British Politics Thread

...I don't think that's glamourising it. The caption clearly states that the young boy in the picture is the same age as the youngest British soldier who was in The Somme. Dressing him up as a soldier is supposed to horrify you, and invoke a reaction of "Never Again".

I just assumed he was in the ACF.

Agreed.

edited 12th Nov '14 4:54:54 AM by Achaemenid

He is.

...I think someone from my primary school class went to that school.

'Honour' and 'child soldiers' do not belong in the same sentence. They capped off their big-budget poppy-laying ceremony with a stirring, emotive glamour-shot of a thirteen-year-old CCF recruit acknowledging those who had gone before him. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. Especially when you're under the age of majority.

OK, we get it. Armies Are Evil and all that.

The use of Child Soldiers is evil. This really shouldn't be a controversial statement. 'Honouring their sacrifice' sends a very creepy message.

Do remember that this is also in the context of kids selling poppies whilst wearing 'Future Soldier' t-shirts◊ and the Poppy Appeal's 2014 single, Joss Stone's version of The Green Fields of France, with its clean, sanitised visuals evoking ascension to heaven (Stone is basically dressed as an angel, complete with the lighting giving her an ethereal glow) and its missing last verse:

edited 12th Nov '14 5:33:29 AM by Iaculus

It doesn't send a creepy message. "Honouring the dead" is essentially a way of apologizing that they died on the whims of Generals and Politicians, and thus keeping their memory alive so that we never make the same mistakes again.

The best way to do that is to send a message of 'see? We don't send kids to war any more!'. Ending your rememberance ceremony with a thirteen-year-old boy in civilian clothes laying a wreath for child soldiers would convey that effect far more powerfully. By deliberately identifying the CCF and the First World War's child soldiers, they're either criticising the cadet organisations' glamorisation of war for kids or justifying the deaths of said kids as part of a tradition of national service we still hold to today. Given the other stuff I linked above, using schoolgirl poppy-sellers as adverts for army recruitment and downplaying the idea that war can be pointless, and given both the romanticism of the picture and the predilections of the Tory government, I'd be really surprised if it's the former.

Yes, I'm aware that the CCF and similar organisations don't pack thirteen-year-olds off to the front lines when they're thirteen years old, but they're very much recruitment tools for the army, giving kids a whole host of fun activities in a military context and pushing military recruitment as a desirable end-goal when the cadets leave school. Having a uniformed child in a military-recruitment program as your representative to remember child soldiers doesn't really convey the message of 'yeah, we're not going to let that happen again' - the only remaining ambiguity is over whether the setpiece in question is depicting this as a good thing or a bad thing.

edited 12th Nov '14 7:37:55 AM by Iaculus

My distaste for the poppy campaign (or at least the politicisation thereof) is part of why I wear a white poppy. Far preferable, and more ethical in my view.

The fact that it is sponsored by the likes of Lockheed Martin does cheapen it somewhat.

@ Iaculus, do you believe that The Poppy — and perhaps pushing the issue wider, the idea of a Due to the Dead — is morally wrong?

For me, this is a rather emotive subject. You could say it lies within my Berserk Button territory, and definitely not something I can be rational about.

edited 12th Nov '14 1:56:33 PM by Greenmantle

I think that's a drastic oversimplification of the argument, if not an outright strawman. So far the only things he's argued about is the use of a child for publicity and the way the appeal seems to be handled by some facets of society.

edited 12th Nov '14 1:47:27 PM by Deadbeatloser22

Changing topic swiftly, and because I didn't see it mentioned earlier but I may have missed it, I have a suggestion for a discussion.

As of last Saturday, we are officially 6 months away from a General Election. Which to me makes this an excellent time to make foolhardy predictions that we can laugh at next year. (and by that time we might really need cheering up.)

So, what are your predictions for the big GE? I'd like to know what you think the Result might be, the breakdown of seats and maybe a punt as to what happens to some of the major players in our politics right now. Any other predictions, you are more than welcome to fill in from here.

My predictions? Hung Parliament, with Labour the largest party and attempting a minority government.

Results. (Winning post: 326/650)

Labour 258 —> 299: Those Scottish seats will cost them.

Conservative 305 —> 265: Not too shabby, considering.

Lib Dems 057 —> 018: They won't fall below UKIP. Just.

