- 29,510
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
It wasn't. But how very droll.
If nominal democracies count then England was a "one-party state", aka a dictatorship, between 1653-1660.
Britain - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Ross
- 13,174 comments
- 579,145 views
It wasn't. But how very droll.
If nominal democracies count then England was a "one-party state", aka a dictatorship, between 1653-1660.
- 819
- Kingdom of Fife
- jackargent
It was no more or less a "one party state" than Scotland is now. Use of the phrase "one party state' implies an absence of democracy. In fact , as Scotland has an electoral system that is more representative of how people actually vote, you could argue we are more democratic than the UK as a whole.
- 29,510
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
No, a one-party state is where one political party has the exclusive right to form a government, typically enshrined in a constitution which is favourable to that political party, and other parties are often prohibited from doing so.
China, Cuba, Eritrea, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam are the world's sovereign states which are constitutionally a one-party state.
The fact that one particular party had a majority of the electorate and was the dominant government power in the UK between 1979-1997 and 1997-2010 is nothing to do with being a one-party state. If that's the case, then every majority government around the world is governing a one-party state.
Gerrymandering and the like complicate the issue but when speaking about the official opposition, Labour sucked at winning elections between 1979-1997 and the Conservatives sucked at winning elections between 1997-2010. With the relative democracy the United Kingdom has, you take the rough with the smoooth. Not everyone is going to be 100% happy with the result.
- 819
- Kingdom of Fife
- jackargent
"
DLR_Mysterion
(Banned)
- 365
- United Kingdom
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-leadership-election-owen-smith-a7217391.html
So with Corbyn set to win the leadership contest by an even bigger margin than before is this good for the Labour party or bad?
So with Corbyn set to win the leadership contest by an even bigger margin than before is this good for the Labour party or bad?
- 15,994
- United Kingdom
- haitch40
- Xbox?
Depends. If my party accepts it then good if they don't then no it isn't.
Personally I think Corbyn can win the election despite what people are saying. You have to remember all the ones in powerful positions like the press see Corbyn as a threat.
- 2,726
- England
- ECGadget
- Eh???
Which poses the question, is Corbyn then really not fit to run the party as they say, or is he just so different to what Labour has had for the past two decades that ministers are worried that he will do something that will either restore the former 'glory' as it were, or collapse the party?
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,508
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
completely disastrous for Labour. The MP's made it very clear that they don't accept him and he is totally out of step with the electorate.
A good day for the conservatives and Lib Dems.
- 29,510
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
The members of the party who aren't MPs are still part of the electorate and if he has the support of his segment of the electorate, if you will, then that's fair enough. Most Labour supporters seemingly want Jeremy Corbyn.
I'm not saying that it's a good or bad thing either way but there's more to being a party leader than having the backing of your MPs although having MP support is, naturally, a vital necessity if you are the official opposition. It is extremely fascinating to see someone who has party support but not parliamentary support from his own parliamentarians.
At the same time I think much of the public, official Labour members or not, are pretty disillusioned with Labour MPs given their pink socialism and conservative drift over the last 20 years. Frontline Labour MPs are hardly the most popular people especially if they are senior ex-Blair era members.
A Labour civil war most certainly is playing into the hands of the ruling party, who could use this to secure their position for the next decade or so.
I could quite easily see a split in the party so bad that two new parties come from it, each claiming to be the 'true' continuation of the Labour party. Not that that's a legacy worth claiming at present...
- 1,433
- Northern Ireland
It will be interesting to follow if this does happen because the consequences could be quite significant. If enough MPs leave Labour for the new party - I think it has to be about 110 or so, which is not unlikely - then the new party will be the largest one not in government, and so becomes the official opposition overnight, getting all the privileges that come with it (speaking at PMQs, select committee positions etc).
On the other hand that would probably be seen as a quick and obvious coup against Corbyn which wouldn't do the new party's popularity any good, they probably wouldn't be able to use any sort of Labour "branding", and being a new party they might not get the money Labour would enjoy, even if they had more MPs. Good article here lists all the possible implications.
To be honest I can't see how a split could do more good than damage - you think it would be best just to wait until the next election, and if Corbyn wins - great, you're in power - and if he doesn't, he may resign on his own terms and you could move on from there.
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,508
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
Cameron reported on the BBC to be standing down as an MP.
- 15,994
- United Kingdom
- haitch40
- Xbox?
That and I wouldn't be surprised if the party forced him out as well.
