UK General Elections [7th MAY 2015]

Shout out to my fellow British kiwis, I know you're here

After talking to other people about British politics and seeing David Cameron, UKIP and The Greens mentioned in other threads, I searched for a thread on the upcoming general elections and found nothing pertaining to them so here it is. What are your political leanings and opinions pre-election, and do you intend to vote?

 

[Pickle Inspector]

Yeah the Guardian's opinion pieces (Formally known as Comment is Free) is like a left leaning Daily Mail in terms of quality. (My favourite of recent times was a transsexual feminist punk artist who linked to an essay which included lines such as "I’m waiting for my race riot." , somewhat ironically this article was written months after a popular punk band released an album all about a member of band who is a transsexual (Transgender Dysphoria Blues by Against Me!))

 

[NegaCWC]

He does weird interviews too:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=jlTggc0uBA8

Lol, it reminded me of this:

 

[JU 199]

Very few and the author of that article either isn't one of them or is being intentionally misleading.

be very wary of op ed pieces in the guardian; their investigative stuff and post election info graphics are great but there seems to be almost no quality control on online op ed. It's notorious for posting articles from feminists and minority journalists that are quite frankly racist and sexist. They have also published op ed's endorsing conspiracy theories and other demonstrably false nonsense. The paper copy is far better than the website.

There is a whole genre of English OPCA nonsense springing from misunderstanding the City of London Corporation. I'll post an analysis in the OPCA thread when I find the time to write one up.

Yeah the guardian's good most of the time, But Cif is basically spergatory and should be avoided.

He does weird interviews too:

Somebody made a matrix compilation from that video of every time he repeats himself. I personally think he's a robot.

 

[WachtAmWeb]

Lots of very good points being made here. What do we think about the future of the UK's defence budget?
I personally think it can't take much more cutting; our committment to long-term plans like the aircraft carriers and F-35s is good, but the dwindling number of surface combatants fielded by the Navy, and an ever-diminishing ability to project power abroad is very worrying. The Tories want to cut another big chunk off the MoD, which is all well and good for them but not so rosy when the Russians are testing NATO airspace all over and the Middle East continues its steady decline into a state of perma-fucked. The problem is that none of the UK political establishment are willing to commit to Defence, while at the same time wanting to have a say in world affairs and be respected by countries like Russia. Even though no-one in their right mind would ever use our nuclear deterrent, I think it's vital that we maintain it until such time as it is no longer needed - again, the politicos and Grauniad readers wring their hands, talk about a moral imperative to scrap Trident and aim for a world populated by fluffy bunnies and morning dewdrops, with no consideration for the importance of our being able to say "don't fuck with us".

 

[Dudeofteenage]

London is really weird, I wonder how many people even know about things like The City of London Corporation never mind understand it:l

The City of London corporation governs about 7,500 people. This is less than 0.1% of Greater London's total population.

im a scot but i think its insane there is no form of devolved english parliament.

Basically because if there was a devolved English Parliament it would take away more than half of Westminster's business (since it would presumably have power over English education and healthcare) and it would probably have a built in Conservative majority for the forseeable future, which is a pretty grim outlook if you're English and not a Tory. A devolved English Parliament would mean that you might concievably have a left-of-centre foreign policy or constitutional policy or monetary policy, but you're going to be stuck with Tory market fundamentalism in the NHS, the education system, and the welfare state for the next twenty years minimum.

 

[JU 199]

Even though no-one in their right mind would ever use our nuclear deterrent, I think it's vital that we maintain it until such time as it is no longer needed - again, the politicos and Grauniad readers wring their hands, talk about a moral imperative to scrap Trident and aim for a world populated by fluffy bunnies and morning dewdrops,

I do sympathize with them. Sometimes If you want positive change you have to make an example. That being said I still think scraping trident would still be a bad move.

The problem is that none of the UK political establishment are willing to commit to Defence

That's definitely true. When the war in Iraq and Afghanistan kicked off I doubt they considered the financial cost. They started practicing 'war on the cheap' and re-purposing substandard vehicles (It was the Jackal if i remember correctly). They couldn't withstand landmines and a good few soldiers died or lost limbs when they shouldn't of.

