UK Politics

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

.*looks around*

oo-eee, this is a conversation i really don't need to be involved in

we all know my views on certain parties

[Butterbeer]

really?

..i might be filming a 'decadence party' soon ... wanna an invite?

[Janny]

That has Galloway dressed as a cat as the leader?

I was going to make a Kilroy crack, but it's just Galloway dressed as a cat that always seems to take it in the field of the absurd. Followed in a close second by Galloway not dressed as a cat.

Poor Hector. I understood very little of that (entertaining though it be! ), but I fear our composer friend may be lost. Perhaps this would be the time to restate questions to be answered?

(Or, in the mode of the times, to take-stock. To find a timetable for the answering of questions. Which questions should be posed. And who should answer those questions. )

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

and no doubt how much they get paid to ask those questions, lol

[Butterbeer]

nah - as i understand it, it's more a invite only club party, somewhere darn sarf with an accent on decadence and party people in wild and wonderful costumes (or lack of) in some private joint in da country ...


per'aps ol catty George may well be there? who knows???

(it's all a bit tentative at the mo' anyway ..the geezer was rabitting on about it today .... he's a good sort as it happens but i was kinda busy cutting his piece together ... )

[hectorberlioz]

Actually, I've been able to decipher BB pretty well so far...not completely, but to a decent degree ...

This reminds me...Click This

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

So Gaffer, exactly what is meant by "Conservative" over there? I suspect it has to do with economics, largely...

Don't listen to them, they're all wrong.

No actually, it's spot on. But when we say Conservative with a big C it does indeed mean the political party, not the adjective. We tend to say Left-Centre-Right rather than Liberal-Conservative as a political axis.

Labour has a number of natural disadvantages over the Conservatives: because of their ties with the Trade Unions, it takes a lot longer to effect change (hence Bliar's warning about not reverting to unpopular policies); they have principles; they are genuinely democratic (witness yesterday's policy defeat); the Tories are the natural party of the ruling classes, giving them greater influence (and vice versa).

What's interesting now is the tension between substance and appearance. Brown (Labour) v Cameron (Tory) is the classic case of a very substantial and highly successful but dour and uncharismatic politician versus the appalling upper class tosser whom the camera loves.

The media have got so bored of supping at the ever-lactating teat of Brown v Blair rivalry that they had to promote Cameron from empty vessel to thrusting young idealist. All he had to do was get photographed on a dog sled in the Arctic and they have him saving the planet. It is all style and no substance; Brown is the opposite.

Next week's Tory conference should be interesting. I might even suggest a new parlour game: "Spot the Policy"

[The Gaffer]

I am inconsolable: John Prescott is stepping down at the same time Bliar does.

No more of his inimitable style of canvassing:

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Don't listen to them, they're all wrong.

No actually, it's spot on. But when we say Conservative with a big C it does indeed mean the political party, not the adjective. We tend to say Left-Centre-Right rather than Liberal-Conservative as a political axis.

Labour has a number of natural disadvantages over the Conservatives: because of their ties with the Trade Unions, it takes a lot longer to effect change (hence Bliar's warning about not reverting to unpopular policies); they have principles; they are genuinely democratic (witness yesterday's policy defeat); the Tories are the natural party of the ruling classes, giving them greater influence (and vice versa).

What's interesting now is the tension between substance and appearance. Brown (Labour) v Cameron (Tory) is the classic case of a very substantial and highly successful but dour and uncharismatic politician versus the appalling upper class tosser whom the camera loves.

The media have got so bored of supping at the ever-lactating teat of Brown v Blair rivalry that they had to promote Cameron from empty vessel to thrusting young idealist. All he had to do was get photographed on a dog sled in the Arctic and they have him saving the planet. It is all style and no substance; Brown is the opposite.

Next week's Tory conference should be interesting. I might even suggest a new parlour game: "Spot the Policy"

So rivalry within Labour between Brown and Blair...

Brown is the accomplished one who doesn't fit the cameras lenses too well, but Cameron is the Tory upstart who looks glorious...I see

Now who, more specifically, is calling for Blair stepping down?

And btw, so the Labour party gets in trouble with economic vision because of their ties to Trade Unions?

[Butterbeer]

oh brown is a dead duck already ...

but nah ..you are confusing the Tory trouble with ecomnomic taint with the Boardroom and it's own economic corruption.

Ze dead duck actually done a good job on creating a stable and growing economy- and thus Labour has shed that demon from it's 'water off a duck's back' approach to fiscal strategy and the economy.

As the UK finally finds it's feet after the second world war, it re-emerges and the world has changed ... all labour did was re-join the people ... something Cosmetic cameron is desperatedly spinning around in media tutus trying to do ...

[hectorberlioz]

But wait...I had said Labour/Trade Unions.... , and you have Tories ALSO in trouble for economy?...But wait...Brown/Labour has done good economy, so obviously Labour has not had one of those "natural" disadvantages on the economic vision slat this time around... *head spins*

[Butterbeer]

the point is not a single issue!

where the labour party had the unions like so many monkeys on their back, the tories still have the sleazy corruption of the boardroom on theirs .. not to mention (ironically) a screwed up reputation for running either fiscal policy or the economy

as i said, on that issue it's all changed.