I really don't think Cameron was a good PM even if I acknowledge the opposing viewpoint. I may not agree with the Tories but I understand why they think the way they do but even so I don't think Cameron was a good PM.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Case in point: the colonials. Malcolm Turnbull ousted Tony Abbott and Abbott was moved to the backbench. Ever since then, Abbott has been wreaking havoc, relying on a core group of supporters to question and undermine everything Turnbull does. The end result was a completely dysfunctional government (although it didn't take much to push them over the edge), while Abbott played Pilate and claimed that he has nothing to do with the sniping and double-dealing.
Of course, unlike Cameron, Abbott was (and probably still is) looking to cause as much chaos as possible - but Cameron's complete resignation means that Britain dodged a pretty big bullet. Even if he publicly and privately supported every decision Theresa May makes, his very presence invites disruption and dysfunction, however unintentional it may be.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Abbott was so far over to the right that anyone who replaced him would have incurred a similar wrath because they would have been left-leaning by comparison.
Still, that's not the point that I was trying to make. Cameron's departure means that the British government can avoid unnecessary dysfunction (whatever dysfunction it does experience will be its own creation), which is an altogether positive thing. I was merely using Abbott as an example of what could happen if Cameron stayed on
- 29,510
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
The older I get, the more anti-Britain I become and the more I lean towards Welsh separatism. Even in the space of two years since the Scottish referendum my thoughts on independence has shifted from the idea of greater home nation autonomy to separatism, although I wouldn't deny that Brexit has played a big part in that. And, in a more selfish manner, the success of the Wales football team and attempts to merge into Team GB or to kowtow to Royal patronage like the rugby team already has done.
Brexit in particular is a difficult one to deal with because Wales did in fact vote out. It's hard to balance that when you find yourself in disagreement with a majority of your countrymen.
Brexit in particular is a difficult one to deal with because Wales did in fact vote out. It's hard to balance that when you find yourself in disagreement with a majority of your countrymen.
- 29,510
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I don't disagree with you at all, I am aware of the consequences of leaving the United Kingdom / having to reapply for EU membership but part of me just cannot shake the whistful notion that leaving the UK on principle, if the Welsh economy could weather the storm, is something worth pursuing.
At any rate, I've always been pro-devolution as a minimum. The less to do with Westminster and the monarchy, the better. From a cynical point of view I'd rather have crooks from Cardiff bollocking things up rather than crooks from London.
But that does raise an interesting further question; how would Wales, or any of the Celtic home nations, go about securing an independent future? Rather than an abrupt divorce, perhaps gradual-but-increasing devolution and autonomy is a way of weaning oneself off the British state.
- 9,262
- Corsham
- lipming
You'd have to hope you strike oil some time soon to secure a future. Though if that happens you'll either get tethered permanently to England because they want in, become the 51st state or bring the situation in the now needless Middle East to it's knees, triggering a nuclear war and ending the world.
It's a big decision.
It's a big decision.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
It's not a matter of weathering the storm, the Welsh economy doesn't have the clout to maintain the standard of public services that we've come to expect. Lose the extra money from the UK and there would be a substantial deficit or reductions in services. Same can be said for Scotland minus the oil.
That said, I'm all for devolution across all of the UK. Stronger locals government but with a central government to maintain consistency in performance across regional borders.
London commuters complaining about train strikes, and yet they still have 60% service. You lose 40% on a valley rail line and you won't see a train for 3 hours... All because there isn't a strong regional developed plan to grow the much needed infrastructure.
That said, I'm all for devolution across all of the UK. Stronger locals government but with a central government to maintain consistency in performance across regional borders.
London commuters complaining about train strikes, and yet they still have 60% service. You lose 40% on a valley rail line and you won't see a train for 3 hours... All because there isn't a strong regional developed plan to grow the much needed infrastructure.
- 29,510
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I'd argue that even now Wales isn't maintaining the standards of public services one would come to expect.
I don't deny what you're saying but I would be interested to know what the numbers are exactly. I'm not sure how much governments make their income/expenditure available to the public but it would be interesting to see where the money is coming from and where it might be going. Hypothetically, money going directly to Cardiff could be workable rather than money going to London and then being redistributed to Cardiff.
I'm well in favour of stronger local government. Almost anything people complain about in their town is something which is the responsibility of the council. It's getting people to realise that or even care about that which is the problem.
