UK Election

[StringJunky]

There is none so blind as him who will not see.

Could apply to many on here that pass through.

[John Cuthber]

There was a time when people viewed politicians with some kind of respect. ...

There was a time they acted respectably.

[Strange]

Corbyn had contact with IRA leaders and supported some of their actions - May is sharing power with the DUP; do you not see the difference? If it comes to a crunch vote of confidence she will need the DUP to vote with her - that means that they will demand concessions; these will almost certainly be private but will be complied with.

 

"The Tories are forming a coalition with a party backed by terrorists"

The Conservatives will enter government with the DUP, which is backed by the Ulster Defence Association (UDA).

...

The UDA is a violent loyalist paramilitary group, which is still active today. Just weeks ago, it murdered a man in broad daylight in Northern Ireland – he was shot dead in a Sainsbury’s car park in front of horrified shoppers and his three-year-old son.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/dup-conservatives-northern-ireland-coalition-ulster-defence-association-paramilitaries-peace-process-a7782631.html

[geordief]

There is none so blind as him who will not see.

You didn't answer my question

 

"I didn't bother reading your article and am not sure what "actual terrorists" the Tories are supposed to be teaming up with . You mean the DUP ?"

"The Tories are forming a coalition with a party backed by terrorists"

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/dup-conservatives-northern-ireland-coalition-ulster-defence-association-paramilitaries-peace-process-a7782631.html

Sure ,that is a balanced article and yes the DUP does have to be spotlessly clean (like Caesar's wife)

 

I cannot see the Conservatives running away from coalition on this but this is a hostage to fortune.

 

The Peace process is the main prize but may get overlooked in the Brexit bathwater (mixing metaphores).

[imatfaal]

You didn't answer my question

 

"I didn't bother reading your article and am not sure what "actual terrorists" the Tories are supposed to be teaming up with . You mean the DUP ?"

Sure ,that is a balanced article and yes the DUP does have to be spotlessly clean (like Caesar's wife)

 

I cannot see the Conservatives running away from coalition on this but this is a hostage to fortune.

 

The Peace process is the main prize but may get overlooked in the Brexit bathwater (mixing metaphores).

 

 

To be honest your responses in this thread make me realise why people like Trump get elected. Why are you posting when you clearly have no idea of the issues, get snotty when your mistakes are pointed out to you, and fail to understand the consequences of actions?

 

The level of actual political disengagement married with a self-perception of political nous is terrifying; DK in physics speculation is vaguely annoying - in crucial matters of politics it is a bit scary.

[geordief]

 

 

To be honest your responses in this thread make me realise why people like Trump get elected. Why are you posting when you clearly have no idea of the issues, get snotty when your mistakes are pointed out to you, and fail to understand the consequences of actions?

 

The level of actual political disengagement married with a self-perception of political nous is terrifying; DK in physics speculation is vaguely annoying - in crucial matters of politics it is a bit scary.

My request for clarification was not addressed to you.It was to Cuthber.

 

I don't see what response you expect from me to this post of yours. Your question as to why I am posting is purely rhetorical as you have supplied the answer.

Edited June 11, 2017 by geordief

[Handy andy]

The next few years are going to be interesting, in politics, it will go one of two ways with Brexit. It will either be a blazing success or an absolute disaster.

 

On the plus side for all the people in the UK we actually have a democracy whereby politicians are actually going to have to take into account all the different perspectives.

 

Governments that win by landslides can do what they like regardless of other views, and are not good for democracy. Most politicians are intelligent and will recognise if they do not pull together now in the brexit negotiations it will cost the country a lot, and they will not wish to be the ones who are seen to make brexit a disaster. I suspect they will try to make a success of it.

[DrKrettin]

On the plus side for all the people in the UK we actually have a democracy whereby politicians are actually going to have to take into account all the different perspectives.

 

 

But it is precisely because we have a democracy that we got into this mess in the first place. It is, or should be, a representative democracy in which everybody votes for a person the represent them in parliament and make political decisions on their behalf. That kind of democracy makes sense. But the brexit referendum was the expectation that an average person could make an informed decision about something as complex as the EU. This was not realistic, and the net result of a combination of apathy by the youth and misinformation and xenophobia by the older generation gave us this result. So being a democracy is not always a plus, it can also be mob rule.