 

[Vitriol]

Lots of very good points being made here. What do we think about the future of the UK's defence budget?
I personally think it can't take much more cutting; our commitment to long-term plans like the aircraft carriers and F-35s is good, but the dwindling number of surface combatants fielded by the Navy, and an ever-diminishing ability to project power abroad is very worrying. The Tories want to cut another big chunk off the MoD, which is all well and good for them but not so rosy when the Russians are testing NATO airspace all over and the Middle East continues its steady decline into a state of perma-fucked. The problem is that none of the UK political establishment are willing to commit to Defence, while at the same time wanting to have a say in world affairs and be respected by countries like Russia. Even though no-one in their right mind would ever use our nuclear deterrent, I think it's vital that we maintain it until such time as it is no longer needed - again, the politicos and Grauniad readers wring their hands, talk about a moral imperative to scrap Trident and aim for a world populated by fluffy bunnies and morning dewdrops, with no consideration for the importance of our being able to say "don't fuck with us".

The defence budget can't take anymore cutting. not without essentially abandoning whats left of the navy. russian warships and planes have been sighted off the north coast a few times in the past few years and there have't been appropriate forces stationed north of the border to respond. Me and some friends joined the reserve and I'll tell you at this moment in time if Britain was invaded from the North there'd be fuck all anyone could do until the enemy reached the north of england somewhere. Naturally as a scot it pisses me off that in practice our 'national defence' doesn't actually cover my nation.

the decline of the armed forces in the past twenty years is staggering- now we could not hope to fight in two theaters at once. we were doing this only 10 years ago and that should be scary.

As far as Trident goes its an excellent deterrant (there is a good reason N korea wants them so badly) but they should be in the thames- if the big boys want to play with the big guns then let them carry the associated risk. In the event of nuclear war London would be a target anyway- no reason to tie glasgow and the central belt in aswell by leaving our nukes in the clyde.

Basically because if there was a devolved English Parliament it would take away more than half of Westminster's business (since it would presumably have power over English education and healthcare) and it would probably have a built in Conservative majority for the forseeable future, which is a pretty grim outlook if you're English and not a Tory. A devolved English Parliament would mean that you might concievably have a left-of-centre foreign policy or constitutional policy or monetary policy, but you're going to be stuck with Tory market fundamentalism in the NHS, the education system, and the welfare state for the next twenty years minimum.

If england's people vote tory then in a democracy that is what they should get. Surely its better than policy being set by scottish MP's who do not represent the people they legislate over. Its also worth noting that only two governments since the second world war have relied on scottish labour mps for their majority so I don't think a conservative majority is necessarily guaranteed. As far as clashes between regional and national gov- it works out well enough for us.

I don't mean to jump on you, and please don't take anything I've said personally,just pointing out things from my own perspective.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Surely its better than policy being set by scottish MP's who do not represent the people they legislate over.

Don't they? Not to a Scottish nationalist, but to somebody who believes in the UK as a unitary nation, those Scottish MPs are part of the same polity. And I think that's the perspective of most English voters, especially those on the left - they're far more concerned about privatisation of the NHS than they are about Scottish MPs getting an 'unjustified' say on English matters.

It's true that only a couple of Labour governments have relied on Scottish members, but an English regional assembly would presumably exclude Welsh members too. Without Welsh or Scottish seats, things would be looking pretty grim for British Labour.

 

[Vitriol]

Don't they? Not to a Scottish nationalist, but to somebody who believes in the UK as a unitary nation, those Scottish MPs are part of the same polity. And I think that's the perspective of most English voters.

Thats a fair point. I suppose i meant more they are not accountable to the electorate for how they vote on devolved matters because it will not effect their constituents. but no I do take your point as perfectly valid- people up here get very tetchy over who has a mandate for what and its easy to forget that thats not necessarily the case elsewhere!

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Thats a fair point. I suppose i meant more they are not accountable to the electorate for how they vote on devolved matters because it will not effect their constituents!

Well yeah, but there's a lot of that in any parliamentary democracy that's physically larger than Singapore. I mean, if Boris ever gets around to building that new airport, MPs who aren't in London are going to get to vote on it, and it affects their constituencies as little as the English NHS affects a Scottish MP's constituency.

From a strict formal constitutional p.o.v. an English assembly would be a good idea, but that is not the real reason the Welsh and Scottish assemblies exist - they exist as a check on the tendency of Westminster to ignore Scottish and Welsh interests. Given that Westminster doesn't routinely ignore English interests, there's no need for an English assembly to check them. There's only two effective reasons anybody would want an English assembly - because you're a neoliberal who wants to see privatisation of the English welfare state and doesn't like the idea of left wing Scottish MPs interfering with that, or because you're worried about the Scotland running rough over English interests. The latter is a pretty laughable concept, and the former is a pretty minority view because the NHS and public education system are popular (as concepts, if not in their day-to-day operations). So the demand for an English assembly just isn't there.

