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
Churchill didn't win a Peace Prize, by the way, it was the Nobel Prize for Literature.
Those certainly aren't just given away for existing or being elected. I assumed everyone knew that, sorry. The Peace Prize is nowhere near as prestigious as any of the others.
V
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
In 1953, probably for his Histories as well as his speeches —and it was:
and A History of the English-Speaking Peoples; a four-volume history covering the period from Caesar's invasions of Britain (55 BC) to the beginning of the First World War (1914). A number of volumes of Churchill's speeches were also published. the first of which, Into Battle, was published in the United States under the title Blood, Sweat and Tears, and was included in Life Magazine's list of the 100 outstanding books of 1924–1944Slapped down: David Cameron faces hostility in TV interrogation
If only he had not won an overall majority, he might have got away with never having a referendum on Europe. Not calling a referendum could have been yet another thing for which he could blame the Lib Dems. It just wasn’t fair. He’d never banked on being a victim of his own success.
Three, two, one and … action. Try to keep it together, Dave, he told himself. Just an hour – less if you count in the ad breaks – and he would be able to go home and watch the highlights of the England v Portugal game. That thought cheered him. With any luck most of the country would be watching the football anyway, so there was a fair chance that next to no one would notice if he crashed and burned.
“So, prime minister,” said Faisal Islam, Sky’s political editor. “Can we start by talking about immigration? How many people have come into the country since you’ve been in government?” Dave tried to remember to force a grin. That’s the last thing his advisers had said before he had left his dressing room. “Make it look as if you’re really thrilled to be talking about immigration and that you’re delighted Vote Leave has finally got round to putting the subject centre stage.”
Instead Dave grimaced. “It’s an actual fact,” he began. He kicked himself. Everyone knows that when a politician says something is an actual fact it almost certainly is not. “Six hundred thousand people have left the UK to go and work abroad,” he continued, before adding with a whisper, “and 1.2 million have come into the country.” “So that’s a net figure of 600,000,” said Islam, whose grasp of maths was rather stronger than Dave’s.
The thing was, Dave insisted, the whole problem was that our economy was just too damn successful. If only we had been in recession, then nobody would have come and everything would have been hunky-dory. If he had been guilty of anything, it was of being too brilliant a prime minister. But since the economy was so magnificent, we may as well make the best of it and not do anything stupid like leaving the EU. Dave punched the air. He had got off immigration and on to his strong card: Project Fear.
Islam wasn’t having any of it, though. “You’ve broken your manifesto promises on immigration.” “I think you’ll find they were only manifesto ambitions, so I haven’t technically broken anything,” Dave replied.
Only then did he remember the important treaty renegotiations that he had completely forgotten since he had failed to negotiate them. “I’ve secured some tremendously important treaty negotiations that will basically mean people stop coming here, though even if people do still come here, that’s better than trashing the economy by leaving the single market.”
“You’ve basically failed at almost everything,” said Islam, a tad harshly. “You’ve let your friends down, you’ve let your country down, but most of all you’ve let yourself down.” Dave looked hurt. “What about those poor fanbelt makers in Bolton?” he snapped, hoping to God there were some fanbelt makers in Bolton. By now he could sense himself going puce. Damn. He’d tried so hard not to get tetchy.
“And you’re just glib,” Dave accused Islam several times. “And that’s a phoney statistic you’re about to trot out.” Hmm. He had never realised he was telepathic before. Maybe losing his temper helped a bit. “And I never said Brexit would cause world war three.”
“Yes you did.”
“Didn’t.”
“Did. And the Treasury select committee says all your figures are lies.”
Dave longed to say, “Of course they are, but they’re not such big lies as the Brexit mob’s,” but somehow he sensed that might not be such a good move. Something told him the audience was fairly hostile. That telepathy again.
“The entire campaign has just been nothing but scaremongering,” said a young woman called Soraya. “You’re not telling us the truth about Turkey.”
“I am. Sort of.”
“I’m an English literature student,” she said. “I know waffling when I see it.”
Dave perked up. Waffling wasn’t so bad. Waffling was what he had set out to do. It hadn’t been his finest hour. But neither had it been a total car crash.
David Cameron hasn't got much longer left in power. And he knows it.
UK polls suggest 'In' camp lead has fallen sharply - JPMorgan
But JPMorgan economist Allan Monks also said there were questions about how much faith should be put in some of the past week's opinion polls that showed momentum shifting towards the "Out" camp.
