This thread exists to discuss British politics.
Political issues related to Northern Ireland and the Crown Dependencies (the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) are also considered on-topic here if there's no more appropriate OTC thread for them.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
As with other OTC threads, off-topic posts may be thumped or edited by the moderators.
- There is a dedicated thread to discuss LGBTQ+ rights in the United Kingdom. That doesn't mean it's always off-topic here, but unless something's directly linked to political events, that's probably a better thread for it.
- There's also a separate thread to talk about your favourite British Prime Ministers.
Recent political stuff:
- The vote to see if Britain should adopt Alternative Voting has failed.
- Lib Dems lose lots of councils and councillors, whilst Labour make the majority of the gains in England.
- The Scottish National Party do really well in the elections.
A link to the BBC politics page containing relevant information.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 3rd 2023 at 11:15:30 AM
A procrastination in of itself
In this area, vastly more.
It’s not about operational ability (you’re right MI 6 are perfectly capable of retaliating) it’s about political will, the Israeli government is more than happy to okay direct targeted retaliation (maybe not against Putin personally, but I’ve sure some Russian intelligence operatives would end up dead), the US would probably retaliate with force as well, other EU countries would retaliate with sanctions, but the UK, sure it can retaliate with either sanctions to direct action, but it won’t, the current UK government is way to dependent on Putin and Russian oligarchs for that.
Other countries can retaliate in ways that would piss Putin off, the UK can’t under its current government.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
When you say "current" government, do you mean the Conservatives in particular? Would Labour (and any other parties they might need to rely on, assuming they don't achieve a majority) really be any more inclined to retaliate more firmly? The issues with Russian money are still present regardless.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
A procrastination in of itself
Russian money is deeply tied to the UK financial sector, while Labour under Blair was also in deep with the City Labour under Corbyn has made being bad for the city a badge of honour.
Labour would anyway be much less tied to concerns about Russian blood money being pulled from the City, because the Tory concerns aren’t just about the economic impact but also the personal impact (many big Tory donors and party figures have ties to the banks that launder Russian money), Labour has the ecneomic concerns but under Corbyn I’m not sure if they’d care about them.
With Corbyn the risk would be that he’d go full useful idiot and not be willing to retaliate because he’s a pacifist, that and I’m not sure he’s sneaky enough to use Russian actions as a pretence to clamp down on The City.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Judging by the recent parliamentary debates, Corbyn's position has been to push for increased sanctions.
edited 16th Apr '18 2:40:40 PM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
A procrastination in of itself
Yeah Corbyn’s pacifism is more likely to come into play when it comes to a direct response, he’s not going to order the SAS to shoot up russian intelegence operatives in eastern Ukraine for example.
Sanctions however I think he would do. He’d also have a much better chance of getting the rest of the EU to join in, as they’d see him taking a legitimate stand instead of trying to get them to do all the hard work.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
double post.
edited 16th Apr '18 2:41:37 PM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
Ministers told to expect backlash as millions lose out from universal credit
Paul Gray, chairman of the independent social security advisory committee, said that the decision to take a “substantial chunk” of funding out of the budget for universal credit risked undermining the good intentions of the reform. In 2015 his committee forced the then chancellor George Osborne to rethink and eventually ditch £4bn-worth of cuts to the tax credits system but the cuts to the universal credit budget remained.
Speaking to the Observer, Gray said the aim of universal credit – to simplify the system and encourage people back into work – was right, but he warned that building in significant budget cuts would become an issue once claimants realised they would be losing out.
The whole idea of "encouraging people into work" thing by limiting income always bugs me. As if gaining a taxable income is the be all and end all of adulting. Sometimes, people just aren't suited to workplace cultures as they currently exist, no matter how many courses on confidence building, CV creation or for getting Health and Safety certification you force them to go on. Or whatever you want to call the benefit they get put on. Or however much you try denying they have issues beyond "doesn't have drive".
What the frick is wrong with letting people do non-work-related activities with the stipend granted them? If I suggested to the Department of Work and Pensions that all I wanted to do was help an animal shelter twice a week or maybe see if I could increase it in slow increments, they'd pull my benefit in nothing flat.
Things like this still stimulate the economy while helping the community...
edited 7th Apr '18 9:12:17 AM by Euodiachloris
I haven’t been following British internal politics for a while so my perspective is probably amiss.
Could it be that both Tory and Labour parties have been “going back to their roots” in recent years, as in attempting to reclaim any past greatness or seeking to recapture some Lost Empires, so to speak?
I could be wrong (and probably am) yet the Tories seem to be pining for Thatcher’s glory days (and I don’t mean by having a woman as prime minister, as Ms May isn’t quite Thatcher-like), while with Mr Corbyn Labour seems to reminisce the good old days of Tony Benn (although I keep recalling Harry Perkins from A Very British Coup because, fiction).