 

[Vitriol]

Well yeah, but there's a lot of that in any parliamentary democracy that's physically larger than Singapore. I mean, if Boris ever gets around to building that new airport, MPs who aren't in London are going to get to vote on it, and it affects their constituencies as little as the English NHS affects a Scottish MP's constituency.

From a strict formal constitutional p.o.v. an English assembly would be a good idea, but that is not the real reason the Welsh and Scottish assemblies exist - they exist as a check on the tendency of Westminster to ignore Scottish and Welsh interests. Given that Westminster doesn't routinely ignore English interests, there's no need for an English assembly to check them. There's only two effective reasons anybody would want an English assembly - because you're a neoliberal who wants to see privatisation of the English welfare state and doesn't like the idea of left wing Scottish MPs interfering with that, or because you're worried about the Scotland running rough over English interests. The latter is a pretty laughable concept, and the former is a pretty minority view because the NHS and public education system are popular (as concepts, if not in their day-to-day operations). So the demand for an English assembly just isn't there.

excellent points you've changed my mind on the subject.

 

[JU 199]

From a strict formal constitutional p.o.v. an English assembly would be a good idea

It would. I've been in favor of that for a while now. Too bad The North east turned it down when they had the chance.

 

[OBAMATRON]

russian warships and planes have been sighted off the north coast a few times in the past few years

It's like 793 all over again.

 

[Pickle Inspector]

Well yeah, but there's a lot of that in any parliamentary democracy that's physically larger than Singapore. I mean, if Boris ever gets around to building that new airport, MPs who aren't in London are going to get to vote on it, and it affects their constituencies as little as the English NHS affects a Scottish MP's constituency.

From a strict formal constitutional p.o.v. an English assembly would be a good idea, but that is not the real reason the Welsh and Scottish assemblies exist - they exist as a check on the tendency of Westminster to ignore Scottish and Welsh interests. Given that Westminster doesn't routinely ignore English interests, there's no need for an English assembly to check them. There's only two effective reasons anybody would want an English assembly - because you're a neoliberal who wants to see privatisation of the English welfare state and doesn't like the idea of left wing Scottish MPs interfering with that, or because you're worried about the Scotland running rough over English interests. The latter is a pretty laughable concept, and the former is a pretty minority view because the NHS and public education system are popular (as concepts, if not in their day-to-day operations). So the demand for an English assembly just isn't there.

Not to mention people in general do not like the idea of more politicians/political bodies, most cities in England even voted against mayors but if Labour get in power with a coalition from the SNP I could see newspapers and various parties play up on peoples fears since SNP will likely demand some things unpopular with a lot of England.

I do sympathize with them. Sometimes If you want positive change you have to make an example. That being said I still think scraping trident would still be a bad move.

I'm not sure about Trident, I mean I understand the point of them is to have more political power than Britain would have without them (I really don't think we are going to be nuked any time soon with a conventional nuclear bomb, it'd be far too politically damaging to fire one off) but I personally don't think Britain needs to be so involved in fighting foreign wars.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

It would. I've been in favor of that for a while now. Too bad The North east turned it down when they had the chance.

I believe that was about a regional assembly, not an all-of-England assembly. That's a different scenario, one with different positives and negatives.

Not to mention people in general do not like the idea of more politicians/political bodies

I think British voters on the whole are not as sceptical about additional or new political bodies as Americans, but they still need to see the proposed new body as meeting some kind of real need. This is the main reason why the English assembly is a non-starter - it doesn't really meet any perceived need.

 

[Atsimuel]

the main problem i have with ukip is for every moderately decent person with fairly legitimate concerns about immigration numbers, they seem to have about 85 insane ranty people making statements like 'i don't believe in black people' or 'what wrong with my tattoo of himmler?' or 'i'd ban the gays because i saw one once and their antlers are a public menace'

Otherwise known as Gabriel Morton's 'Man-covered-in-shit' effect. No matter how reasonable and convincing your argument, if a man covered in shit walks up and says "I agree with this guy!", your argument becomes invalid.