"If a similar signal came from next week's polls, this would leave a stronger impression that sentiment around the referendum has actually shifted," Monks said in a note emailed to clients.
edited 3rd Jun '16 9:02:26 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
Here are the facts about Turkey, in bullet point:
- Turkey wants visa-free travel, and wants it by July 2016.
- Turkey wants EU Membership, and wants it by 2023.
- The EU has been trying to support the July 2016 timetable for visa-free travel, but there are problems.
- The EU does not accept that 2023 is a feasible timetable for Turkish membership of the EU.
- Visa-free travel means a permit for any citizen of the country concerned to be able to freely travel throughout the Schengen Area.
- Visa-free travel does not permit living in the Schengen Area or working in the Schengen Area.
- Visa-free travel does not affect EU countries that are not signed up to the Schengen Area.
- There are 72 requirements that any country in the world is required to meet for visa-free travel.
- Turkey has met 65 requirements for visa-free travel.
- Negotiations over the remaining 7 are very difficult because they require Turkey changing domestic law on things like terrorism, discrimination and human rights, which is Turkey is not willing to do.
- EU membership requires 35 chapters to be met.
- 33 chapters have to be negotiated with the EU.
- Every single EU member gets to vote on whether a chapter gets opened for negotiation. All countries must agree.
- Every single EU member gets to vote on whether it can be closed (ie, the petitioning country has met the requirements for the chapter). All countries must agree.
- Individual countries can demand chapters be frozen. A frozen chapter that is currently open can no longer be negotiated. A frozen chapter that has not yet been opened cannot be voted on to open. Freezing a chapter means something's gone badly wrong during negotiations, resulting in one or more EU members demanding the petitioning country meets certain eligibility requirements before the chapter can begin to be negotiated (note, this is just to negotiate a chapter, this is not to conclude the chapter).
- Once all 33 chapters have been closed, the petitioning country is still not an EU member. They can now ask for membership, and the EU members will vote on whether to accept the country. All member states have to unanimously agree.
- If all member states unanimously agree, the petitioning country is still not an EU member. Each EU member now goes back to its individual national parliament, who also get a vote.
- If all EU national parliaments agree, the petitioning country will now be allowed to become a member of the EU.
- This means any one individual EU member gets to vote every time any one of 33 chapters gets opened, every time any one of 33 chapters gets closed, and then two formal levels of voting for agreeing or vetoing membership. While that's definitely two levels of vetos, throughout the lifetime of the negotiation, an individual EU member will effectively have had 68 votes in total. That's excluding freezing chapters.
- Turkey began negotiations in 2005 (ie, the first chapters were open for negotiation). After 11 years, 1 chapter has closed, 15 chapters are open, and 8 chapters are frozen.
- Several countries are consistently hostile to Turkish membership including (but not limited to) Germany, Austria, Italy, the Czech Republic, and Cyprus.
- Several countries have had large concerns about the Cyprus issue and human rights issues that they have insisted on various chapters being frozen until those issues (and others) are sorted out, including (but not limited to): France, Greece, Cyprus, Austria, and Germany.
- Only two countries in the entire EU have been consistently supportive of Turkish membership: Poland and the UK.
- Many chapters cannot be unfrozen, opened or closed, until Turkey changes its domestic laws on terrorism, discrimination, human rights, etc., and until the situation in Cyprus also changes. Turkey is unwilling to negotiate on most of these points, and continues to refuse to acknowledge Cyprus as a member state of the EU.
I think the only fact in this entire list that Bremain would want to avoid mentioning would be the UK's internal Westminster policy of supporting Turkish membership of the EU - which is out of step with the rest of the EU (some are consistently hostile, some cycle between supportive and hostile). In that case, that is an issue for any Westminster government, not the EU. The EU concerns are much more in line with the concerns held by the general British public - including migration concerns.
edited 14th Jan '18 10:40:39 AM 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.
Shameful Display
I'm surprised more Balkan countries aren't against accepting Turkey, I thought they hate the Turks.
Britain's bad habits have brought it to the brink of Brexit
Field Marshal of Cracked
bit late here, but let us remember Churchill voted AGAINST the establishment of the NHS in Parliament, and his record in government after Attlee (who should be on the note) was abysmal, only good things I can say is he was a decent writer and he (eventually) knew who to let make the decisions during the war (and ironically Churchill's military incompetence almost got Attlee killed on Gallipoli).
as for the old argument about Immigration economics.... here
I think you'll find that a lot of the Balkan countries will fluctuate in their handling of Turkish membership. The reason for the 33 chapters is to address membership of a country in an organised, point-by-point fashion. There are things various Balkan countries support, and things they don't support - that's par for the course with the issue of Turkish membership.
