British Politics Thread

What I've taken away is this -

The United States making a screwup domestically or internationally will send shockwaves across the world and damage everyone.

The United Kingdom making a screwup domestically or internationally will only cause damage to them and almost no one else (save perhaps for the feisty inhabitants of the Emerald Isle).

If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, and call me an idiot in the process.

EDIT: Interesting topic for a pagetopper. Damn son - damn.

Edited by TechPriest90 on Jan 12th 2019 at 12:20:48 PM

Not quite. Brexit will impact everyone. The country which will get it the worst will be Ireland, but we can look forward to a lot of turmoil this year, especially on the finance market. Don't forget that London is about to lose access to the single market which will cause a ripple effect.

Thing is, from the perspective of the EU it would be worse to give in to the UK frankly unreasonable demands. Their main goal is to protect the single market, so they will take the hit.

Politically speaking. Gibraltar will be quite in a mess as a result and I won't trust Argentina to not ogle the Marshall islands again.

Edited by Swanpride on Jan 12th 2019 at 9:38:24 AM

Falklands. Marshall Islands are in a different ocean.

Sorry, yes, I meant the Falkland islands.

It is also not unlikely that various countries will sue the UK.

Also known as the Malvinas Isles here in Latin America.

We can also expect some problems to spread to the rest of the Commonwealth.

Edited by raziel365 on Jan 12th 2019 at 9:52:02 AM

Hell, recognition as a British overseas territory in the Lisbon Treaty is a big thing for the Falklands.

So, in the purely hypothetical situation of having a No Deal Brexit and a safe Labour majority for 5 years vs Remaining and a safe Tory majority for 5 years, I'm guessing I'm about the only one who would go for Labour?

What about if there was a Brexit deal of some sort (you get to specify the minimum requirement for your answer to change)?

Or do you think the 5 years of Tories is better than any Brexit? That hurt to write.

Given that - as far as I am aware - the Argentinian Navy is atm about as seaworthy as Russian Aircraft Carrier I doubt the Falklands need to worry about Falklands II: Argentinian Boogaloo.

Mind you, Argentina is in a politically delicate position, enough that it takes one crazed candidate or president to see the Malvinas as a valid source of political points to get the gears turning for another Malvinas War.

Edited by raziel365 on Jan 12th 2019 at 11:26:21 AM

Tories vs Labour is a tricky question. On the most basic level: Labour is the lesser of two evils. But on a more complicated level: Labour hasn't really shown more competence than the Tories regarding Brexit.

Here is the thing with Brexit: What I get regarding the Brexit voters is the desire to change something. The whole political system in the UK is in desperate need of an overhaul. Currently a large percentage of the votes literally don't count for anything. And as far as I can tell, Britain has a class problem. How many of the high ranking Brexiters have been to Eton?

x4

Lexiteer, so the No Deal + strong Corbyn majority combination is not quite ideal but is an acceptable outcome as long as the Tories do not manage to include poison pills in any hastily-signed agreements before they leave power to deny various measures Labour might take re. economy. That's been the major reason the Tories started out pro-EU - to permanently lock in Tory policies and deny Labour ones even when they lose power, can't believe they'd stop trying it now.

My cat could probably tell that Britain has a "class problem", and she has no formal training in political theory as far as I know. Brexit is a good opportunity to rejig the British constitutional arrangements a bit given we're already doing rather extensive surgery on it removing the assorted EU constitutional measures. Doubt we'll get Proportional Representation much as I would like it, but we could possibly get away with local or regional devolution alongside massive investment programs to make sure the money goes where it is needed.

Edited by DeathorCake on Jan 12th 2019 at 8:55:23 PM

I’m not British so my opinion doesn’t count, but I’d go with Remain and 5 years of Tories over Leave and 5 years of Labour, for two reasons. First, any major policy changes the Tories made in 5 years would be eaiser to reverse than Brexit would. Second, if Labour spent 5 years presiding over the aftermath of Brexit, the Brexit-induced economic misery of those years would make them unpopular enough to keep them out of power for at least at decade afterward, so you’d only be delaying a long Tory stretch in power, not preventing it.

I fully agree.

The Tories, however, are most certainly not the party of Remain, though. And, the bulk of the issues that have led us to this point can be lain at their door.

Which is why I wouldn't trust them not to torpedo any attempt to stay in the EU.

Give me 25 years of mostly Labour, thanks. We might need that long to undo a lot of knotty problems. -_-

Edited by Euodiachloris on Jan 13th 2019 at 3:13:01 PM

The last labour Government was in power for 13 years,and they left the country in a dreadful state,no thank you,I'd rather we have a government that's not Tory or Labour this time around

If the Lib Dems can get their act together I'll consider voting for them

Ah yes, because when you don't want the Tories or Labour, you should obviously vote for the most pointless, useless elements of both fused into one hand-wringing and moralising waste of space.

The worst outcomes of the last Labour government are the outcome of global banking (a sector that's not going to be checked by the lib dems, so that's not an improvement) and financial crashes, or the Tories running away with the worst ideas from what's the Right of Labour. AKA the part of the party that's not in power.

But sure, vote for the Lib Dems. Get the worst of both worlds.

The worst outcomes of Labour’s last period in power also include the Iraq War and erosion of privacy rights, both of which Labour can legitimately be blamed for. But those seem characteristic of the non-Corbyn part of the party.

Edited by Galadriel on Jan 13th 2019 at 11:34:52 AM

And the current party leader voted against the Iraq War, your point is...?

That there are legitimate reasons why progressive folks might be upset with Labour and want to have a third option.

The point is,I want a change in politics,I want someone other Labour or Conservative,at the moment it feels like we have a two party system going on

This is me speaking purely as a voter

A third option for the sake of a third option might as well not exist (and for all the identifying features the Lib Dems have, they might as well not exist).

When the justifications given ever include Iraq or the 2008 economy, you need to ask the question "would it have been any different with any other party that could reasonably have formed a government†?" The answer is "no".

It's FPTP, it is essentially a two party system.

†So not one of the many communist parties or the MRLP.

Edited by RainehDaze on Jan 13th 2019 at 4:40:48 PM

Let's put the SNP in charge of the whole UK

You want a change in politics so oppose the most radical proponent for a serious shift in our domestic and international policy, because he has managed to gain leadership of a major political party?

You’re literally prioritising the superficial appearance of change over a substantive change that would shake things up.

I don't oppose Jeremy but I just wish it was actually worth voting for another party,but yeah it's basically a two party system so there's no frickin point voting for lib dems or anyone else not named Conservative or Labour

And for there to be a point to that, you need some kind of proportional representation (I won't recommend the French system, because it creates two party blocks).