Britain - The Official Thread

[PeterJB]

If you fused Labour and the Lib Dems together you would the US Democrats...more or less.

 

[Famine]

@HenrySwanson I assume the Liberal Democrats are more...liberal than Labour? Less moderate? Is this a sign that the left in Britain is moving that much further left? I know European politics in general are skewed further left than America's but jeez, you've already got support for things like universal healthcare and university and that's not good enough for Labour which seems like the pro-union pro-workers rights moderate Democrat that you'd find here in the States. What more could the British left desire? Is the Labour party too practical and not idealistic enough which is a hallmark of further-left ideologies?

Lib Dems float all over the place - certainly more liberal than anyone else, but rarely actually liberal, though sometimes actually liberal.

Labour is only slightly further left than Joe Biden, but its main issues are that nobody's quite sure what it actually is or wants or does any more.

The legacy of Blair (and influence of the trade unions) means that the bulk of the party and its MPs is right of centre, while much of the membership is left of centre. The TU influence is what got Miliband elected (as a spiritual successor to Blair's champagne socialism), while Corbyn proved far more popular among the regular party members, but neither were popular with their own MPs - and Corbyn's tenure was dogged by anti-Semitism (genuine and alleged).

Starmer is a shift back to Blair, but he lacks any kind of charisma that got his smiling psychopath predecessor three terms in office. He's also like Corbyn - who basically refused to answer the question of where he, and thus Labour, stood on Brexit for five years (the party itself was heavily split; some of the biggest Brexit-voting areas were Labour). I don't know where or when Starmer's Labour (HM Opposition) will actually oppose government plans, or when it will support them. It seems to be a dice toss.


Also, extremely few people know that, at least in electoral terms, Labour is actually two parties which have worked together for electoral purposes for the past 94 years.

Edit: Without current positions, this is roughly the last decade with Lib Dem in orangeyellow, Labour in red, and Conservative for reference in blue

Edit: Updated with Starmer's estimate; Davey is pretty anonymous but looks like he's as conservative as 2015 Clegg and as liberal as 2010 Clegg - so perhaps +5, -1 and a move back down to liberalism:

​

 

[Liquid]

Also, extremely few people know that, at least in electoral terms, Labour is actually two parties which have worked together for electoral purposes for the past 94 years.

It requires co-operation to understand this.

 

[Tired Tyres]

HS2.

That and slacking off rules on building houses on green spaces.

 

[HenrySwanson]

@HenrySwanson I assume the Liberal Democrats are more...liberal than Labour? Less moderate? Is this a sign that the left in Britain is moving that much further left? I know European politics in general are skewed further left than America's but jeez, you've already got support for things like universal healthcare and university and that's not good enough for Labour which seems like the pro-union pro-workers rights moderate Democrat that you'd find here in the States. What more could the British left desire? Is the Labour party too practical and not idealistic enough which is a hallmark of further-left ideologies?

It's interesting that the more liberal vote is split and now that Labour has ditched the hard left Corbyn I'm not really sure how they differ from the lib dems. What is obvious is the lib dems are more pro Europe whereas no one knows Labour's stance.

 

[PeterJB]

It's interesting that the more liberal vote is split and now that Labour has ditched the hard left Corbyn I'm not really sure how they differ from the lib dems. What is obvious is the lib dems are more pro Europe whereas no one knows Labour's stance.

The stance is less clear with Labour's voters than it is with the party itself. Lib Dem MPs and Lib Dem voters are pretty much universally remain. Labour MPs are still majority remain (though less so than the Lib Dems), but the voters are much more split.

 

[Keef]

The stance is less clear with Labour's voters than it is with the party itself. Lib Dem MPs and Lib Dem voters are pretty much universally remain. Labour MPs are still majority remain (though less so than the Lib Dems), but the voters are much more split.

Interesting. That’s actually pretty similar to the labor union situation in the US - historically, the “Detroit” UAW auto workers union and Midwest industries have been associated with the Democratic Party, but also there is a large nationalist element to that which Republicans have fed off of and actually worked successfully to drive unions out of favor. Union fraud helped with that of course. Unions here used to be the Democratic working man’s answer to big business but through the 90s and 00s that slipped and gave way to the American working man preferring the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” ideology of Republicans, while this same working class simultaneously became poorer lol. How it happened made sense but with respect to the actual people’s well-being it made zero sense. Now, in the age of rampant corporatism, labor unions have once again become a core of the Democratic Party although I’m not sure about the members themselves - Dayton used to be a union city but since GM moved out the area has leaned conservative. In general seems labor unions and the working-class labor segment of society has a really strange mix of both American parties, similar to how your Labour Party and its members struggle with identity right now. Populist nationalism is…complicated.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Strong Britain, great nation!
Strong Britain, great nation!
Strong Britain, great naaation!
Ein Volk!
Ein Reich!

