General British politics discussion thread

MrMusician18

hotmail.com wrote: »

Labour probably have to embrace Brexit better, convince remainers that the argument is over rather than keep the culture war alive in every tweet or article.

They need to ditch Keir and not pick someone with a title in their name. A Sir leading the Labour Party. Who thought that was a good idea.

On economics, the Brits, like Ireland, pretty much in the centre. They support progressive taxation but don't want high taxes. If Labour want to get into office, they really have to become Tory Lite. Just a tad to the left.

I actually thought Keir Starmer would be a better leader than he's turned out to be. He had some great days in the commons effectively leading the opposition to Brexit but I suppose that generally speaks for the relevance of commons debate.

Joe_ Public

Sam Russell wrote: »

If Labour want a future they must look to their origins.

They must organize - as the workers unions started. Local and hard work - every local issue worked and resolved. Every issue addressed building a base of loyal voters. Labour started with a few well educated politicians - but they educated themselves - and they stayed of the people - of their origins.

Currently, it can be hard to tell the difference between Labour and Tory MPs.

Well, i agree with this. One problem, though, local organisation and instilling community activism costs money and because individual donations have been plummeting, labour doesn't have money at the moment. Many of the ground people working in Hartlepool, for example, had already been informed they were being let go - what a way to motivate people already faced with a grimly uphill task! The alternative is filling the coffers with big corporate donations, but these sources don't donate to parties so they can cultivate community activism!

MrMusician18

Sam Russell wrote: »

If Labour want a future they must look to their origins.

They must organize - as the workers unions started. Local and hard work - every local issue worked and resolved. Every issue addressed building a base of loyal voters. Labour started with a few well educated politicians - but they educated themselves - and they stayed of the people - of their origins.

Currently, it can be hard to tell the difference between Labour and Tory MPs.

If they could do that they might see some recovery but over the past years ago labour has been capable of doing is eating itself over anti-Semitism (where's that gone now that they ousted Corbyn?) and out-wokeing itself on twitter.

Does any of this have any relevance for a voter, let alone one in a deprived northern constituency?

Sam Russell

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If they could do that they might see some recovery but over the past years ago labour has been capable of doing is eating itself over anti-Semitism (where's that gone now that they ousted Corbyn?) and out-wokeing itself on twitter.

Does any of this have any relevance for a voter, let alone one in a deprived northern constituency?

The Tory press were anti Milliband and made an issue of his Jewish heritage, making an issue of him eating a bacon sandwich. Then they made an issue of Labour anti-Semitism because of same Labour politicians being anti Israel Gov actions against Palestinians. The Tory press is anti Labour - and the squealing classes will roll in behind them.

They need their own press.

Strazdas

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I actually thought Keir Starmer would be a better leader than he's turned out to be. He had some great days in the commons effectively leading the opposition to Brexit but I suppose that generally speaks for the relevance of commons debate.

He might have been the right opposition leader in 'normal' circumstances but there's nothing normal about Brexiteer England. It and its population have gone off in a crazy direction.

View

hotmail.com wrote: »

Leaving the EU isn't a right wing ideology. There are plenty of countries in Europe not in the EU.

It just so happens that the majority of right wing voters support it. But that doesn't make it a right wing idea.

There are four categories of countries in Europe:
1) EU countries,
2) EFTA countries - which essentially follow the vast majority of EU law, making them de facto EU countries,
3) CEFTA countries - mainly the ex-Yugoslavia ones and all of whom have applied for EU membership,
4) “Other countries” - almost all the CIS/Russian dominated ones.

The U.K. was in category 1. It is now in Category 4.

And, lastly, if the majority of right wing parties back and push an idea for overt nationalistic reasons, then it is a right wing idea.

View

Leroy42 wrote: »

The problem is that the Tories don't actually have a vision, so difficult to offer the alternative.

Johnson has said, and continues to say, that he is against a sea border whilst lauding the deal that he delivered that creates one.

Johnson is claiming that everyone should see how great the vaccine rollout has been vs EU, despite telling us for months that international comparison is meaningless.

Johnson is saying now isn't the time to have a independence debate due to the issues it may cause and everything and everyone should be solely focused on Covid yet spent months telling everyone that the transition shouldn't be extended just because of Covid.

The government that says it backs the NHS but gives out contracts to their mates so the HNS doesn't get the material it needs.

That refuses to get nurses a decent pay rise.

How can anyone have an alternative vision to a government that so openly lies and shows contempt?

Trying to define yourself by offering a “Light version” of what another party is offering is a futile effort as Labour has amply demonstrated. It is doomed from the start, since anyone who agrees with the original vision will vote for the party offering the “full strength” version, and anyone who disagrees with it, has ample reason to skip voting for you/fail to turn up and vote.

BonnieSituation

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Tory press were anti Milliband and made an issue of his Jewish heritage, making an issue of him eating a bacon sandwich. Then they made an issue of Labour anti-Semitism because of same Labour politicians being anti Israel Gov actions against Palestinians. The Tory press is anti Labour - and the squealing classes will roll in behind them.

They need their own press.

They have the Mirror.

When Reach (Trinity Mitrror) bought the Express, I had assumed that its rhetoric would start to tone down somewhat, but it feels like it's gotten worse. I guess you have to double down on your dying audience with your dying medium while you can.

Peregrinus

View wrote: »

Trying to define yourself by offering a “Light version” of what another party is offering is a futile effort as Labour has amply demonstrated. It is doomed from the start, since anyone who agrees with the original vision will vote for the party offering the “full strength” version, and anyone who disagrees with it, has ample reason to skip voting for you/fail to turn up and vote.

Well, not necessarily. Fianna Fáil enjoyed considerable success for a long time by offering a more moderate version of the hardline republicanism of Sinn Féin. Internationally, social democracy has had much greater electoral appeal than full-strength Marxist-Leninism. And these examples are not difficult to multiply.

Even in the UK, Starmer has had, um, limited success in winning votes back from the Tories (though, I maintain, more success than last week's headlines would suggest). But twenty-odd years ago Blair had very considerable success from positioning the Labour Party closer to the Tories; by some measures he is Labour's most successful leader ever, and he didn't do that by offering full-strength classic Labours socialism, did he?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Some below standard posts have been removed.

ambro25

A party defining itself with different topics and policies, rather than adopting lighter variants of divisive policies perceived as mattering to the electorate, gets heard better than the other, because its messaging does not get as diluted or filtered, and so it confuses the audience less.

https://twitter.com/markpack/status/1391670678424805379?s=20

Professor Moriarty

ambro25 wrote: »

A party defining itself with different topics and policies, rather than adopting lighter variants of divisive policies perceived as mattering to the electorate, gets heard better than the other, because its messaging does not get as diluted or filtered, and so it confuses the audience less.

https://twitter.com/markpack/status/1391670678424805379?s=20

That's a good point but in the context of there being 20,000 seats, it doesn't really constitute a major shift. Plus it must be noted that Brexit occurred in the interim.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Please take the discussion specifically of Brexit to the Brexit thread here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058150676&page=341

I have moved some posts.

breezy1985

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/11/britons-living-abroad-for-more-than-15-years-to-be-given-right-to-vote

I can't understand any logical fair reason to allow voters out of a country for 15 years to vote

ambro25

breezy1985 wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/11/britons-living-abroad-for-more-than-15-years-to-be-given-right-to-vote

I can't understand any logical fair reason to allow voters out of a country for 15 years to vote

Have you lived outside your country/a country wherein you enjoy voting rights, for that length of time?

I have voted in every French presidential election from abroad, in the period 1994-2018 (and likely will again next year). The French president represents me and his policies influence me, directly and indirectly, as a national.

I have also voted for my Senator (the French representation system provides a few for French expatriates, e.g. 1 for EMEA, 1 for Northern America/Canada, 1 for SE Asia, etc.) since these were introduced, so we expatriates (of however many years) still have some influence in/access to the legislative process, for the same reasons as above (that legislation can affect us and our families, directly and/or not).

hotmail.com

breezy1985 wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/11/britons-living-abroad-for-more-than-15-years-to-be-given-right-to-vote

I can't understand any logical fair reason to allow voters out of a country for 15 years to vote

There is a movement here to allow Irish citizens abroad to vote in presidential elections. A lot of countries allow it.

A referendum is likely here to change the law, which I assume you'll be against.

breezy1985

ambro25 wrote: »

Have you lived outside your country/a country wherein you enjoy voting rights, for that length of time?

I have voted in every French presidential election from abroad, in the period 1994-2018 (and likely will again next year). The French president represents me and his policies influence me, directly and indirectly, as a national.

I have also voted for my Senator (the French representation system provides a few for French expatriates, e.g. 1 for EMEA, 1 for Northern America/Canada, 1 for SE Asia, etc.) since these were introduced, so we expatriates (of however many years) still have some influence in/access to the legislative process, for the same reasons as above (that legislation can affect us and our families, directly and/or not).

I lived in the UK for 10 years and I think it would be completely wrong for me to vote in local and general elections. Presidential and referendums I would see as a little different as they represent the country and people and even then I would have a limot .But local/general should be a representation of the people who actually live in the places those politicans represent

Joe_ Public

breezy1985 wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/11/britons-living-abroad-for-more-than-15-years-to-be-given-right-to-vote

I can't understand any logical fair reason to allow voters out of a country for 15 years to vote

The real interesting thing is why this is such a priority for the government when they use the pandemic as an excuse to explain why other much more important issues are put on the long finger. One single line on social care in the queens speech while voter id, which is solving no clearly outlined problem, gets prominent billing.

ambro25

breezy1985 wrote: »

I lived in the UK for 10 years and I think it would be completely wrong for me to vote in local and general elections. Presidential and referendums I would see as a little different as they represent the country and people and even then I would have a limot .But local/general should be a representation of the people who actually live in the places those politicans represent

So, can I safely take it, that you now see a “logical fair reason to allow voters out of a country for 15 years to vote”?

breezy1985

ambro25 wrote: »

So, can I safely take it, that you now see a “logical fair reason to allow voters out of a country for 15 years to vote”?

The article refers to local and general elections which is what I was referring to but I did say "with limits" and 15 years or more I think is a bit much for almost everything

quokula

ambro25 wrote: »

A party defining itself with different topics and policies, rather than adopting lighter variants of divisive policies perceived as mattering to the electorate, gets heard better than the other, because its messaging does not get as diluted or filtered, and so it confuses the audience less.

https://twitter.com/markpack/status/1391670678424805379?s=20

It’s a bit misleading to jump back a bunch of years and a number of interim elections in the meantime in order to be able to compare the Lib Dems with their absolute low point in 2015 when they received a backlash for taking part in the coalition, in order to make recent results look better.

ambro25

breezy1985 wrote: »

The article refers to local and general elections which is what I was referring to but I did say "with limits" and 15 years or more I think is a bit much for almost everything

The fundamental issue is the right to vote (at all) as a citizen of a country, not which particular election(s) that vote-from-abroad could or should be allowed/implemented for: it’s an issue of citizenship, not of residence or length thereof.

I’m surprised someone who has experienced life overseas, like you as your post suggests, doesn’t see a problem with the state stripping as fundamental a personal right, as voting. Irrespective of how long one expatriates for.

breezy1985

ambro25 wrote: »

The fundamental issue is the right to vote (at all) as a citizen of a country, not which particular election(s) that vote-from-abroad could or should be allowed/implemented for: it’s an issue of citizenship, not of residence or length thereof.

I’m surprised someone who has experienced life overseas, like you as your post suggests, doesn’t see a problem with the state stripping as fundamental a personal right, as voting. Irrespective of how long one expatriates for.

I don't see why someone who has lived in Spain or wherever for 10+ years should get to vote for the people who fix the roads or run the libraries in Stoke or wherever. How can they truly know the problems faced by those areas. After being away for almost a decade I certainly did not understand the problems and things Limerick had went through in my absence.

I don't know for definite how it works but will these people now be allowed to vote in British and Spanish/Irish/Greek/whatever local elections because that is really wrong if so

PommieBast

breezy1985 wrote: »

I don't know for definite how it works but will these people now be allowed to vote in British and Spanish/Irish/Greek/whatever local elections because that is really wrong if so

UK overseas voting only covers parliamentary elections and referenda.

BonnieSituation

breezy1985 wrote: »

I don't see why someone who has lived in Spain or wherever for 10+ years should get to vote for the people who fix the roads or run the libraries in Stoke or wherever. How can they truly know the problems faced by those areas. After being away for almost a decade I certainly did not understand the problems and things Limerick had went through in my absence.

I don't know for definite how it works but will these people now be allowed to vote in British and Spanish/Irish/Greek/whatever local elections because that is really wrong if so

Whatever about voting for the president or specific diaspora designated TDs or senators, I can't understand the requirement to continue to have voting rights for the national parliament constituencies while living abroad. I believe our diaspora should have a voice and there should be a TD or senator to 2 if so designated but to continue to have general voting rights feels wrong to me. Whatever about having it cut off after 5 years or so, but 15 is mental!

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

There is a movement here to allow Irish citizens abroad to vote in presidential elections. A lot of countries allow it.

A referendum is likely here to change the law, which I assume you'll be against.

Irish passports are too easy to get to allow anybody with a passport vote. We might get Trump, otherwise.

In the British case, this must benefit the conservatives. Lots of right wing ex pats.

eire4

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Whatever about voting for the president or specific diaspora designated TDs or senators, I can't understand the requirement to continue to have voting rights for the national parliament constituencies while living abroad. I believe our diaspora should have a voice and there should be a TD or senator to 2 if so designated but to continue to have general voting rights feels wrong to me. Whatever about having it cut off after 5 years or so, but 15 is mental!

I think we could easily create a foreign constituency so to speak that the diaspora vote for. That could elect 1-2 TD's say and give the diaspora a good voice without distorting anything within the Dail. Presidential wise as our head of state I think the diaspora should have a vote there same as everyone else living in Ireland.

PommieBast

fvp4 wrote: »

In the British case, this must benefit the conservatives. Lots of right wing ex pats.

In the past yes, but things changed in 2019.

breezy1985

PommieBast wrote: »

UK overseas voting only covers parliamentary elections and referenda.

This looks likely to change according to the early draft of the queen's speech