[imatfaal]

The next few years are going to be interesting, in politics, it will go one of two ways with Brexit. It will either be a blazing success or an absolute disaster.

 

On the plus side for all the people in the UK we actually have a democracy whereby politicians are actually going to have to take into account all the different perspectives.

 

Governments that win by landslides can do what they like regardless of other views, and are not good for democracy. Most politicians are intelligent and will recognise if they do not pull together now in the brexit negotiations it will cost the country a lot, and they will not wish to be the ones who are seen to make brexit a disaster. I suspect they will try to make a success of it.

 

David Cameron's actions whilst Leader of a Coalition government included some incredibly extreme policy without too much taking into account the much less hard-line perspectives of his co-habitees

[KipIngram]

 

But it is precisely because we have a democracy that we got into this mess in the first place. It is, or should be, a representative democracy in which everybody votes for a person the represent them in parliament and make political decisions on their behalf. That kind of democracy makes sense. But the brexit referendum was the expectation that an average person could make an informed decision about something as complex as the EU. This was not realistic, and the net result of a combination of apathy by the youth and misinformation and xenophobia by the older generation gave us this result. So being a democracy is not always a plus, it can also be mob rule.

 

Well, the voters were not asked to plan the exit process. Britain had existed for centuries and centuries without being in the EU, so it's clear that's a possible way of operating. I think the opinion of the voters as to whether they wanted their nation to be part of a greater whole or fully autonomous was a very, very relevant "voter level decision."

 

Your post opens the whole "people aren't competent and thus have to be taken care of / thought for," and I object to that very strongly. The whole "paternal government" thing is a huge negative in my opinion. Worse, it's a self-fulfilling thing - when you impose a paternal government on people they start to forget how to be truly free. Give them the freedom, and after a while you'll have a population worthy of it.

[DrKrettin]

 

Your post opens the whole "people aren't competent and thus have to be taken care of / thought for," and I object to that very strongly. The whole "paternal government" thing is a huge negative in my opinion. Worse, it's a self-fulfilling thing - when you impose a paternal government on people they start to forget how to be truly free. Give them the freedom, and after a while you'll have a population worthy of it.

 

You might object to it, it is objectionable, but the reality is that generally people vote on the most primitive, uninformed and ridiculous criteria. If you are happy with that, then great, and the USA get a manifestly incompetent arsehole as POTUS and we have the present situation in the UK. I see the only alternative is that peoples choice should be restricted to choosing an MP to represent their interests. Parliament stands a much better chance of making the best political decisions, and the people can change their politicians of not satisfied.

[KipIngram]

Yeah, I agree with you - I think I commented earlier or in some other thread that the Presidential situation in America has become a popularity contest, and it sucks. But removing the decision from the people's hands is not the right answer. In the United States the three branches of government are supposed to serve as checks and balances on one another - placing one of them under the control of another undermines that.

 

I don't deny at all that the current situation is a real mess. When I hear Dwayne Johnson talk about going into politics and "starting with the Presidency" I feel vaguely nauseous. I know nothing about Johnson's politics, so it's not that at all - it's the whole idea that a complete novice even has it cross his mind that he could be President.

[Handy andy]

People only perceive a problem with democracy when the vote doesn't go their way.

 

I live in outside the UK most of the time, and am particularly interested to know what is going to happen with European healthcare, and which way the pound is going to go.

 

Cameron was not faced with Brexit in his coalition. I think there is way too much riding on Brexit that no political group will want to be seen to be the ones who messed it up, If they do mess it up, even morons might never vote for them again.

 

European style healthcare is something the USA might like to consider, instead of the Obama Care, which is a rip off.

 

A little history The European Union was originally formed as a trading block after WW2 (1939 to 1945), as a way of making the separate European countries dependent on each other, and therefore less likely to have fall outs and go to war. It has extended its powers beyond being just a trading block and over rules individual states laws.

 

The Brits have an exceptional track record in Europe of losing at football and winning wars. When speaking with my European friends of the German persuasion, I don't mention the wars if they don't mention the football.

 

The terrorist problems in Northern Ireland largely stopped immediately after the twin towers event in New York on the 11th of September. Shortly after this event the Catholic IRA agreed to a cease fire. Much fund raising was done by the likes of Jerry Adams of Sinn Fein in New York. Sinn Fein is the political wing of the Catholic IRA terror organisation. I wonder if the funding for Sinn Fein IRA dried up after the twin towers?

