2015 UK Politics Megathread

[The Huskar Social Union]

READ THE BLOODY EDIT m8

oops

YOU HAVE FAILED!

The Emperor

[Vashtanaraada]

Labour's ruled out a deal, it hasn't ruled out relying on its support. The Lib Dem's have.

The LibDems won't be in a position to form a government on Friday.

Clegg's position still allows wriggle room for informally supporting Labour alongside informal support from the SNP.

And besides, Clegg likely won't be leader of the LibDems by the end of Saturday, even accepting that he'll likely hold on to Sheffield Hallam.

He actually came to my college which is in the constituency of Southport.
He nearly fell over a poster easel.
He's funny, but not exactly the born-leader for the party closest to enacting Modern Liberalism in government.

[Arglorand]

I don't understand NI politics, so sorry for the rather obvious question.

Why don't Republicans all vote for the SDLP? They're both left-wing and Republican (words which in the US don't go together), but one take their seats.

The SDLP are nationalists, not republicans.

In the context of Northern Ireland politics, the distinction is an important one - as is the distinction between unionists and loyalists.

They support a United Ireland as a republic, do they not? Does that not make them, in a literal sense at least, republican?

[Caltarania]

The SDLP are nationalists, not republicans.

In the context of Northern Ireland politics, the distinction is an important one - as is the distinction between unionists and loyalists.

They support a United Ireland as a republic, do they not? Does that not make them, in a literal sense at least, republican?

But republican could imply that they are unionists who support a republican Britain, not a united Ireland, I think?

[Arglorand]

They support a United Ireland as a republic, do they not? Does that not make them, in a literal sense at least, republican?

But republican could imply that they are unionists who support a republican Britain, not a united Ireland, I think?

In theory, but that's why you call them both Irish nationalist and republican, then

[Vashtanaraada]

Grammar schools help with social mobility.

They don't. Its an undeniable fact.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... tion-exams

evidencematters.org.uk/bad-grammar-campaigners-are-wrong-to-claim-selective-shools-help-social-mobility

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25386784

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... y-problem/

They literally enforce the concept that if you can't write an essay you're useless to society and should therefore never earn over £27,000 per annum.

[Vashtanaraada]

Too many UKIP dicks on this.

Which Liverpool constituency you in mate?

I'm in Sefton Central now, my social housing moved from Bootle about half a year ago.

[The Archregimancy]

The SDLP are nationalists, not republicans.

In the context of Northern Ireland politics, the distinction is an important one - as is the distinction between unionists and loyalists.

They support a United Ireland as a republic, do they not? Does that not make them, in a literal sense at least, republican?

This isn't an issue of semantics - in the specific context of Northern Ireland politics, the terms nationalist and republican are not synonymous, but rather traditionally represent different perspectives on the means of achieving union between NI and the Republic; similarly, the terms 'unionist' and 'loyalist' represented different perspectives on how to maintain NI's status as part of the UK. Nationalists were traditionally constitutionalists and republicans were traditionally supporters of the IRA's armed struggle.

The distinction is arguably less important now that practically everyone - except for fringe groups - is committed to a negotiated constitutional settlement in NI, but it maintains real meaning in the specific context of the North's political spectrum. So it's best to be careful about how the terms are used in that context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionism_i ... erminology

[Vashtanaraada]

They support a United Ireland as a republic, do they not? Does that not make them, in a literal sense at least, republican?

This isn't an issue of semantics - in the specific context of Northern Ireland politics, the terms nationalist and republican are not synonymous, but rather traditionally represent different perspectives on the means of achieving union between NI and the Republic; similarly, the terms 'unionist' and 'loyalist' represented different perspectives on how to maintain NI's status as part of the UK. Nationalists were traditionally constitutionalists and republicans were traditionally supporters of the IRA's armed struggle.

The distinction is arguably less important now that practically everyone - except for fringe groups - is committed to a negotiated constitutional settlement in NI, but it maintains real meaning in the specific context of the North's political spectrum. So it's best to be careful about how the terms are used in that context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionism_i ... erminology

It may also be said that the DUP are loyalists, and other unionist parties are simply and only unionist.

[Arglorand]

They support a United Ireland as a republic, do they not? Does that not make them, in a literal sense at least, republican?

This isn't an issue of semantics - in the specific context of Northern Ireland politics, the terms nationalist and republican are not synonymous, but rather traditionally represent different perspectives on the means of achieving union between NI and the Republic; similarly, the terms 'unionist' and 'loyalist' represented different perspectives on how to maintain NI's status as part of the UK. Nationalists were traditionally constitutionalists and republicans were traditionally supporters of the IRA's armed struggle.

The distinction is arguably less important now that practically everyone - except for fringe groups - is committed to a negotiated constitutional settlement in NI, but it maintains real meaning in the specific context of the North's political spectrum. So it's best to be careful about how the terms are used in that context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionism_i ... erminology

Fair enough. Thank you.

[Purger]

It seems the silent majority have different opinions than most post on this thread suggests, and tomorrow the silent majority will not be silent anymore. If NSG could only be a constituency for the British parliament... ah.

[Alyakia]

It seems the silent majority have different opinions than most post on this thread suggests, and tomorrow the silent majority will not be silent anymore. If NSG could only be a constituency for the British parliament... ah.

half of the silent majority are american so

[Vashtanaraada]

The silent majority in the UK are literally silent. Most people don't vote.

[Planita]

It seems the silent majority have different opinions than most post on this thread suggests, and tomorrow the silent majority will not be silent anymore. If NSG could only be a constituency for the British parliament... ah.

half of the silent majority are american so

I voted on this poll for Labour.