Wait....

 

[Famine]

Subtext: We'll get angry when other people say Northern Ireland isn't part of our country, but pretty much the rest of the time we don't even acknowledge it ourselves.

 

[Touring Mars]

Andrew Neil

Strong Britain, great nation!
Strong Britain, great nation!
Strong Britain, great naaation!
Ein Volk!
Ein Reich!

Wait....

For context, this is what HenrySwanson is talking about:



What is happening to this country?

In some ways it is incredibly disturbing and creepy, but it is also reassuringly ridiculously crap.

 

[MaxAttack]

In some ways it is incredibly disturbing and creepy, but it is also reassuringly ridiculously crap.

The above quote absolutely describes my opinion of Britain thru 27 years of life. I might have never read a better description of our society.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Strong Britain, great nation!
Strong Britain, great nation!
Strong Britain, great naaation!
Ein Volk!
Ein Reich!

Wait....

Good patriotic song.

 

[Touring Mars]

Andrew Neil

Not sure how that ended up in my post above, but given the context of the rest of the post, it seems fitting to just leave it there.

 

[merseyxshore]

What do you all think about Corbyn? While I’m not a screaming fan and I am very wary of the cult-like following that he seems to have, I’m also pretty certain that he’s a decent fella that was a victim of a pretty ruthless political assassination. Socialism seems to be turning into a swear-word in a similar fashion to how they perceive it in the US, partially thanks to the smear campaign against Corbyn and the recent Trump campaigns being so prominent in the UK news cycle. The mad thing is, some of our greatest achievements as a nation are built on socialist principles, such as the NHS, guaranteed paid time off and paid maternity leave. And on top of that, after painting him as the boogeyman, Johnson has adopted half of his policies after the fact after telling the whole world they were ridiculous and undoable. Yeah there may have been people under Corbyn with questionable views, but they were there under the previous leader and will still be there under Starmer. Textbook straw man stuff. Meanwhile, the guy who wrote novels full of racist stereotypes such as Jewish oligarchs controlling the world, called women in burkas ‘letterboxes’ and referred to Africans as “piccaninnies” with “watermelon smiles” is in charge of the country. If that’s not blatant media bias assisting a smear campaign, then I don’t know what is.

 

[TheCracker]

What do you all think about Corbyn? While I’m not a screaming fan and I am very wary of the cult-like following that he seems to have, I’m also pretty certain that he’s a decent fella that was a victim of a pretty ruthless political assassination. Socialism seems to be turning into a swear-word in a similar fashion to how they perceive it in the US, thanks to the smear campaign against Corbyn. The mad thing is, some of our greatest achievements as a nation are built on socialist principles, such as the NHS, guaranteed paid time off and paid maternity leave. And on top of that, after painting him as the boogeyman, Johnson has adopted half of his policies after the fact after telling the whole world they were ridiculous and undoable. Yeah there may have been people under Corbyn with questionable views, but they were there under the previous leader and will still be there under Starmer. Textbook straw man stuff. Meanwhile, the guy who wrote novels full of racist stereotypes such as Jewish oligarchs controlling the world, called women in burkas ‘letterboxes’ and referred to Africans as “piccaninnies” with “watermelon smiles” is in charge of the country. If that’s not blatant media bias assisting a smear campaign, then I don’t know what is.

I liked some of his policies, but i think that even without the obvious smear campaign, his image was perhaps too left for the middle ground to take to heart and maybe too 'London' for the north to trust. I like Keir Starmer, especially his ability to destroy Boris in PMQS, but i don't think that those that Labour need to sway back into the fold like him enough. If Labour want to be seen as a realistic opposition, they need Andy Burnham at the helm. IMO.