It's so rare for any country to be consistently supportive that only two countries fit into that category. It's much more common to find countries that have been consistently hostile to membership, but most likely that countries have a mixture of things they support and reject.
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 the only reason the Turkey problem is a thing is because Cameron wants Turkey in but the rest of the EU doesn't.
We could veto Turkey joining st any point, hell we could state we'd veto unless some bullshti demand was met. We could literally bar Turkey from joining the EU unless they recognised the Arminian genocide if we wanted to.
But that's the problem, Cameron is trying to avoid getting asked an awkward question. Because the moment he says that we could veto Turkey joining someone is going to ask if he would veto Turkey joining, and it's pretty clear that he wouldn't, the rest of the EU might, but he wouldn't.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Shameful Display
Wait so Cameron wants to limit the number of immigrants and Muslims in Europe, but he supports admitting Turkey into the EU? Does nobody see the contradiction in this?
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
A procrastination in of itself
It's the offical UK policy to support Turkey joining, we're only one of two countries in the EU that has always supported Turkey joining I believe.
In the end his limits on foreigners are just base pandering, he doesn't actually care about the number of migrants because it's actually good for his friends, big exploitative businesses.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Shameful Display
Why does the UK support Turkey joining. And he's the PM, couldn't he you know change Britain's position on the matter. I honestly doubt the Turks want the Turks to join the EU at this point, they'd have to give up Islamism, the death penalty, and jailing anyone who calls Erodgan mean names.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
A procrastination in of itself
Yes Cameron could change the position (maybe, the foreign office are a power unto themselves at times, Yes Prime Minister wasn't all fiction), but he doesn't want to, it supports this objectives to rail against it but not change things. The same way that many US Republicans constantly go on about "securing the border" but never do it, because they still want that sweet sweet Mexican labour.
As for why we support Turkey? I actually don't know, it's probably a sphere thing, we want to keep Turkey as a freind and ally for geopolitical reasons.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Yes, the UK and Poland are the only two that have consistently supported Turkey's membership.
What do you mean by Islamism?
Turkey officially made the death penalty illegal in 2004, but I believe they haven't used the death penalty for much longer than that. There are certainly plenty of other issues they'd need to address, but they wouldn't have to give up being Muslim.
A prime minister cannot change a government's stance on something. Prime ministers don't have that kind of power. However, the UK government can certainly change its position on the matter if it wanted to. However, the UK position on the matter goes beyond political colour. In 2005, Labour was in government. In 2010, there was a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition. All three parties have supported Turkish membership.
However, it goes back further than 2005. Turkey first applied for membership in 1987, but the issue has existed since the 50s under the EU's predecessor (the EEC). When I say the UK has consistently supported Turkish membership, I don't mean that support began in 2005. It started many years before that.
Why does the UK support it so emphatically? I'm a bit hazy. The UK's traditional stance on the EU is for the EU to be as wide a membership as possible rather than as deeply integrated a membership as possible. The UK has always supported the idea of a barrier-free trade zone for businesses, and Turkey is a big asset in that regard. Political reasons include the UK's traditional belief that Turkish membership would destabilise/end the Common Agricultural Policy, that it would also help diffuse French and German power within the EU, and that it would make the EU a global player given the geographically strategic location of Turkey for trade.
The US also wants Turkey to be in the EU which is probably another factor in the UK's support for it.
edited 3rd Jun '16 6:31:02 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.
Shameful Display
By Islamism I mean the highly conservative (by European standards) form of political Islam practiced by Erdogan. To be honest I didn't know the Turks had already gotten rid of the death penalty.
That doesn't seem to be very well known in the UK either, and I didn't know that either until last week, when I got really fed up of Cameron and the Brexit team going at it hammer and nails, and decided to sit down and figure out what's really going on with Turkish membership.
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.
Shameful Display
Yeah, Turkey is hard to figure out. Just when you've pegged them as another Middle Eastern third world dictatorship you find out they don't have the death penalty. And just when you think you've pegged them as a secular democracy Erdojan opens his dam mouth.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
So the response to the "don't raise tuition fees" petition came out today.
The reforms announced in our Higher Education and Research White Paper, ‘Success as a Knowledge Economy: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice’ will support the Government’s mission to boost, life chances and opportunity for all, and enhance the competitiveness and productivity of our economy. They will also strengthen the UK’s world-class capabilities in research and innovation.
Our higher education sector is among our greatest national assets. England’s universities rank among the best in the world. They generate the knowledge and skills that fuel our economy and provide the basis for our nation’s intellectual and cultural success.
