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
Corporate lobbyists influencing policy against the best interests of people? I'm shocked I tell you
edited 29th Jul '15 3:25:56 PM by Last_Hussar
Well, yes, there's nothing particularly unusual about this... except possibly just how public and brazen the Tories have been since 2010 about spitting on real scientific and statistical evidence - which is actually fairly unusual even by the standards of politicians. While the contents of the meeting were sealed up and kept secret, it was public knowledge that they'd frozen out the real scientific experts on the grounds that they only wanted to listen to real scientific experts (in other words, for self-interest reasons).
edited 29th Jul '15 3:38:24 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.
Nope, I don't see anything unusual about this. The whole point of "experts" in any field, for special interest groups, is to create some kind of weasonable (weasel reasonable) argument for whatever policy has already been decided. Actually allowing a debate might get facts brought into the mix.
V
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Why does a "Debate" have to be formally agreed to, anyway?
UK anti-Semitic incidents soar in first half of year - report
There were 473 recorded incidents between January and June this year including two classified as "extreme violence", said the Community Security Trust (CST), which advises Britain's estimated 260,000 Jews on security.
That represented a 53 percent rise compared to the same period last year, said the CST which has recorded anti-Semitic incidents since 1984.
Across Europe, Jews have warned of a growing undercurrent of anti-Semitism, fuelled by anger at Israeli policy in the Middle East and social tensions over immigration and increasing economic hardship under austerity policies that have helped far-right movements gain popularity.
Those fears were exacerbated in January when an Islamist militant gunman killed four people in a Jewish supermarket in Paris, followed a month later by an attack on Copenhagen's main synagogue.
In February, the CST said the number of incidents in Britain had risen to a record level in 2014, echoing a worldwide trend found by a study for Tel Aviv University's Kantor Centre for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry.
Other Random News:
- Jeremy Corbyn backed by Unison and Unite for Labour leader
- Calais crisis: Nigel Farage fears holidaymaker deaths
- Scottish Secretary's commitment to more powers for Islands
- Slave labour: David Cameron vows to end 'abhorrent trade'
- Andy Burnham suggests new social care tax
- Basingstoke Green Party job-share MP candidates refused judicial review
A procrastination in of itself
And Corbyn has now come out and said that he's pull the UK out of NATO alongside scrapping Trident.
Well I'm done, Burnham it is.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Has he got the message that Russia isn't the hub of the socialist world any more so he doesn't need to be trying to cozy up to them yet?
"Yup. That tasted purple."
A procrastination in of itself
I don't think it's that, I think he's just an isolationist who believes we shouldn't work with the forces of hardcore explorative capitalism. I think that even with all their flaws the U.S. And the EU are still forces for good in the world and we should be part of that.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
A nice butterfly
I am sorry if this is late, but I only just read of it but...did Cameron really say the UK is going to stop the "plague of immigrants"?
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
HGW XX/7
Lol. Strong Trottery.
—-
Apprentice contestant Stuart Baggs found dead on Isle of Man.
Goodnight sweet prince, and may fields of ponies sing thee to thy rest.
edited 30th Jul '15 10:56:00 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei
A procrastination in of itself
Not plague but "swarm".
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
Meh, Corbyn's claims to take the UK out of NATO are about as credible as various US Republicans who insist they'll get us out of the UN. Isolationism may feed the base, but it's a non-starter diplomatically, and not a reason to vote against.
A procrastination in of itself
Except this man could be PM, it's like a Republican presidential candidate saying he wants to take the US out of the UN, would you want to give such a person the power to actually do it? Also it doesn't feed the base, I'm pretty sure half the base are like "What the fuck dude!", plus it's stupid enough that it might well render us unelectable.
Plus I feel it betrays our Socialist principles. My Labour Party membership card says in red letters "by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone,", for me NATO and the EU are just as much expressions of that principle as anything else.
edited 30th Jul '15 11:37:22 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
V
And the other half of the base probably love the idea, as would plenty of those who voted for Old Labour back in the 1980s and still rate Michael Foot highly.
edited 30th Jul '15 11:50:27 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
Various Republican presidential candidates would make the claim, yes, but never do anything about it because it would cause a lot of blowback internationally. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when the imperfection is unlikely to matter.
I do fail to see the point of Trident anymore, but that's a separate thing.
A procrastination in of itself
Thing is this isn't the US, people don't make absurdly overblown statements that they never intend on fulfilling, at least not like presidential candidates do.
