking!).

2/ Brown (I sometimes have to remind myself he was even prime minister he was such a non-entity).

3/ Eden (Suez)

4/ Ted Heath (instigated biggest loss of sovereignty since 1066)

5/ Bit of a tie between Blair and ''Call Me Dave'' (launched EU Referendum expecting remain only to then bugger-off when the country produced leave leaving the country in paralysis). At least Blair had the Good Friday Agreement and a few other reformist items before he ballsed it all up in Iraq. Probably Cameron then. Callaghan was a bit shit also, granted he inherited a country in terminal decline.

Best,

1/ Supermac

2/ Harold Wilson

3/ Attlee

4/ Thatcher (her record would be superior if you could eradicate her disastrous third term).

5/ Churchill (senile second tenure failing to live up to his glorious war era but largely inoffensive).

PS

I also think Corbyn may just be the worst opposition leader. He makes Kinnock look like a political supremo.

Why Wilson?  And how does Thatcher come in ahead of Winston Churchill? 

[spunko12345]

53 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Why Wilson?  And how does Thatcher come in ahead of Winston Churchill? 

Apparently Thatcher only used to change her knickers onc3 a week. All the backbenchers used to call her pissy pants Maggie behind her back.

[Len Cnut]

51 minutes ago, spunko12345 said:

Apparently Thatcher only used to change her knickers onc3 a week. All the backbenchers used to call her pissy pants Maggie behind her back.

Am I missing a part of some sort of joke here?  I mean funny though this is I don't see a punchline, is this an actual thing or...?   I mean how would anyone know that it was exactly a week, I mean I know she was pretty extensively brown-nosed but thats taking the concept rather far!

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Why Wilson?  And how does Thatcher come in ahead of Winston Churchill? 

Wilson? Reformist PM at his best: the Open University; liberalising sodomy laws permitting homosexuality; kept us out of Vietnam (Australia had troops in Vietnam); abolished capital punishment; liberalization of abortion. Soft-left, not a loony. ''Penny for your pound''. 

NB, that I am referring to Churchill's second ministry (1951-55), not his war time ministry (1940-45). He was basically too old during his second tenure. 

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, spunko12345 said:

Kinnock was a political collosus. A big expansive man.

He never quite recovered from this, did he?

Edited April 27, 2019 by DieselDaisy