 

[merseyxshore]

I liked some of his policies, but i think that even without the obvious smear campaign, his image was perhaps too left for the middle ground to take to heart and maybe too 'London' for the north to trust. I like Keir Starmer, especially his ability to destroy Boris in PMQS, but i don't think that those that Labour need to sway back into the fold like him enough. If Labour want to be seen as a realistic opposition, they need Andy Burnham at the helm. IMO.

He is definitely more left than the Labour core is used to, but I think that before his assassination it actually worked in his favour as he only narrowly lost to Theresa in that snap election. I think that close call may be what inspired the smear campaign in the first place. I'm an out and out lefty so I have my own biases, but I think a more 'radical' candidate is the only way to unseat the Tories again. Burnham may work, but I fear that policy-wise it's too much of the same old, same old. He's not that different from Starmer on paper from what I can work out, but at least is a lot more charismatic and likeable.

 

[Stotty]

Corbyn had zero chance of election... partially because of his actual views and policies, and partially due to how he was portrayed by his political opponents and the (mostly) right wing press.

1. Support of IRA & Palestinians
2. Lack of support for British armed forces
3. Cost of economic plan
4. Links to unions and 'old' labour
5. Lack of leadership within the party - evident in the way the 'Jewish issue' was handled
6. Suitability of leadership style for PM position
7. Brexit

I cannot abide Boris, but I could never have voted for Corbyn, even if I could see much that was written about him was probably untrue, or at best, stretching reality.

The irony is that the multi-year economic investment plan in the Labour manifesto would have been a fraction of the cost of the money the Tories have blown on Covid in just 1 year... amazing what the Tories got away with financially in 20/21, with apparently zero scrutiny or challenge.

Labour as a party will remain unelectable in its current format - even now, it still thinks it's the party of the working person, but the Tories have that vote sewn up with Brexit. The Tories are becoming the British GOP... run by old monied people, primarily for their own benefit, using overtly Nationalistic language to appeal to an uneducated electorate.

Labour needs a massive reinvention, and a massive clear out of MPs. The only way it can do that is to cut the unions out of its internal election processes.... if doesn't, it will continue to get saddled with MP's who are bound to unions through longstanding relationships, ideology and funding.

We have 3.5 years to the next election... Labour will get wiped out as long as Boris manages to reduce immigration, the economy doesn't collapse (not out of the question given the state of borrowing) and he keeps the Nationalistic sound bites going. Starmer has zero chance. He doesn't have the vision or the charisma of Blair. He might last until the next election, but he'll be gone the morning after. Perhaps by then a more suitable candidate will have found his, or her way in to the party.

The Libs have an enormous opportunity to capture a massive chunk of the old Tory vote in Southern England. But only if they can get their heads round how they move forward post Brexit (like it or hate it, it's happened and everyone needs to move on), and they can find a manageable (ie; affordable) green policy. They also need some decent MP's with personality and gravitas... there are a lot of educated, middle class people who are/will get bored with the chest thumping, but ultimately empty rhetoric of Boris and his chums, and will look elsewhere.

Politics in Britain is currently depressing, but there's a glimmer it could get better... just hope it's in my lifetime

 

[Famine]

Meanwhile, the guy who wrote novels full of racist stereotypes such as Jewish oligarchs controlling the world, called women in burkas ‘letterboxes’ and referred to Africans as “piccaninnies” with “watermelon smiles” is in charge of the country. If that’s not blatant media bias assisting a smear campaign, then I don’t know what is.

Some of those bear slightly closer scrutiny than "Boris said them".

While intensely clumsy, the comments about Africans were actually a dig at Tony Blair. Read in isolation it's appalling (and nobody mentions the stereotypes of Congolese hacking each other apart with machetes and shooting at each other with AK47s), and read in context it's pretty piss-poor, but the intent was to send up Blair and colonialism rather than being racist:

What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies; and one can imagine that Blair, twice victor abroad but enmired at home, is similarly seduced by foreign politeness.

They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird.

The "tank-topped bumboys" jab is similarly an absolutely cretinous use of words in an attempt at satirising others, in that case Peter Mandelson.

The "letter boxes" one is more defensible, but again, pretty clumsy. His article was essentially "Denmark has banned burkas, and even though I think burkas are ridiculous and can't find any mandate in Islam for forcing women to wear them, it's no less wrong to force women not to wear them", and he used letter boxes and bank robbers (and I think ninjas) as a mental illustration of his personal feelings of how ludicrous they are.

