UK General Discussion

[Cassius]

And the award for idiotic leftist attention seeker of the month goes to Russell Brand.

[Cassius]

I hope not, given that Respect, the general silliness of its policies aside, provides some nice, light comic relief, as the UK wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, catering for fake Muslims.... Where would British politics be without George Galloway

[Cassius]

I see the BBC is treating us to more blatantly biased (and equally sh**t) documentaries from Dominic Sandbrook.

What didn't you like about it. The astonishing revelation that the Soviet Union was no paradise. That spies are traitors?

Even if it is 'biased', all its doing is evening out the rather weighty bias towards the left that exists on the BBC.

[Cassius]

Well, congrats to those who had the balls to vote against it (especially the Labour MSP).

[Cassius]

Go on UKIP... You can do it.

[Cassius]

UKIP seem to be holding up rather well

And unsurprisingly, the UK education system is rated rather poorly.

[Cassius]

Let the bastards bleed till they can take no more.

[Cassius]

That is largely a fair comment with regards to Blackadder goes Fourth (although, not neccessarily left-wing myths in particular, after all, that phrase 'lions led by Donkeys' was coined by Alan Clark). I did indeed have to watch that in a Year 9 history lesson.

[Cassius]

Not really.  Ever hear of the Rape of Belgium?  Granted, a large portion of it was exaggerated war time propaganda, but there was a kernel of truth to it and even the exaggerations were mostly believed at the time by the propagandists.

Yes, I'm aware of the invasion of Belgium, but the rest of it?

I would query the social darwinism comment (which I'm not sure ever went mainstream amongst the Prussian juncker elite, though I could be wrong), but the Germans certainly did show a flagrant disregard for the international order (invading neutral Belgium is the prime example of this) and were hopeful that they could get some land out of the war.

[Cassius]

I've got mixed feelings about this whole Scottish independence malarkey. On the one hand, if the Scots leave it'll probably be better for us (and maybe for them too). On the other hand, it'll be a sad day when the United Kingdom loses Scotland, which has, after all, been a integral part of it for the last 300 years.

[Cassius]

That's a point to remember, of course. Voters are quite capable of changing their minds. An obvious counter point to it, though, would be that was a low turnout legislative election, while this will be (presumably) a high turnout referendum on a major constitutional change.

As a 'Yes' supporter I don't think we will win but what is important is trying to secure a robust enough Yes turnout to ensure that it's reasonably close as that gives more clout in securing further devolved powers. Though recent goings on in the No brigade give me hope, particularly as we get closer.

The problem of course is that independence in the London media is treated as all Scottish things are; with general suspicion, or scrutinised as having some ulterior motive. The truth is  for me there is a need to escape not 'England' (because it's already been decided that Wales and Northern Ireland don't matter in this phoney war of attrition), but London and the south east which sucks the economic, social and cultural life out of the rest of Britain. I think that people in Manchester and Newcastle and Liverpool have no power over themselves and very little say (even when they send hoards of Labour MP's to sit in Labour governments) in how the country is run which is disgraceful. 'Englishness' and 'Britishness', whatever it means in any given year can only keep people in line for so long. Scotland therefore can't leave because it shatters the whole notion of a UK, much more than Ireland leaving did, because as far as Britain was concerned, the 'better part' of Ireland remained. It leaves the North exposed and may leave them both hungry and wanting.

And UKIP; as flash in the pan as they will be. Is there anything that personifies the political and social gap between Scotland and the south east more than that collection of solidified piss?

I think, however, that people from London and the South more generally see the rest of the country in similarly negative terms to how the rest see the south; in other words, a constant drag. Not, neccessarily my view, but I do occasionally sympathise with it.

[Cassius]

Nah, that'd be bad, since we'd lose Northumberland, Cumberland and North Yorkshire. If only some way could be found to exchange those places with areas like Hackney, Croydon and Brighton

[Cassius]

Just remember, the Lib-Dems are pure. Pure as the snow on a cold winter's morning. They are the David, standing up to the monstrous two-headed goliath of corrupt two-party politics.

Or maybe not. (Hey, I know the Lib-Dems are 'different' meme is old, but still, I thought I'd throw it in).

[Cassius]

I've attempted to find out why they deselected her, and my search seems to have been pretty fruitless!?

[Cassius]

Low to non-existent, unless your Dan Hodges. UKIP will probably, in their worst case scenario, still get about 5-6 percent of the vote, which will drain votes from the Tories in a number of constituencies (even with 3 percent in 2010, they still cost the Conservatives a handful of seats). Labour will likely remain steady in the upper 30's, which puts them in majority government territory. So, I can't see the Conservatives getting a majority as long as the situation stays remarkably similar going into 2015. Maybe, just maybe, if the economy really picks up steam in time for 2015, or if the Labour Party has a really massive clusterf*** or if UKIP collapses spectacularly (and it would probably require at least two of these factors), there's a chance that the Tories could remain in office, and even take a majority. But I doubt it...

[Cassius]

Damn weather. Doesn't the good lord know that I need to attend an applicant open day on Wednesday. In Exeter. Jesus.

[Cassius]

British government tells Scotland that if it votes to walk away from the UK, it loses the pound

Despite the current problems, I think they would be better of with the Euro. But I realize its a hard sell right now.

Anyway, arrogant, posh Tories lecturing Scots should be good for the yes-vote.

This isn't just 'arrogant, posh Tories', as you so uncharitably dub them, lecturing the Scots, this issue is one of the few things the three major parties agree on. As for the issue with the pound, since one of the main planks of Salmond's independence bid seems to have been that Scotland will retain all of the current benefits of being in the Union (like the Pound) despite being independent, the latter assertion isn't particularly credible, especially in the light of this announcement on the pound.

[Cassius]

As there is plenty of countries using American Dollar or Euro without being "allowed" to do so by USA or EU, I don't see how UK can ban them for using it.

That's just plainly misleading persons. But, not surprising coming from Cameron.

Yes, but, on the other hand, those are generally speaking third-world countries lacking a credible currency of their own (e.g. Zimbabwe). I don't think the Scots desire to emulate that example. No, what they have been proposing is a currency union, which is quite different to unofficially using foreign currency.

[Cassius]

Nigel Farage and the whole anti-EU crowd are really getting on my nerves. I really truly hope that UKIP win no seats at the 2015 general election, then at least Farage's leadership will be totally undermined and I doubt they'll be able to find another leader with comparable oratory skills. Then maybe people will stop listening to their wittering idiocy.

If UKIP can't win at least one seat in 2015, then I'd say there movement is poppycock.

Nonsense. The Liberal-Democrats (and their Liberal and Social-Democratic antecedents) spent roughly 50 years winning very few seats (and often only because those places happened to be traditional bastions of Liberal support or by having very popular candidates) and yet still remained a fairly credible political force (well, most of the time). I mean, considering that UKIP has a pretty, well, ramshackle, operation, then I wouldn't say that failure to win a single seat in 2015 would be failure at all. No, I imagine that their real aim is to get a creditable share of the vote (say 7.5 to 10 percent) in the general election, to give them an air of credibility. In the meantime, they will probably concentrate on trying to really put the brick on the accelerator with regards to their vote and seat share in the upcoming European elections, and on trying to nab some more council seats from the Tories (though this supposed business of trying to... Appeal... To Labor voters, is somewhat disconcerting and probably self-defeating). Also, would you regard the Green Party, which is comparatively weak, and it's movement, 'poppycock'?

[Cassius]

Nigel Farage and the whole anti-EU crowd are really getting on my nerves. I really truly hope that UKIP win no seats at the 2015 general election, then at least Farage's leadership will be totally undermined and I doubt they'll be able to find another leader with comparable oratory skills. Then maybe people will stop listening to their wittering idiocy.

If UKIP can't win at least one seat in 2015, then I'd say there movement is poppycock.

Nonsense. The Liberal-Democrats (and their Liberal and Social-Democratic antecedents) spent roughly 50 years winning very few seats (and often only because those places happened to be traditional bastions of Liberal support or by having very popular candidates) and yet still remained a fairly credible political force (well, most of the time). I mean, considering that UKIP has a pretty, well, ramshackle, operation, then I wouldn't say that failure to win a single seat in 2015 would be failure at all. No, I imagine that their real aim is to get a creditable share of the vote (say 7.5 to 10 percent) in the general election, to give them an air of credibility. In the meantime, they will probably concentrate on trying to really put the brick on the accelerator with regards to their vote and seat share in the upcoming European elections, and on trying to nab some more council seats from the Tories (though this supposed business of trying to... Appeal... To Labor voters, is somewhat disconcerting and probably self-defeating). Also, would you regard the Green Party, which is comparatively weak, and it's movement, 'poppycock'?

The Green Party is not pushing for us to pull out of NATO, a la the UKIP is with the EU and Britain.

The Green Party is also not blustery like the UKIP either.

I was talking about our Green Party (unless you are a Brit?). I think, though I'm hardly 100 percent sure (or even 50 percent sure) that our Greens to support taking us out of NATO. Anyway, I'd hardly call being a eurosceptic, or indeed europhobe, a position of poppycock.

Also, I'd agree that UKIP can be blustery, but then, so too can the three main parties (Labour, in particular, seem to have gone in for a lot of rather windy rhetoric over the past year of so, whatever the merits of the policies that this rhetoric is being used to promote), so I don't see, per se, how that can be held against them.

[Cassius]

Liberal seats, 1945-92

1945 - 12
1950 -   9
1951 -   6
1955 -   6
1959 -   6
1964 -   9
1966 - 12
1970 -   6
1974 - 14
1974 - 13
1979 - 11
1983 - 17 (23 Alliance)
1987 - 17 (22 Alliance)
1992 - 20 (as Liberal Democrats)

It's still not really very many (granted they didn't put up that many candidates in the 1950's, but still). More importantly, whilst UKIP are a relatively new party (certainly in comparisom to the major parties, and some of the smaller ones) and thus haven't really had time to put down roots, a number of the seats the Liberals held throughout those years were ones with a fairly strong Liberal lean, where they had a reasonably strong organisation. UKIP has nothing of the sort. I was simply pointing out that the Liberals were quite irrelevant in terms of the business of seats held for much of the century, as UKIP undoubtedly will be after 2015. That doesn't take away from the fact that they were a relevant political force for much of that period with the potential to cause problems for other parties, as I believe UKIP is at the moment. Now, I'm not a card-carrying kipper, by any means. I don't believe the ridiculous hype about them that a lot of their supporters (and their leadership like to encourage). However, I don't think that they can be dismissively brushed aside as an irrelevance either.

