UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 24, 2024, 07:41:55 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem  (Read 220496 times)
Zinneke
JosepBroz
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,067
Belgium


« on: July 09, 2018, 03:22:57 PM »

Did Mr Johnson really call May's proposal for the relationship between the UK and the EU akin to a colonial one?

This gets better and better...
Logged
Zinneke
JosepBroz
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,067
Belgium


« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2018, 01:48:54 PM »

Clearly a talented and respected man- but tbf you can never actually know how well someone would perform as PM until you see them in a senior cabinet role. (Indeed even this is questionable- if GB died in 2006, no doubt he’d be hailed as the best PM we never had)



Brown was arguably screwed by two factors outside his control - the global financial crisis and the exponential rise in the importance of consistent presentability in politics in the age of 24h news and emerging social media. He arrived in the PM chair right at the inflexion point of when the New Labour brand could no longer be controlled from within. 
Logged
Zinneke
JosepBroz
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,067
Belgium


« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2019, 12:42:22 PM »
« Edited: January 01, 2019, 12:48:15 PM by coloniac »

Clearly a talented and respected man- but tbf you can never actually know how well someone would perform as PM until you see them in a senior cabinet role. (Indeed even this is questionable- if GB died in 2006, no doubt he’d be hailed as the best PM we never had)



Brown was arguably screwed by two factors outside his control - the global financial crisis and the exponential rise in the importance of consistent presentability in politics in the age of 24h news and emerging social media. He arrived in the PM chair right at the inflexion point of when the New Labour brand could no longer be controlled from within.  

There's certainly an argument that he would have benefited from being around in the 70s, and 80s- but I remember doing reading about political media in that era, where the common complaint was that it was 'too personality' orientated and 'too flashy'. They said that politicians like Michael Foot, who were rightly intellectual giants, had been caught flat footed. Indeed to take it to extreme lengths I remember reading how some liberal politician in the 30s couldn't do radio broadcasts because he kept speaking like he was at a hustings. It's always a complaint of politicians that they're living in the wrong media age- but it's fascinating in that it can often be reversed (compare the power of the British Press in the 1992 election, with that in 2017)

Interesting perspective that's actually pretty relevant : since the 60s politicians will probably always say they were best suited to the previous mediatic era. I still think Brown's gaffes and the rumours of his short temper would not have gotten out without the exponential rise of the "staged" campaign trails in front of cameras almost dominating, and the introduction of the TV debates (which arguably benefitted Clegg with young centre-left voters). He was expecting a Blair style campaign where he had a fellow intellectual in front of him asking him hard policy questions instead of QT, when arguably Blair would have been better suited to the TV debates.  

Blair was a better all round "constant campaigner" type figure and that suits modern politics more than the late 90s. And part of his reformation of the PM's responsibilities reflected that, including greater foreign policy role.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh not disagreeing that Brown handled the crisis relatively well and that he was the right man in Labour to tackle it. I just think that the GFC was bound to and has cause incumbent governments, and the establishment centre-left in particular, to fall. There was little way Brown could survive that in 2010.
Logged
Zinneke
JosepBroz
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,067
Belgium


« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2019, 05:15:15 PM »

Just hope all this mess makes it clear to everyone in the European community what an awful idea it is the leave the EU, which is, despite its flaws, the best thing ever happend to the continent.

I also think the EU should agree to just become a Free Trade Agreement rather than a semi-governmental body it seems like at times. I think that would be much better

You have it the wrong way round, the reason it is a semi-governmental body is to protect the FTA. For all the money spent on EU institutions, they probably save consumers much much more by guaranteeing the single market.
Logged
Zinneke
JosepBroz
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,067
Belgium


« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2019, 10:50:55 AM »

Just hope all this mess makes it clear to everyone in the European community what an awful idea it is the leave the EU, which is, despite its flaws, the best thing ever happend to the continent.

I also think the EU should agree to just become a Free Trade Agreement rather than a semi-governmental body it seems like at times. I think that would be much better


You have it the wrong way round, the reason it is a semi-governmental body is to protect the FTA. For all the money spent on EU institutions, they probably save consumers much much more by guaranteeing the single market.


What about NAFTA just for Europe

But that already exists and is called EFTA.

Originally founded in the early 60s - ironically by the UK among other countries - as sort of an alternative to and competitor for the European Community, the majority of its members eventually decided to switch over to the EC/EU one after another until only Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein remained. Maybe the UK would also rejoin EFTA once it left the EU. But no other EU member states seems to inclined to switch back to EFTA.

With good reason, because a large part of the problems an FTA association like EFTA or NAFTA faces are to do with Rule of Origin, which is solved by a Customs Union.

Furthermore with common regulatory standards and a CU you can create a much more effective Single Market than with an FTA that recognises mutual recognition among partners. Even the Thatcherite dream of "mutual recognition" still actually implies nation-states can enact arbitrary regulatory laws (acting as Non-Tariff Barriers) that can get a certain product outlawed and favour substitutes that just so happen to be produced in the country.  

With the EU this is solved by having the MEPs here in Brussels regulate on all the environmental and health standards of the products so there is no imbalance across markets.  The price you pay is sovereignty of your own laws of course, as a supranational court has to judge on those common regulatory standards if they are violated (or its legislation has direct effect like in the EU). But the EU can either be painted as the largest failed state/supranational project in the world or the most successful FTA in the world. Going back to Brexit, and how vehemently the trade associations (the fabled "German car companies") were willing to defend EU integrity at the expense of the British market, its clear what perspective they take.

The rushed Euro, EU Enlargement, common foreign policy and the protracted EU army are different issues though, well worth eurosceptic scrutinising.  
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 10 queries.