I suppose I'm just thinking aloud about things... "in an ideal world". It's not an ignorance of "leave us alone and things will be fine". That, ironically, is rather similar to a Brexit attitude. Wales is far from a perfect country; I've gone on record as saying that it is a second-rate country because it votes for second-rate politicians. But I do want it to be better and be proud in itself and of itself, something which I fear is lacking in certain regions of the country.
By my own admission, I'm not very good at mathematics and by extension find number economics difficult to interpret but I do know that economics are a big barrier to an independence movement. But if independence is something someone truly wants, then they would be willing to fight for it come what may. Then again, if fighting 'for your people' plunges them into poverty it's a reckless thing to do. Perhaps I'm just being too romantic.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
Perhaps the problem is I've come to expect it
Pinch of salt, best estimate etc etc Welsh budget deficit of £14.7 Billion or 24% GDP.
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/...sector-finances-finds-deficit-of-14.7-billion
- 29,065
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I think that both Scotland and Wales would be well advised to hang fire on independence until the dust has settled over the issue of Brexit. Many Scottish nationalists are strongly in favour of remaining in the EU, hence see Brexit as justification for a fresh push for independence - oddly, though, support for Welsh independence has also increased since the EU referendum despite Wales voting in favour of Brexit (whereas Scotland voted strongly against it).
But, I believe that many Scots are pro-EU because the UK's deal with the EU was a pretty sweet one - but an independent Scotland (or Wales) will not get anything like the deal that the UK as a whole thrashed out over many years of wrangling... a post-Brexit EU will be in no mood to make concessions to anyone - indeed, the entire EU project hinges upon member states accepting ever closer union - the single biggest reason that the UK as a whole voted to leave. Accepting the Euro will not be negotiable.
I'm certainly no expert, but to my mind the biggest danger/perceived risk from Brexit is what possible damage to the economy there will be from turning our collective backs on our biggest trading bloc - the EU. I reckon the pro-Brexit camp are wildly optimistic and too readily dismiss the potential (and likely) negative impacts of making trade with the EU harder/more expensive. But Scotland (and Wales) risk doing the exact same thing by leaving the UK - and I reckon the impact of that would be far greater than the impact of the UK leaving the EU. So, we face a possible scenario where a small nation with a shaky economy and possibly also a fledgling currency faces being out of the UK and out of the EU, with no international trade deals and facing stiff competition for international trade with much larger and more powerful economies - who were once our trading partners would overnight become our biggest competitors.
There's also the big question of what is happening the EU - while Scots are roughly 2/3rd in favour of remaining in the EU, support for joining the Eurozone is considerably lower... indeed, the issue of currency in an independent Scotland was (and still is) something of a deal breaker. I don't believe Scotland will ever accept the Euro, and hence we will not be admitted into the EU as a result. Until such a time as a pro-independence movement can tell us how Scotland can join the EU by rejecting its defining feature, I'll not be voting to quit the UK or Sterling any time soon.
But, I believe that many Scots are pro-EU because the UK's deal with the EU was a pretty sweet one - but an independent Scotland (or Wales) will not get anything like the deal that the UK as a whole thrashed out over many years of wrangling... a post-Brexit EU will be in no mood to make concessions to anyone - indeed, the entire EU project hinges upon member states accepting ever closer union - the single biggest reason that the UK as a whole voted to leave. Accepting the Euro will not be negotiable.
I'm certainly no expert, but to my mind the biggest danger/perceived risk from Brexit is what possible damage to the economy there will be from turning our collective backs on our biggest trading bloc - the EU. I reckon the pro-Brexit camp are wildly optimistic and too readily dismiss the potential (and likely) negative impacts of making trade with the EU harder/more expensive. But Scotland (and Wales) risk doing the exact same thing by leaving the UK - and I reckon the impact of that would be far greater than the impact of the UK leaving the EU. So, we face a possible scenario where a small nation with a shaky economy and possibly also a fledgling currency faces being out of the UK and out of the EU, with no international trade deals and facing stiff competition for international trade with much larger and more powerful economies - who were once our trading partners would overnight become our biggest competitors.
There's also the big question of what is happening the EU - while Scots are roughly 2/3rd in favour of remaining in the EU, support for joining the Eurozone is considerably lower... indeed, the issue of currency in an independent Scotland was (and still is) something of a deal breaker. I don't believe Scotland will ever accept the Euro, and hence we will not be admitted into the EU as a result. Until such a time as a pro-independence movement can tell us how Scotland can join the EU by rejecting its defining feature, I'll not be voting to quit the UK or Sterling any time soon.
Last edited:
