UK Politics

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Draken

Right observation, wrong conclusion, for my money. Half wrong anyway. With an absolute lack of ideology, people cared about things that in most democracies would be fringe issues - gay marriages, biomedical ethics and, God help them, religious rectitude. Let's not kid ourselves that Kerry was anything other than a candidate who was pretty much as acceptable as Bush to the big money sponsors without which an American election campaign cannot be mounted.

I don't quite understand. Do you mean they replaced political ideology with religious ideology? Why do you think people got so involved if there wasn't really a choice?

After spending most of the 20th century as the 'middle way', the Lib Dems find themselves as the radical force in British politics - and look terrified at the prospect.

Radical? In what way? I just read their pre-election manifesto, and the only policies which can be distinguished from Labour (or even the Conservatives) are:
1) They're against the war in Iraq - it's not clear what long-term principle this represents.
2) They'd abolish tuition fees and council tax - both good policies, but hardly radical.
3) Raise (some) pensions. I think this is what Americans call a no-brainer...
4) Environmental protection - fair enough.

That's four unique policies out of their ten "top priorities", "ten reasons to vote Liberal Democrat". They're not bad policies, but calling them radical just shows how timid and unimaginative British politics has become.

I don't mind that too much - veering between dogmatic socialism and dogmatic conservatism hasn't done us that much good in the past in my opinion. Dogmatic ANYTHING is crap because dogma is an excuse for not thinking. But dogmatism hasn't been replaced by rationalism - just by an overwhelming desire to top polls and get elected, no matter what it takes.

I agree. There's a difference between ideology and conviction, and I'd rather politicians had the second. But at the moment, either would be better than vote-chasing populism.

[Draken]

Originally Posted by sun-star

I don't quite understand. Do you mean they replaced political ideology with religious ideology? Why do you think people got so involved if there wasn't really a choice?.

No, I mean there is not the sort of real ideological debate that you would get in most Continental parliaments and used to get in the UK. The mainstream political spectrum is so narrow in America that much of the focus was on quite peripheral issues like the candidates faith, war record, etc.

Originally Posted by sun-star

Radical? In what way? ... calling them radical just shows how timid and unimaginative British politics has become. .

Erm yes, that was sort of my point!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

Isn't it along the sam lines as spending a day going out to kill fish for fun?

i am violently against hunting and fishing so there!!
and i live in the countryside - so people can't say they are standing up for 'rural' rights (and by people i mean the countryside alliance) - and when they say 59% of rural people want to keep hunting legal, i say when was i interviewed, when was my family interviewed??
what they mean is 59% of hunters want hunting kept legal, the other 41% of hunters would like another round of sherry please -:hic:-

if i get into power
(vote for me guys)
Demobilise army etc
much fairer welfare state
killing animals for pleasure banned
animal testing banned
cannabis fully legal
and other stuff an all
all university education free
all education free full stop
monarchy abolished
boris johnson as permanent presenter for 'have i got news for you'

[Nurvingiel]

About hunting... I wouldn't really vehemently oppose banning hunting for pleasure, but what about people who sometimes have to shoot animals?

For example, the lettuce or broccoli farmer who has a huge problem with rabbits eating his crops. I don't think there's anything wrong with shooting the problem rabbits in this case. And the only (reasonable) way the farmer can keep the rabbits off his crops is to shoot them.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i would say to the farmer - here's 50 quid, go buy a better fence!
seriously, though, my friend's dad is a market gardener, who grows
and sells lettuces as a living, this is a high density rabbit area,
and yet he has never had a problem with bunnies.

it is like the chicken farmer that says foxes break into coops
and slay all chickens, only taking one away, when in fact they don't,
it is all a lie to get people to endorse his willfull participation in
the bloody mindless slaughter of a wild animal - a wild animal
which is being threatened on a daily basis.
FACT: MAN IS THE ONLY BEAST WHICH SLAUGHTERS FOR PURE FUN
(with the possible exception of chimpanzees)
Why don't we let them continue to hunt, but hunt hereditary peers instead,
i would quite happily take part in that!

[Nurvingiel]

You can't build a fence that will keep out rabbits for 50 quid! Otherwise the farmer would, and wouldn't bother shooting the rabbits at all.

Fox hunting is different because foxes are endangered or at least threatened, while rabbits are not.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

You can't build a fence that will keep out rabbits for 50 quid! Otherwise the farmer would, and wouldn't bother shooting the rabbits at all.

Fox hunting is different because foxes are endangered or at least threatened, while rabbits are not.

the 50 quid bit was just a joke
but i am against the murder of any animal anyway, so i would be against
such things.


end rant mode & get off soap box

[Nurvingiel]

Yeah I know you were joking, but it did illustrate why the farmer shoots the rabbits instead of building a super fence.

Well, I respect that you stand up for your beliefs.

I think your friend's dad is lucky not to have had a problem with rabbits, and I hope his luck holds.

[inked]

Ummmmmmmmmmm, I love animals, THEY ARE DELICIOUS!
Boiled, fried, fricasee'ed,
Grilled,roasted, baked,
Tatered or not,
Piping hot,
Cooped or fenced,
Bright or dense,
into the
pot!

[The Gaffer]

I suspect that Blair is pretty ambivalent about fox hunting, as I am.

In terms of animal suffering, there is lots more to be achieved by targeting farmers and the food industry. But cows and sheep aren't as cute as foxes, and farmers have shotguns, so let's target the toffs (not to mention scientists doing experiments) instead!

In moral terms, it is, to my mind, barbaric to kill an animal for pleasure and maybe there's an argument there. How we are to set the boundaries, I don't know. Genus? Phylum? Popularity as children's fiction characters?

On the other hand, the hunting brigade are still at liberty to dress up in their finery and get the hounds out for drag hunting, which seems pretty much exactly the same except a fox doesn't get shredded at the end of it.

I particularly like how they are going to sack all their minions and slaughter all their hounds if they are not allowed to kill foxes. Clearly, these are people with the best interests of the country at heart.

So, all in all, a ban is worth it as long as it pisses off the toffs. If these subsidy junkies can take our tax payout but they can't take our rules, let's see how they like getting banged up.

However, something tells me that this is not going to be enforced with the same determination with which Thatcher set the army on the miners in 1984...

[The Gaffer]

The Queen's Speech was today, announcing the programme of legislation for the coming session of Parliament.

The list includes setting up an FBI-style specialist crime unit, identity cards, compulsory drug testing and a law against incitement to religious hatred.

The Blair giveth and the Blair taketh away. Well, mostly taketh away truth be told.

[Dwarven Sen]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

if i get into power
(vote for me guys)
Demobilise army etc
much fairer welfare state
killing animals for pleasure banned
animal testing banned
cannabis fully legal
and other stuff an all
all university education free
all education free full stop
monarchy abolished
boris johnson as permanent presenter for 'have i got news for you'

Have you thought this through?
Demobilising the entire army in a world where military power is the measure of a country, and animal testing banned in entirety, so any and all medical advancements will be made through voluntary human testing, with people going to work, operating heavy machineery, behind the wheels of ambulances etc in a stoned state.
How are you going to make the welfare state much fairer?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not being disrespectful to your beliefs. I just think you're over-simplifying.

Personally, if I was put in a postition of power the first thing I'd focus on would be sorting out the bloomin' NHS.

Also, i think parents should be able to choose, and pay for their kids education if they want. (You wouldn't get that one through parliament anyway, because most MP's are very rich and posh and went to public school.)

Can I ask why you want to get rid of the monarchy? And how? This isn't the seventeenth century anymore.

Unfortuanetly Boris wouldn't be very good on have I Got News For You anymore. It'll be like Angus Deaton all over again, all anyone would ever do would be to focus on his private infidelities.

*sigh* for a perfect country

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Dwarven Sen

Demobilising the entire army in a world where military power is the measure of a country, and animal testing banned in entirety, so any and all medical advancements will be made through voluntary human testing, with people going to work, operating heavy machineery, behind the wheels of ambulances etc in a stoned state.

This is more to do with general politics than just the UK, but indulge me in this brief rabbit hole...

Demobilising the army: True Canada has an army, but it's not very big, and people still think we're great!
I don't think anyone plans on invading us, but if they do, we will first use Stephen Harper as cannon fodder (OK I will, but anyway...), then throw Tim Horton's coffee in their faces to blind them. No, scratch that. We will drink the Tim Horton's coffee for extra strength, and throw Starbucks in our enemies' faces, then pull their jerseys... I mean army jackets... over their heads and give a sound drubbing war of 1812 style. (And when I mention the war of 1812, I'm not suggesting that it's the USA that will invade us. In fact, maybe they will help us. There are some very good American hockey players.)