Of course that inevitably led to a rise in women wearing variants of the veils to be abused in the streets by people calling them letterboxes, bank robbers, and ninjas, because it was in the Telegraph.


We can pretty much conclude that Boris is a terrible writer who can't convey his actual intent even when he's not trying to satirise others - which he also can't do.

 

[merseyxshore]

Some of those bear slightly closer scrutiny than "Boris said them".

While intensely clumsy, the comments about Africans were actually a dig at Tony Blair. Read in isolation it's appalling (and nobody mentions the stereotypes of Congolese hacking each other apart with machetes and shooting at each other with AK47s), and read in context it's pretty piss-poor, but the intent was to send up Blair and colonialism rather than being racist:

The "tank-topped bumboys" jab is similarly an absolutely cretinous use of words in an attempt at satirising others, in that case Peter Mandelson.

The "letter boxes" one is more defensible, but again, pretty clumsy. His article was essentially "Denmark has banned burkas, and even though I think burkas are ridiculous and can't find any mandate in Islam for forcing women to wear them, it's no less wrong to force women not to wear them", and he used letter boxes and bank robbers (and I think ninjas) as a mental illustration of his personal feelings of how ludicrous they are.

Of course that inevitably led to a rise in women wearing variants of the veils to be abused in the streets by people calling them letterboxes, bank robbers, and ninjas, because it was in the Telegraph.


We can pretty much conclude that Boris is a terrible writer who can't convey his actual intent even when he's not trying to satirise others - which he also can't do.

While I was admittedly unaware of the full context of some of these, it's still sort of outside of the point I was making. Corbyn was painted as the most evil man in the country for far less. If it had been him who had used these phrases, in any context, he would have been absolutely annihilated in the press (providing that one could be annihilated further than he already has been, insert Simpsons "stop he's already dead" meme here). But as it was Johnson, it barely warranted a mention in the press, save for a few op-ed pieces in the Guardian and Independent.

Also, if opposing war and the occupation of Palestine and Ireland is wrong, then I don't wanna be right.

 

[MatskiMonk]

While I was admittedly unaware of the full context of some of these, it's still sort of outside of the point I was making. Corbyn was painted as the most evil man in the country for far less. If it had been him who had used these phrases, in any context, he would have been absolutely annihilated in the press (providing that one could be annihilated further than he already has been, insert Simpsons "stop he's already dead" meme here). But as it was Johnson, it barely warranted a mention in the press, save for a few op-ed pieces in the Guardian and Independent.

This sets up a scenario where the people think Corbyn would have been sooooooooo bad that anything seems better, hence the people are more forgiving of Johnson.

People are STILL excusing Johnson using the phrase "Can you imagine if Corbyn had been in charge?".

 

[Rossell2]

Awful man is awful. But a couple of things to note, 1) what else is going on today in government and 2) who at the sun has access to what looks like a security camera in a government place.

I'm sure the second one answers itself.

 

[merseyxshore]

God I hate that rag with a passion. One of my favourite duties as a Merseysider is hiding all copies of The S*n whenever I come across them on my travels.

I even drew this and made shirts for my band

 

[Rossell2]

I don't blame you in all honesty it is the lowest of the low.

 

[Stotty]

Dead man walking.

The daily mail is equally, if not more of a hate publication.

 

[merseyxshore]

Dead man walking.

The daily mail is equally, if not more of a hate publication.

Oh absolutely. I'd even throw the Express and the Torygraph in there too. The Scum however has a special significance in my part of the world. You can't even buy it here, it's been described as one of the most successful boycotts ever.

 

[Wiegert]

 

[DK]

Never mind the PPE and care home cock-ups or awarding lucrative contracts to his mates, he committed adultery and he isn't Boris, what a scoundrel!

 

[Touring Mars]

What an absolute disgrace, and on OBON Day too...

 

[Stotty]

Oh absolutely. I'd even throw the Express and the Torygraph in there too. The Scum however has a special significance in my part of the world. You can't even buy it here, it's been described as one of the most successful boycotts ever.

I’ve been an LFC supporter for approaching 50 years. Although I’m not a scouser, I’m well aware of the significance.
———————————————
Handcock...

Pretty much indicative of the attitude of this Tory government and the example set by their fat controller... the rules don’t apply to us.

The stench of sleaze hangs heavy over them.

 

[Liquid]

Hancock pulling birds left, right and centre yet I can't even get left on read. It's a hate crime against single people.