SNP 006 —> 031: Scotland is theirs for the taking. Lab=21, LD=7

UKIP 002 —> 016: They'll pick up a dozen, maybe more.

Plaid 003 —> 003: Wales not yet ready for Plaid, Labour should be stronger than 2010.

Greens 001 —> 001: Greens hold Brighton, the storm has blown over. No more breakthroughs however.

Not including NI Parties (17 seats). SF won't come unless they can tip the balance AND get a really good deal. Other than that, expect traditional alliances.

As to characters: Nick Clegg loses his seat. DC is kicked out, likely replacement May. Ed begins his struggle... it will be torturous.

Nigel Farage being torn apart on C4 news again, specifically over the idea that mothers are worth less to employers because of their maternity leave. Rendered almost speechless, he accused the interviewer (herself a working mother) of knowing nothing at all about the very specific part of the corporate world he was referring to. He also claimed that he only ever took a week at the most holiday a time.

Having worked in the hardcore depths of financial services, I remember full well mandatory two week leave for security reasons - two full weeks with no access to any company systems or accounts or devices permitted, with dismissal being the penalty for breaching it. It's anti-fraud so makes perfect sense. Perhaps Farage didn't work in an area with such rules, but many do these days.

You're expecting logic from him.

Ain't gonna happen.

Although you could spin it as only taking one week of voluntary leave.

He'd still be lying by omission, as his implication was certainly that he was never absent at all for more than a week.

Actually, I was even just in a fairly basic admin role and I was still required to take the mandatory two weeks, though this is because I had access to things like bank details. Also security databases like World Check (which check your name against any official list like a disqualified director list, and record any criminal accusation aganst you even if you were found innocent) and credit reports like Experian.

And I was a mere temp on about £16k. Someone at Farage's level would have much more sensitive stuff than I had access to, so those rules would definitely affect him, if his part of the city was covered by such laws. Fact is anyway, many are.

I'm curious, what exactly was the reason for this?

Security, basically. Being away for a full two weeks means they can see two things: Things that don't happen when you're present that should and things that do happen that shouldn't.

If you're scamming accounts, abusing customer information, etc on a consistent basis then your absence may allow the identification and stopping of it. A trader who doesn't ever want to take time off is one who wants no one to ever have the chance to review and audit their books.

See here for more, though it doesn't just apply to traders - anyone with sensitive information in the banking industry might be required to take such leave.

That makes sense, thanks!

Interesting nobody's noted what Sir John Major said this evening...

Sir John is pretty much saying what we are all thinking.

If there is a referendum, Britain is out. A reason for this is because there have been years of anti-EU conditioning from the press.

One interesting aspect in all this is that because of the strong editorial line, the Press cannot change it's tune easily.

But for the pro-EU campaign to succeed, the Press does need to change its tune. So far, I haven't seen any of the papers declare themselves as an Out, regardless of any "negotiations". (Express might have.) But, what they are saying is that if you want us to change our tune, the results of the renegotiated deal has to be substantial.

So what Sir John is saying that if you want Britain to stay you need to give David Cameron a really juicy piece of red meat to get the press onside. Freedom of movement would be such a big piece of meat: "a fundamental principle of the EU" sacrificed to please the press.

Anyway, that's my take.

What I want to know is why Freedom of Movement is a fundamental part of the EU, or even any Common Market. This is a genuine enquiry: I don't know enough about market theory and economics to understand why the common market needs freedom of movement and what would be the changes to the market if it was removed.

A free market, by definition, allows the free movement of commodities between countries. Labour is a commodity. It gives British businesses an easier time getting employees, and gives British workers an easier time finding jobs (because it makes working abroad a more viable option).

Today I discovered that the bulk of the most downvoted comments on the Daily Mail website come from Hearts fans trolling them.

This pleases me greatly.

Although out of a desire to show editorial balance (even though this isn't the BBC) I do wish the Mail readers could have engaged in educated discourse rather than just downvoting.

edited 14th Nov '14 9:58:14 AM by Deadbeatloser22

Makes sense, although referring to labour as a commodity rubs me up the wrong way. Still, free market, everything is a commodity...

Ok, so next question: what would be the effect of removing freedom of movement? Lets give UKIP exactly what they want: Everyone has to work in the country that they are currently resident in. Do you think we would see a pick up of employment in the UK (I hear we are need of a few sandwich makers) or do you think we would see factories moving towards areas of the EU where labour costs are lower?