As for Trident, a nuclear deterrent not just for the UK but for the EU, a weapon of European solidarity to protect not just ourselves but other. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" we have the ability to provide a nuclear detergent that will help maintain the nuclear weapon taboo globally and ensure security for our friends and allies, we have that ability and it shodul be used for the common good of all.
We don't need nuclear weapons for ourselves, but if we walk away from them then we're trusting the Yanks and the Frogs to keep the Taboo in place and Europe secure, I feel that to do that is a dereliction of duty.
edited 30th Jul '15 12:11:52 PM 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
Sneering Imperialist
Strongly suggest you don't use this on your clothes.
More seriously, the argument that Trident is an independent nuclear deterrent falls flat when you realise that it is entirely dependent on American technical support.
My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare
Plus, in times of conflict treaty and agreed limits on weaponry and their use strongly tend to be fired off during the first salvos. 
As people attempt to flee bloody conflicts, oppressive regimes and poverty by risking their lives to cross the Channel, politicians compete to talk toughest on the issue.
Prime Minister David Cameron came under fire on Thursday for describing migrants as a “swarm”, while Ukip leader Nigel Farage warned a British holidaymaker or lorry driver could soon die unless “something radical is done”.
In an effort to separate the reality from the political rhetoric, we asked Professor John Salt of UCL’s Migration Research Unit to respond to some of the most common assertions about immigration to the UK.
Is Britain full?
"The problem here is that there has never been an accepted optimum population level as there are all sorts of constraints. There are various land uses that housing must compete with. For example, you could say that if we hadn’t built all the golf courses we have in Surrey, then we’d have a lot more space to build housing and therefore be in a better position to manage an increased population.
"It’s really a matter of perception and what people are comfortable with. Many of the problems associated with immigration are regionally specific. For example, one of the big problems in the South East is water supply and it could be said that immigration in that region is adding to that pressure, but that is very different to saying Britain is full up. It is possible to divert resources to those areas experiencing most pressures associated with immigration, from those that do not.
"Logic dictates that you cannot keep increasing your population forever. However, when I first began studying this subject in the 1960s, the assumption was that the population would increase to as much as 80 million by the end of the century. All sorts of regional strategies were developed, including plans to create substantial extra capacity in towns like Milton Keynes, Swindon and Northampton. But then the pill was invented and that simply didn’t happen."
Are immigrants really taking our jobs?
There are some very interesting figures that relate to this, from the time around the turn of 2004 and 2005 when something like a quarter of a million Poles entered the UK. However, recorded unemployment rates went down between 2003 and 2005, and recorded vacancy rates actually went up slightly, which would seem counter-intuitive. There are of course other factors at play, and people will make of that what they will, but the data would suggest that they weren’t taking the jobs of Brits.
One of the arguments is that certain easy-entry occupations are disproportionately affected, such as catering, food processing, driving jobs and construction, where it is often claimed wages are driven down. The econometric evidence suggests immigration doesn’t generally impact on the pay or employment rates of existing citizens. People in lower paid jobs are more likely to be affected, but even then the effect, statistically speaking, is relatively small.
Are most immigrants here illegally?
I am often posed this question and my stock answer is that there are only two countries that really have any idea how many immigrants have entered illegally, and they are Australia and North Korea.
This is because Australia counts everyone in and out, while North Korea has border controls that most people would consider unacceptable.
For other countries, by definition, we don’t know how many people are there illegally. Many of the people who are in the country illegally are people who have entered legally, but stayed beyond the period they had permission for. But the number of people who actually get into Britain illegally must be pretty small, due to the stringent checks that exist at our main points of entry.
Do immigrants claim a disproportionately high amount in welfare and benefits payments?
The studies that have been done do show that immigrants are less likely to claim benefits that native Britons. However, the proportion varies by origin. People who have asylum claims, for example, are not allowed to be employed while their application is being processed, so it is inevitable that they will need more support through welfare payments. But again, that is a relatively small group. On the whole, the story is that migrants are less likely to access benefits payments.
Do immigrants put too much strain on education and health services?
I think what does put pressure on these services is the relative age structure of populations. One of the features of the Polish and other eastern European communities which developed in Britain is that they were largely comprised of younger people, who are of course more likely to have children, which will in turn put greater pressure on schools. But authorities will often have data that show this is likely to happen, so should be better placed to deal with those changes.
The other thing to mention is the number of immigrants who work in health and care sectors and recent reports have suggested as many as a one in four new nurses are recruited from abroad.