[Delta1212]

Yeah, I agree with you - I think I commented earlier or in some other thread that the Presidential situation in America has become a popularity contest, and it sucks. But removing the decision from the people's hands is not the right answer. In the United States the three branches of government are supposed to serve as checks and balances on one another - placing one of them under the control of another undermines that.

 

I don't deny at all that the current situation is a real mess. When I hear Dwayne Johnson talk about going into politics and "starting with the Presidency" I feel vaguely nauseous. I know nothing about Johnson's politics, so it's not that at all - it's the whole idea that a complete novice even has it cross his mind that he could be President.

Well, there's precedent now.

[KipIngram]

Yeah, no kidding. I think this latest round proves without a doubt that success in business doesn't "port" to success in politics.

[DrKrettin]

People only perceive a problem with democracy when the vote doesn't go their way.

 

 

I don't agree that this is always true. There is a problem with democracy when a major decision is taken by a referendum winning 52% - 48% when after the event large numbers admit they only voted for brexit as a protest, not dreaming it would happen and not actually wanting it when they realised the implications. Added to that the apathy of the young voters who didn't bother to vote to remain because everybody said brexit would not happen. This is democracy at its worst.

 

I don't actually think that a simple majority should be sufficient to make a major change like this - If it had been 60-40 or greater, then fair enough, but the result was so unconvincing and not actually legally binding, I am at a loss to understand why May (who had voted to remain) goes steaming ahead with an insane policy instead of a period of reflection. I am cynical enough to believe that the politicians only operate on what is best for their own careers, not what is best for the country (whatever that means).

 

I get very angry with politicians like Cameron and Buffoon Johnson, whose own private financial situations will never be affected by the political decisions they make, and when everything goes pear-shaped, they can shrug their shoulders and walk off the stage and go and play croquet, leaving Cuban revolutionary Corbyn in charge to bankrupt the country entirely.

Edited June 13, 2017 by DrKrettin

[KipIngram]

Well, I think it's almost universally the case that politicians (at least at the higher levels) are financially far better off than the bulk of the people they govern. What really bothers me is seeing Congressmen and Senators who are worth significantly more when they leave office than when they were elected. In the US at least we have a class of "professional leaders" that just don't live in the same world as the people they make decisions for every day. Not a good situation.

[DrP]

I don't have a problem with the people running the country getting a high wage or even little perks. It is a drip in the ocean compared to the taxes they raise and I would rather have the people running the show be free from any financial problems.... that way they can focus on running the country rather than trying to get rich. If they are greedy and want to have their 6 jobs and do dodgy deals for personal financial gain then that is despicable and should be punished.

 

We had one guy a few years back that was SO loaded he had several houses... greedy bastard wasn't rich enough apparently and claimed about 5 grand from the tax payer to upgrade the palace at the centre of his pond that he kept his ducks in (he claimed £30K gardening maintenance bills over 3 years). I would turn a blind eye to some of it but that is just is just taking the piss.

[KipIngram]

It's never enough, apparently. I don't get it at all.

[Handy andy]

 

I don't agree that this is always true. There is a problem with democracy when a major decision is taken by a referendum winning 52% - 48% when after the event large numbers admit they only voted for brexit as a protest, not dreaming it would happen and not actually wanting it when they realised the implications. Added to that the apathy of the young voters who didn't bother to vote to remain because everybody said brexit would not happen. This is democracy at its worst.

 

I don't actually think that a simple majority should be sufficient to make a major change like this - If it had been 60-40 or greater, then fair enough, but the result was so unconvincing and not actually legally binding, I am at a loss to understand why May (who had voted to remain) goes steaming ahead with an insane policy instead of a period of reflection. I am cynical enough to believe that the politicians only operate on what is best for their own careers, not what is best for the country (whatever that means).

 

I get very angry with politicians like Cameron and Buffoon Johnson, whose own private financial situations will never be affected by the political decisions they make, and when everything goes pear-shaped, they can shrug their shoulders and walk off the stage and go and play croquet, leaving Cuban revolutionary Corbyn in charge to bankrupt the country entirely.

 

I agree the majority for Brexit was too marginal. A second vote to gain a wider majority vote would have been a good thing.

 

In Australia people are legally obliged to vote. Perhaps introducing this into other democracies would improve democracy.