About banning animal testing, though this would put some constraints on scientific research, (I don't think anyone will volunteer to have a human ear grown on their back) we aren't going to have paramedics going to work while testing the latest drug. It doesn't happen now with voluntary human tests and I don't see why it would in Chrys' scenario.

Okay I'm done throwing this thread into a slightly OT ramble... Yay UK!

[Dwarven Sen]

I most sincerely apologise if I got a little OTT in my previous post. Yay UK! Indeed

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

This is more to do with general politics than just the UK, but indulge me in this brief rabbit hole...

Demobilising the army: True Canada has an army, but it's not very big, and people still think we're great!
I don't think anyone plans on invading us...

Of course no one would think of invading Canada - they'd have to fight the US to do that. The only reason why Canada does NOT have a large military is because the US is there to protect Canada. If we were not friends - with the longest undefended border in the world - Canada would most definitely have a huge military. Think of it as one of the major bonuses of living next to a friendly world power.

[Nurvingiel]

I don't think it's fair to say we have the longest undefended border in the world as if we're somehow incompetent. I mean it's true, but 1. this doesn't mean we're slackers and our country is easily infiltrated, and 2. do you want to man a military outpost on Baffin Island? I didn't think so. Incidentally, we also have the longest coastline in the world... hm...

But that's a smidge OT.

I really am interested to hear more of your plan for the UK Chrys, how would you make it a more fair welfare state? This implies that there are some aspects that are currently unfair. If I was British, I would vote for you.

EDIT: Interesting link Gaffer. I noticed the picture of the Queen subtitled her as being the last Queen (of England). This is probably true. What, if any, significant implications do you think this has on the future of the government?

For Canada and the UK, we would need a new head of state if the monarchy was abolished. Do you think we would elect him/her like Germany, or maybe this (and the governor general) would be an appointed position.

If the position of head of state was removed altogether, I think in Canada we would have to re-write a lot of laws. Is this also the case in the UK?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think it's fair to say we have the longest undefended border in the world as if we're somehow incompetent. I mean it's true, but 1. this doesn't mean we're slackers and our country is easily infiltrated, and 2. do you want to man a military outpost on Baffin Island? I didn't think so. Incidentally, we also have the longest coastline in the world... hm...

I wasn't making any comment on that at all - or on Canada - I was making a comment on how close the US and Canada are in terms of being FRIENDS - therefore thw border is not militarized or anything like that. For me to cross the border - it takes me basically one question - "what is your citizenship?" and I cross. An undefended border works both ways - not just the canadian side.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Draken

Erm yes, that was sort of my point!

Ah. OK then. Clearly my brain is at a Janny-like level of clarity today

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

boris johnson as permanent presenter for 'have i got news for you'

Can you legislate for that? Might threaten freedom of speech a little bit... though I guess you could make it a condition of charter renewal.

That really would be a perfect country

How would you make the welfare state fairer?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

EDIT: Interesting link Gaffer. I noticed the picture of the Queen subtitled her as being the last Queen (of England). This is probably true. What, if any, significant implications do you think this has on the future of the government?

The last Queen's Speech, not the last Queen i.e. there won't be another Queen's Speech before the general election.

[Nurvingiel]

What is fly-tipping?

Context:

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

This will give local councils more powers to tackle fly-tipping, abandoned cars, noise nuisance and light pollution, with measures such as spot fines.

From here.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I wasn't making any comment on that at all - or on Canada - I was making a comment on how close the US and Canada are in terms of being FRIENDS - therefore thw border is not militarized or anything like that. For me to cross the border - it takes me basically one question - "what is your citizenship?" and I cross. An undefended border works both ways - not just the canadian side.

I misread your post. Maybe I'm overly sensitive to digs at Canada (but I can still laugh at the funny ones). I didn't think you were really having a go at us though.
By "longest undefended border" I guess you were referring to the one we both share, not the Canadian border.

EDIT: And I keep forgetting to comment, that we certainly do appreciate our friendship. It is good for both our countries. I meant to say that in my previous post too.

[Nurvingiel]

The last Queen's speech could mean either the speech of the last Queen, or the last speech the Queen gives.

But I still think my earlier questions were valid. She probably will be the last Queen. That's my prediction anyway.

Or do you think the monarchy will last longer than Prince William's eventual kingship?