However, our higher education system is falling short when it comes to delivering value for money for students, employers and taxpayers, and is not fulfilling its full potential as an engine of social mobility and driver of enhanced productivity.
All students, regardless of their background, deserve excellent teaching that helps them fulfil their potential. The Teaching Excellence Framework will put in place reputational and financial incentives that will drive up the standard of teaching in all universities, and will put clear, understandable information about outcomes in the hands of students so they know where teaching is best and what benefits they can expect to gain from their course.
The £9,000 fee cap set in 2012 is now worth £8,500 in real terms, and we cannot allow a situation where our world-class universities are under-funded. As is provided for in the 2004 legislation we will therefore allow high quality providers the opportunity to increase the maximum fees in line with inflation, meaning they will remain flat in real terms.
Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds have not been put off going to university with entry rates at a record level of 18.5% in 2015 (compared to 13.6% in 2009). Our repayments system is based on the ability to pay. Repayments start only once a student’s income reaches over £21,000.
We are committed to maintaining a system which does not allow entry and growth from poor quality and financially unsustainable providers and deals with poor quality providers already in the system. In order to be eligible for degree awarding powers, a provider must meet tough quality and Financial Sustainability, Management and Governance criteria. And only once a provider has successfully operated with full degree awarding powers for three years will they become eligible for university title. Nonetheless, our reforms will level the playing field for high quality new entrants, improving the capacity and agility of the higher education sector to respond to the needs of students.
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Non-answer?
"Yup. That tasted purple."
Compare the current state of Turkish democracy to Hungary and Poland and you might see some similarities, though also some differences.
In Turkey, democratic institutions always had somewhat weak legitimacy, but since the '90s, the military has lost its legitimacy as the "guardians of the constitution," IE the guys who override and topple the elected government when it diverges from Kemalist principles. So there's little chance of a military dictatorship, but that leaves room for a populist asshole to get elected and start acting like a dictator.
use political terms to describe, not insult
About that tuition fee thing, yeah, that's really sloppy. Even I could come up with one or several excuses if I hadn't a persuasive argument, that "response" isn't even trying to talk about the topic.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Field Marshal of Cracked
of course it isn't, have you ever seen Dodgy Dave speak? he always avoids the topic! he can't even answer a yes or no question
advancing the front into TV Tropes
V
Then again, neither can any (major) Politician of any (major) Party.
edited 4th Jun '16 11:42:00 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
No, they've given their answer all right. Look at these two paragraphs:
Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds have not been put off going to university with entry rates at a record level of 18.5% in 2015 (compared to 13.6% in 2009). Our repayments system is based on the ability to pay. Repayments start only once a student’s income reaches over £21,000.
They're stating that they're going to continue permitting tuition fees to keep increasing and they're going to use the excuse that the the tuition fees are not really rising, it's just inflation creating the illusion of rising tuition fees. Honest, guv.
They're also claiming that they can keep doing this because universities have recorded a record entry rate in 2015 this is proof that people from poorer/disadvantaged backgrounds haven't been put off at all.
Note, that university entry rates don't tell us anything about the sort of background the student comes from. There's no indication what that percentage is a percentage of (number of eighteen year olds in the UK, or in England and Wales, or number of further education students who are university?) It's meaningless without context. Further more, they're ignoring the fact that wages are not rising in line with inflation and that they'll be freezing the wage at which students begin repaying the loan. So, the fees will be rising in line with inflation (because apparently it's under-funding university if it doesn't due to the loss in value of money) but the salary figure will not rise in line with inflation, meaning the salary figure will lose value (if we use their own argument).
It's not a non-answer. They're hoping people won't notice they're fully intending to enforce the changes.
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.
Shameful Display
Same thing happened in September 2014 with the Scottish referendum - Yes gradually picked up steam, took the lead briefly - then lost. Nothing is certain yet.
Noticed in the shop this morning that every single Scottish paper was leading as a full front page story with the news of the sad passing of Muhammed Ali. Except one of course - the Daily Fail went for a full on attack on the SNP.
Nothing unusual there as such, but even the Daily Star (which is only just above the National Enquirer in terms of accuracy and relevance of its stories) went with Ali...
Nothing to do with the current conversation, and little to do with English politics, but once again I happened upon a wonderful article from The Guardian
. I am amazed at the regularity with which this newspaper produces high-quality content. One of the most incredible reads I had was about Kern County
.
I did not know where else to post it, so there: I love The Guardian. I wish more journalists were like this, even if the tendency sadly seems to be going the opposite way.