 

IMO proportional representation would be better than what we have now in the UK.

 

The constituency I used to live in was hard line labour, A Chimpanzee could get elected if it wore a red rosette. The sitting MP was and still is the most point less MP alive IMO, he should have retired 20 years ago, but continues to get elected. If you vote for another party in that constituency your vote is just a protest vote, and pointless. Other constituencies are hard line conservative the same argument applies, voting the other way is pointless.

 

With proportional representation of some sorts and a legal requirement to vote, democracy might work better.

[DrKrettin]

 

With proportional representation of some sorts and a legal requirement to vote, democracy might work better.

 

I agree that PR is the only sensible method, but of course the two main parties would never agree, because the liberals would always be in power. But I can't agree that a legal requirement to vote would improve matters. They should not be forced to have an opinion, and most don't anyway. Policing it would be a nightmare for a start, because huge numbers of UK residents have no means of identification.

[Delta1212]

 

I agree the majority for Brexit was too marginal. A second vote to gain a wider majority vote would have been a good thing.

 

In Australia people are legally obliged to vote. Perhaps introducing this into other democracies would improve democracy.

 

IMO proportional representation would be better than what we have now in the UK.

 

The constituency I used to live in was hard line labour, A Chimpanzee could get elected if it wore a red rosette. The sitting MP was and still is the most point less MP alive IMO, he should have retired 20 years ago, but continues to get elected. If you vote for another party in that constituency your vote is just a protest vote, and pointless. Other constituencies are hard line conservative the same argument applies, voting the other way is pointless.

 

With proportional representation of some sorts and a legal requirement to vote, democracy might work better.

A major fundamental change with a slim majority either way is really never a great thing. When you're electing someone, even if it's by a slim margin that person can always, theoretically, take into account the wishes of the other half of the population while governing.

 

But there's no way to realistically half-secede from a larger body, or half join one, or half do quite a lot of things like this.

 

And no matter which way it goes, status quo or change, you effectively have half of a population that is being forced to live in a circumstance that is contrary to their preference and with no real recourse that does not impose the same circumstance on the other half of the population.

[KipIngram]

A major fundamental change with a slim majority either way is really never a great thing. When you're electing someone, even if it's by a slim margin that person can always, theoretically, take into account the wishes of the other half of the population while governing.

 

That's exactly why our current polarization is so bad. Neither side is willing to work with / consider the other.

[Handy andy]

 

But there's no way to realistically half-secede from a larger body, or half join one, or half do quite a lot of things like this.

 

And no matter which way it goes, status quo or change, you effectively have half of a population that is being forced to live in a circumstance that is contrary to their preference and with no real recourse that does not impose the same circumstance on the other half of the population.

 

I am not quite as pessimistic as you

 

Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are not members of the EU, they have agreements with the EU that allow their citizens to live and work in member countries without work permits. Switzerland has a similar agreement, though its agreement is slightly more limited.

 

The UK will still trade in the EU, even after Brexit, people working in Europe will still have their jobs. Hopefully for Brits travelling or living in Europe the healthcare agreements will still stand.

 

The whole Brexit thing may have been avoided if Britain had joined the Euro. Sadly due to money speculators with enough clout to take on the Bank of England like George Soros this did not happen.

 

That's exactly why our current polarization is so bad. Neither side is willing to work with / consider the other.

 

I am hoping in the UK that since the government could be formed by either the labour or conservative party, they might actually listen to each other and behave like grown ups.

 

There is a lot of overlap of political views between all parties, dissenters leaving one party and joining another could give either labour or conservative a majority. Dissatifaction amongst Tory party members about joining with the UDP may cause conservative MPs to jump ship. Mrs May is going to have to listen to all points of view.

[DrKrettin]

 

The whole Brexit thing may have been avoided if Britain had joined the Euro.

 

I think the euro deserves a thread of its own. My view is that it is insane to have a monetary union without a political one. The result of the euro is that after the 2008 crash, countries like Spain and of course Greece were unable to devalue their currencies. Meanwhile, Germany has an export surplus because their products because their currency is fixed. The effect on Ireland of joining the euro is disastrous, after an interim period of growth. Who the hell has benefited from the euro? IIRC, Britain was unwilling to join specifically because North Sea oil gave them a different economy, and it was a wise decision not to join. But what do I know? Who the hell understands economics?