[Cassius]

Nigel Farage and the whole anti-EU crowd are really getting on my nerves. I really truly hope that UKIP win no seats at the 2015 general election, then at least Farage's leadership will be totally undermined and I doubt they'll be able to find another leader with comparable oratory skills. Then maybe people will stop listening to their wittering idiocy.

If UKIP can't win at least one seat in 2015, then I'd say there movement is poppycock.

Nonsense. The Liberal-Democrats (and their Liberal and Social-Democratic antecedents) spent roughly 50 years winning very few seats (and often only because those places happened to be traditional bastions of Liberal support or by having very popular candidates) and yet still remained a fairly credible political force (well, most of the time). I mean, considering that UKIP has a pretty, well, ramshackle, operation, then I wouldn't say that failure to win a single seat in 2015 would be failure at all. No, I imagine that their real aim is to get a creditable share of the vote (say 7.5 to 10 percent) in the general election, to give them an air of credibility. In the meantime, they will probably concentrate on trying to really put the brick on the accelerator with regards to their vote and seat share in the upcoming European elections, and on trying to nab some more council seats from the Tories (though this supposed business of trying to... Appeal... To Labor voters, is somewhat disconcerting and probably self-defeating). Also, would you regard the Green Party, which is comparatively weak, and it's movement, 'poppycock'?

The Green Party is not pushing for us to pull out of NATO, a la the UKIP is with the EU and Britain.

The Green Party is also not blustery like the UKIP either.

I was talking about our Green Party (unless you are a Brit?). I think, though I'm hardly 100 percent sure (or even 50 percent sure) that our Greens to support taking us out of NATO. Anyway, I'd hardly call being a eurosceptic, or indeed europhobe, a position of poppycock.

Also, I'd agree that UKIP can be blustery, but then, so too can the three main parties (Labour, in particular, seem to have gone in for a lot of rather windy rhetoric over the past year of so, whatever the merits of the policies that this rhetoric is being used to promote), so I don't see, per se, how that can be held against them.

A UKIP Councillor saying that gay marriage causes storms
A UKIP MEP says that Muslims should sign an anti-benevolence pact
The UKIP leader says that we should bring back handguns, dunblane anyone?
UKIP's whole position of telling everyone in Britain that our country was going to be ravaged, raped and pillaged by the Romanians and Bulgarians.

This is in the last 3 months alone. I admit that all major parties have scandals and slip ups but UKIP are an entirely different breed of bluster.

Farage has said that if they don't win a seat in 2015 then he'll resign. It doesn't matter how bad their national campaign is-all he needs to do is find a winnable seat in Kent/Sussex and turn up in his hat with a pint of ale giving them warnings that the evil immigrants are coming.

At least the green party have a sitting MP

Meh, I don't see what's so awful about the comment on handguns. You can disagree with it, but I'm not sure it counts as 'out there' or blustery. As for the Bulgarians, I don't recall any kipper actually saying that they're going to come and rape and pillage. On the other hand, given that UKIP's raison d'etre, so to speak, is opposition to the EU and all the flim flam (right of travel laws etc) that comes with it, it would be rather silly for them not to hammer away on this issue, which is, after all, a reasonably important one.

As, I think, I've said before, the reason why UKIP appears to produce so many 'cranks', so to speak, is because they are a fairly new (or at least, newly prominent) party, which lacks the mechanisms posessed by the traditional parties for weeding out candidates and speakers who are, perhaps, 'undesirable'. Yet, at the same time, and unlike, for the most part, the Greens, they have had a large amount of publicity over the past couple of years. I bet you that if the Greens were polling 10-12 percent of the vote and looked set to do well in the European elections then a similar number of wacky characters and interesting comments would come out of the woodwork for them. So, I wouldn't say UKIP's bluster is particularly special, just that the circumstances have conspired to put a spotlight on it.

[Cassius]

Bob Crow on Thatcher's death: "I won't shed a single tear. As far as I am concerned she can rot in hell."

Still, RIP.

RIP and all, but what did/do the transport workers have against Thatcher (I'm probably missing something, so if neccessary enlightenment will be need)?

[Cassius]

RIP FF

You probably didn't even know who he was. Leave.

Buh he led t' train drivers in t'er fight fuh freedum agenst neolibrul govment

[Cassius]

Former Plaid Cymru President Dafydd Elis-Thomas has been sacked by party fuhrer leader Leanne Wood for criticising her recent speech about UKIP (sorry for the Godwinning, but I just thought I'd throw that in there).