Services may be under pressure, but you simply cannot generalise. Our research indicates that it is always important to look at the routes of entry, which are labour, family, students and asylum. Each of these may have different effects the provision of services and must be taken into account by policy makers at national and local levels.
edited 30th Jul '15 12:25:43 PM by FluffyMcChicken
A procrastination in of itself
That's an argument against Trident, but not an argument against Britain having nuclear weapons. I'd be all for us having an entirely independent nuclear weapons program, or perhaps one shared with the French.
Sneering Imperialist
<shrug>
Trident's the system being renewed. There is literally no prospect of another, entirely British, no-smelly-American-aerospace-firms-allowed system being brought online - to design and build such a system from scratch would be even more ruinously expensive. There is no point in arguing against a system that doesn't exist. Our nuclear deterrent is Trident, and Trident is our nuclear deterrent. To argue against one is to argue against the other.
And sharing with the French? I thought you just argued against that.
edited 30th Jul '15 12:50:58 PM by pagad
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.
My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare
You know there was an article about the British Army downsizing severely in the Military Thread, and I couldn't help but wonder if applying the Gurkha doctrine to the entirety of the British military would help alleviate the recent immigration problem, as the majority of these refugees are young men of military age - citizenship will be granted to those who serve six years (one British service term IIRC) in the service of the United Kingdom's defense. I'm fairly certain you could raise several full World War II infantry divisions with the numbers that these migrants are coming in.
Sneering Imperialist
Eesh. I don't think I feel comfortable with that idea, it's a little too much like exploitation for my tastes.
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.
My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare
Isn't the sphere of politics justifiable exploitation in its own right?
Honestly, I perceive it as a single step solution that can satisfy multiple fronts in this crisis - the military will have a bountiful and willing source of manpower to alleviate its declining ranks and formations, the refugees will be granted a legally accepted and also respectable passage for British citizenship, the British citizenry's fears of mooching and freeloading migrants would be quashed - I'm sure nobody in their right mind would deny citizenship to someone who put their life on the line literally fighting for it, while the United States' military presence in the region would be much more firmly reinforced by local forces.
I'm not calling for mass conscription by the way - only the en masse application of the recruiting processes of the Gurkhas and French Foreign Legion onto the regular militaries of Britain and France as a whole. If the citizens of Europe demand that this massive wave of foreign immigrants prove their loyalties to their nations in order to receive the privilege of full citizenship, this would be the most clear cut way.
A procrastination in of itself
X4 I argued against leaving it all to the French, that's not fair on them, but sharing the burden with the French, that I like.
Genuinely think he should be depute leader, long been a big fan of Watson, ever since he helped set up the pro-gamer lobbying group I used to be the secretary of, Gamer's Voice. Some may remember the time a bunch of M Ps, including Moral Guardian Keith Vaz were persuaded to play video games in the Commons - that was our work, and Watson originally set us up. Too bad our whacked out paranoid IT guy locked us out of all our systems, killing the group completely...
Bee-gate
is rumbling on. The minutes of one of the meetings that led to the limited, temporary reinstatement of an EU banned pesticide have now been released - unusually late (minute publication is usually 3 weeks, but this one was involved in a FOI demand due to the government gagging scientific experts on the matter).
This issue making the news now
is that the only experts invited to the meeting were the pesticide's creators.
The pesticides were banned because of scientific evidence showing a swift and powerful negative impact on bees and other pollinators when exposed to these pesticides for only 20 minutes. Since the ban came in (early in 2013), further evidence
has come to light that studies of the pesticide's impact on humans needs to be further explored
due to the possibility that the pesticides have a similar impact on newborn babies that they have on bees. That was used to further reinforce the ban (given that a minority of countries - including the UK
- kept lobbying the EU on the grounds that the ban should never have occurred in the first place).
From the NFU lobby's point-of-view, even if they got their original request (79% pesticide coverage) instead of the 5% that's been permitted in the released minutes, they're still cutting off their nose to spite their face. Using a pesticide that kills the oilseed rape's pollinators (which are already suffering population collapse) to "save" 79% of this year's crop, will result in 100% loss of livelihood in the long-run if they've got no bees left to pollinate the rapeseed.
I've said "save" because the released minutes themselves point out there wasn't any robust evidence of scale of problem being claimed, and that the applicants couldn't even properly define the high risk areas. They did provide sufficient evidence for high risk to 5% of the crops, which is what's been permitted - although even then, they were told to better define the most at risk areas.
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.