Question is ... what if anything will ever change? *shrugs*

[hectorberlioz]

Well both parties obviously have their different henchmen...that's not very different from over here, so far...

Question is ... what if anything will ever change? *shrugs*

Same question asked over here...

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Brown/Labour has done good economy, so obviously Labour has not had one of those "natural" disadvantages on the economic vision slat this time around...

Exactly. Traditionally Labour had a bad record on the economy, while the Tories were trusted in that area even among people who otherwise thought they were eeevil, but that changed in the 1990s, when the Tory government messed up and lost their reputation for economic competence. Labour took over that reputation - Brown has been an excellent Chancellor and Blair broke some of Labour's ties to the unions, so things are pretty much reversed now.

[The Gaffer]

The reasons Bliar has to go:
1) he is rapidly losing the support of his own party
2) his style of government (presidential) has undermined democracy
3) he is perceived as Bush's poodle over Iraq (not helped by the "Yo, Blair" moment)

Brown is in with an excellent chance, though the media far prefer someone who is camera-friendly. However, to date he has been unable to defend himself against criticism for being a bad leader: because he isn't leader yet, and if he did try to defend himself it would make it look like he was taking it for granted.

However, a LOT can happen between now and the next general election (which could be as late as 2010). Above all, in a democracy, you get the politicians you deserve. Which probably means that Cameron will get in.

Sun-star, it's interesting how Brown managed to devolve the blame by making the Bank of England independent within a week of taking office. There have been hints of similar things happening with the NHS. Might be an interesting announcement in the next week or so.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The reasons Bliar has to go:
1) he is rapidly losing the support of his own party
2) his style of government (presidential) has undermined democracy

You can... do that?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

3) he is perceived as Bush's poodle over Iraq (not helped by the "Yo, Blair" moment)

"Yo Blair"? *dies a little inside*

Britain does have a vested interest in Iraq. Did England not help create the new country after the WWI? (I got that from reading the Bandy Papers, now I just need it confirmed. )

[hectorberlioz]

In other words, Gaffer, the british political parties stand at the crossroads once again; who will be the next "good guy"?

Also: would you or someone else mind laying out, perhaps, the specifics of British Government? English Common Law?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

You can... do that?

"Yo Blair"? *dies a little inside*

Britain does have a vested interest in Iraq. Did England not help create the new country after the WWI? (I got that from reading the Bandy Papers, now I just need it confirmed. )

Indeed. That and half of Africa. See all those straight lines on the map? Drawn by some wonk with a ruler and a pencil in Whitehall in the first half of the 20th Century. Winston Churchill recommended using chemical weapons against the Kurds.

Hector, why don't you ask an easy question?

The first thing to get straight is the difference between "England" and the "United Kingdom". Most people use the terms interchangeably, but the UK consists of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The UK kind of evolved (it certainly wasn't intelligently designed) over 700 years.

Some history. First, Edward I of England conquered Wales (late 1200s I believe), from which the Welsh never recovered. We Scots kicked his (or rather his son's) arse around the same time, so we (Scotland) stayed independent and developed separate education, legal, finance etc systems. We then passed the Act of Union in 1707 which merged the Scots and English parliaments. We already shared a monarch at that stage. Later, we swapped a load of Scots Protestants for a load of Irish Catholics, resulting in Ulster remaining part of the UK when Ireland became independent in 19wheneveritwas.

Anyway, think of them like States, with different laws and their own legislature, but a stronger central parliament. Except England is like California and the rest are like, I dunno, Iowa or something. Hence the UK is dominated by England.

The UK has no constitution and we are subjects of the Crown, not citizens of the country. The Queen is the head of state, though Parliament retains the ultimate authority in law, largely thanks to Oliver Cromwell; a ruthless bastard but he had some good ideas. I like how there is a massive statue of him outside Parliament: the reigning monarch has to drive past the man who chopped off the king's head when opening parliamentary sessions. "Don't get ideas above your station, ma'am."

So, parliament makes the laws, not the monarch. We elect Members of Parliament (650-odd of 'em) to represent our local area in that. The leader of the political party which wins the majority of those places becomes Prime Minister.

Common law here kind of assumes you can do what you like as long as there's no law against it. That's groovy until and unless the government decides to pass dodgy laws which impinge individual freedoms, as we have no constitution to protect us. The whole thing is governed by a kind of "reasonableness" which, as long as people stay reasonable, works well. Fortunately, the judiciary remains independent and strong.

[Butterbeer]

Couldn't you cut that down a bit???

-yeah you certainly didn't beat Eddy the first, Eddy ...

well, ya gotta be strong minded going down to your local tesco or wotnot in tights and funny wigs ...

Not a bad stab though!


**EDIT Hector - perhaps you could explain to me and the Gaffer the constitutional history of the U.S. from conception to modern day, with an overview of shifting rights legislature, voting patterns and the increasing role of State departments etc- also clearly outlining how your federal structure works in relation to a central Government in Washington?

Cheers

[The Gaffer]

Indeed, Edward I was an evil genius. And it didn't help that the Scots nobles were too busy sticking it up each other to mind him taking over.