As for Russian defecting spies falling down like flies in the UK but not elsewhere (allegedly from Russian wares), could it be caused by Russia presently deeming Old Blighty as mostly harmless all the same, irrespectively of who gets to be Downing Street’s most famous tenant?
edited 7th Apr '18 12:39:54 PM by AlityrosThePhilosopher
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend
Figure of Hourai
Labour is going back to its roots, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that it's specifically based around Benn, rather than just "before Tony Blair took a dive to the centre".
Avatar Source
On the Russia thing - I'm surprised that Russia didn't take up May's first offer of saying "yup, it was our nerve agent from the cold war that has gotten loose. We will work with you to find the guilty party" and then slow walked the whole thing to a standstill.
I mean face it, Russia delivered it's message just by staging the attack. Message: you are not safe anywhere if we want you dead. Everything after that would have been a bonus.
So their response to double down and flatly deny everything is just going to make them more isolated. Eventually theyare going to annoy someone badly enough for some real sanctions to kick in.
If they had taken May's offer then firstly the British effort to rally support would have been blunted from the get go. "Russia is helping you, what is the problem?" would have been the response.
So the tandem investigation is set up, giving Russia control of the outputs. If they were really worried then some clever fake evidence could be useful but I think slow walking would have been sufficient.
Eventually Britain would be trapped: we'd be in a position where we would be saying to the Russians internally "we know it was you God damn it" but unable to go public else be accused of conducting the tandem investigation in bad faith.
I'm sure there are holes in my logic somewhere but it's a late night thought that just struck me.
Double post sorry but this:
Apparently there is a group of people wanting to set up a new political party.
Dear Observer - April Fool's Day was last week. Let's have no more nonsense okay.
Because frankly no new party can succeed in our system at the best of times - and this is not the best of times. Brexit poisons everything. They claim to be a centrist party drawing on ideas from left and right... but that's all fluff if they don't nail down their view on Brexit. And by nailed down I mean be prepared to be crucified for it. And then poof, all the good will and momentum your party may have had is gone. Oh well, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Disasturbator
A procrastination in of itself
Yeah this is basicly an attempt to do Clegg’s Lib Dem’s against but without the baggage or a set positon on Brexit.
So it’s stupider and less relevant than the Lib Dem’s.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Forgive me for not being too sympathetic to a party stance which seems to be "don't say anything meaningful and take vast amounts of corporate money to make up for a complete lack of electoral interest", but this looks slightly like "AAH lefties! Quick, hand the next election to Rees-Mogg".
Really, Guardian? I thought you had at least some brains.
Not really British Politics, but does have an effect on them, and I imagine a lot of you here will be pleased.
Putin, or the World? Sanctions May Force Oligarchs to Choose note
Yet October Island, a glorified swamp in Russia’s European exclave of Kaliningrad, and Russian Island, a former cow pasture facing the far eastern port of Vladivostok, were highlighted by Moscow this week as potential alternatives.
Washington’s imposition of unexpectedly tough sanctions against several leading oligarchs is in many respects a game changer for Russia, with repercussions that are only slowly coming into view. Establishing tax havens within the country was just one reaction by the Kremlin, seemingly caught off guard as aftershocks rippled through currency and financial markets.
“Russia has no strategy on how to react to this situation, to these new economic circumstances,” Evgeny Gontmakher, a prominent opposition economist, said.
The most immediate effect is being felt by Oleg V. Deripaska and his aluminum giant, Rusal, which has lost about one-third of its value on the Moscow stock exchange. “This is a new stage,” Mr. Gontmakher said. “This is targeting for isolation a very big, export-oriented company. That is very painful.”
The ramifications could also be felt by wealthy Russians in London, as Washington warned British banks on Tuesday that they could face severe penalties if they continued dealings with any of 24 Russians named in the sanctions, including seven oligarchs.
Paradoxically, the sanctions could help President Vladimir V. Putin to accomplish a long-held goal of putting more of the economy under state control and pressuring billionaires to bring their money home.
Yet the sanctions might also work against Mr. Putin’s interests, forcing some of the wealthiest Russians to decide just how closely they want to be identified with the Kremlin by financing militias, political organizations or other adventures abroad. “Anyone who wants to help the Kremlin outside will think twice,” said Konstantin Gaaze, an analyst and frequent contributor to the Moscow Carnegie Center website.
In a larger sense, the sanctions are expected to have a limited overall effect after the initial shock wears off, because they ultimately targeted just a handful of companies. But the virtual sequestering of a critical Russian commodity producer has introduced a strong element of uncertainty into dealings with all Russian raw materials, the taproot of the country’s income, which is likely to further isolate Russia from the world.
The initial government response was muted, with Dmitri S. Peskov, the spokesman for Mr. Putin, telling reporters that “it would be wrong to make hasty decisions” and predicting that the value of the ruble and the Russian stock market would bounce back once emotions settled down.
Given the tiny size of the Russian economy — around 2 percent of global G.D.P. — and its limited trade with the United States, there was little expectation of economic retaliation. Any Russian response was likely to come in places like Syria or Ukraine, analysts said, where the Kremlin might ratchet up tensions in order to leverage any solution on ending the sanctions.
....Habitually, tycoons have feared falling afoul of the Kremlin and having their assets in Russia seized, but any oligarch cut off completely from international financial markets might be more amenable to shifting funds home. Still, it would be only a short-term fix, noted several analysts, because Russia is not a big enough or attractive enough market for significant, sustained investment.
edited 11th Apr '18 11:45:41 PM by megaeliz
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
What’s next? Petropavlovsk-Kamtchatskiy as the new Palma de Mallorca?
Lower prices for British holiday makers then…
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend
Anybody else wishing May had done a little more parliamentary consultation before the Syrian strikes?
Or, is it just me worrying about her apparently circumventing, you know, just Parliament's constitutional rights... again.
I thought we'd got over this degree of silliness after Cock Robin (Robert Walpole) got wrapped over the knuckles for it, thereby defining the relationship between PM and the Houses.
edited 14th Apr '18 4:55:56 AM by Euodiachloris
I think we've established repeatedly that May only likes talking things through with Parliament when she knows they're going to be a bunch of rubber stamps for what she wants to do. See also her repeated resistance to actually allow Parliament to actually exercise its sovereignty over Brexit when we were told repeatedly that the Leave vote was about guaranteeing that sovereignty.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
A procrastination in of itself
It’s an awkward one for me, May has a history of trying to dodge involving anyone other than herself in desicion making, but parliament also hasn’t got the best rep when it comes to being reasonable over action over Syria.
I still remember the Syria vote and debate when Ed was labour leader, the whole thing stank to high heaven of dirty party politics and isolationism.
But I guarantee you that wasn’t May’s reasoning for not consulting parliament, it was because she sees herself as answerable to no one.
edited 14th Apr '18 5:04:47 AM by Silasw
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Also remember that asking Parliament is merely a convention, not a rule, so the Government doesn't have to do it, especially in time limited situations. Whether they should have is another question entirely (which I think they should have, particularly as there is a British base within retaliation range - I had been thinking of going to Cyprus in September, now I am not so sure).
Knowledge is Power, Guard it Well
The prerogative powers do allow a prime minister to take action without first consulting parliament (it's how we entered WW 2). While it's considered a convention that the prime minister/government consult parliament first, it's not a legal requirement.
In such cases, Parliament usually gets an oversight role that can be used (if deemed necessary) to judge whether or not the right decision was made.
edited 16th Apr '18 2:39:15 PM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
I'd be less leery of her going for it if she didn't have a prior history of trying to cut Parliament out of the decision making process in other areas, as well.
It's the pattern that bugs me, not the legality of this one instance.
edited 14th Apr '18 6:14:21 AM by Euodiachloris
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
This one instance is kind of significant because if we’d waited a little longer, we’d have learned that this was another chlorine bombing, not a sarin missile strike.
This is a big deal because of a few things. First, it’s not clear whether Assad still has sarin. Its shelf-life is five years maximum, so any pre-war stocks should be largely useless by now. Any new sarin strikes would require large, specialised factories. Second, chlorine is vastly easier to manufacture than sarin. It can basically be brewed up in a garage with a bit of salt. Sarin, on the other hand, requires expert knowledge and dedicated, expensive facilities. Third, chlorine is much easier to deploy than sarin - it can be loaded into barrel-bombs relatively easily and safely, whereas sarin requires dedicated, complex warheads to keep the binary components separate.
All this means that we’ve largely ignored Assad’s dozens of chlorine bombings, because we can’t meaningfully deal with them without severely inhibiting the SAA’s ability to function - or, to put it another way, getting in a war of attrition with a well-armed Iranian/Russian ally. Sarin, on the other hand, is a much bigger statement of intent to commit mass murder, so it needs to be dealt with more urgently, and can be dealt with through limited strikes on factories while letting Russian, Iranian, and SAA troops evacuate (because sarin production equipment is too big and fragile to transport). In other words, the recent strikes were designed to address a problem that may well not exist, and will not help in the slightest with the actual, ongoing problem in Syria.
And if it turns out that bombarding the middle of Damascus caused significant civilian casualties in addition to doing jack shit to Assad’s chemical weapons program, then God help us. Pretty sure there’s already been footage of apartments getting hit.
What's precedent ever done for us?
The news lately is that the OPCW is going to act as a third party in working the Brits to check on the nerve agent used.
"Exit muna si Polgas. Ang kailangan dito ay si Dobermaxx!"