[Vashtanaraada]

half of the silent majority are american so

I voted on this poll for Labour.

such edgy

[Planita]

I voted on this poll for Labour.

such edgy

[Purger]

The silent majority in the UK are literally silent. Most people don't vote.

Actually the turnouts during the generals elections are usually high.

My personall wish is that the LibDems disapear from the parliament completely, UKIP becomes 10 or more seats and eventually a UKIP-Torry coalition formed in order to force an EU referendum.

[Frasers]

Decided I'm retaking the year at uni so I can now sit up and chat shite about politics and not even feel guilty

[Ravenflight]

LOL Tories on the same as Green. Take that Cameron

[Salandriagado]

The fact that the law was repealed, rather than not existing and having to be brought in, is important with your analogy.

So if Labour brought in a law that makes Polish the second official language, and then Conservatives went along and repealed it, that would be inherently racist regardless of motivations? Good to know.

A minor point, but we'd have to have a first official language before we could do that: at present, Wales is the only part of the union with such a thing (and it's not English).

[Frasers]

LOL Tories on the same as Green. Take that Cameron

Doesn't reflect reality though really does it

#CrushingDisappointment

[Pesda]

Hwaet.

It will come as no surprise to anyone paying attention to this thread and its predecessor that I'll be voting Liberal Democrat tomorrow.

What I'm writing now, I write not to convince the rest of you – most of you have made up your minds, and I respect that most of the people posting in this thread at least share this much with me: that you care passionately enough about the politics of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to engage in detailed discussion. No, what I write now, I write in an attempt to outline the reasons why at least one of that vanishing breed, the core LibDem voter, is sticking with his party.

You may disagree with me, you may excoriate me, you may be baffled by me, but two things you can never accuse me of being are uninformed and unengaged. Whether you think I'm right or wrong, I'm prone to taking the long view, perhaps influenced what I do for a living; and taking that long view, I would stress that ours – and I will use the first person plural here – ours is the party of Gladstone. Without understanding this underlying historical fact, it's likely difficult to understand what motivates the core Liberal Democrat voter. In the second half of the 20th century, we had an important and influential infusion of pro-European social democrats, but strip away everything else, and focus on our roots, and we are an alliance of anti-corn law free trade Peelites, social reforming non-conformist Radicals, and constitutional reformer rural aristocratic Whigs. The only thing holding that coalition together in the days when the Conservative Party was the party of tariffs and protectionism was a shared commitment to the benefits of small-l liberal free trade. Expressing surprise that the party might have liberal free trade sympathies, that its core vote will share those sympathies, simply doesn't understand the extent to which free trade and a consequent commitment to the corollary economic policies isn't attributable to that accursed word 'neo-liberalism', but has always been a fundamental part of the party's basic DNA.

Likewise, our commitment to Europe. Gladstone was fundamentally committed to the post-Napoleonic Concert of Europe, the importance not just of maintaining a balance of power between the Great Powers of Europe, but a recognition of the importance of our shared European civilisation. Gladstone's vision of European cooperation eventually foundered on the shoals of Bismarckian realpolitik, but that basic faith in the Victorian shared European cosmopolitanism that died with Archduke Franz Ferdinand still informs the passionate Liberal Democrat faith in the European Union. For all my joking about not being Nick Clegg, we share this much: we both have Russian family members, we both married a non-British European, we've both lived in Brussels, we both speak at least three European languages (and we both studied archaeology and anthropology at university; alright, so maybe I am Nick Clegg). If you have that sort of background, if you believe passionately in the value not just of the European Union, but of the concept of shared European civilisation – not just as an abstract concept, but as something worth metaphorically fighting for – within the context of the United Kingdom as a single state, where else do you go but to the Liberal Democrats?

And then there's constitutional reform and federalism. On these closely related issues, we have been as ahead of our time, as fundamentally right in the last few decades as we were in the closing decades of the 19th century when Gladstone tore his party apart in the conviction that passing Irish Home Rule was the single most important issue within the British body politic. The Liberal Democrats are the natural historical home for those of us who, whatever the reason, both believe in the Union – albeit reformed along federal lines – and the general importance of constitutional reform within these islands.

'But the coalition, Arch… how can you defend the coalition?'

I have nothing to apologise for here.

There are two separate points to make over the coalition from the perspective of the core LibDem voter. The first is that believing coalitions to be fundamentally desirable is the natural outcome of our commitment to constitutional reform. You cannot be a committed core Liberal Democrat voter who believes in reforming the voting system without also realising that coalition is the natural outcome of that commitment. And here lies our fundamental mistake in 2010: believing that we could take the country with us in our belief that Britain's constitutional future lay with our German, Dutch, and Scandinavian cousins, with their stable and successful permanent coalition governments, and that the average British voter would appreciate that the junior partner in a coalition would never be able to carry out its full programme – that the very nature of coalition government would require the junior partner to compromise over central aspects of the party manifesto. But that 8-10% of the population who intellectually believe in the desirability of cooperative northern European coalition politics simply didn't appreciate the extent to which the cultural gulf of expectations between the British tradition of expecting a party to implement its manifesto commitments and the northern European coalition tradition of a manifesto being a series of preferences rather than cast-iron commitments was too great too bridge.

But I will not apologise for sticking to our constitutional principles. Contrary to popular perception, the coalition was not a sign of the LibDem willingness to discard any and all principles in the pursuit of a whiff of power, but was rather the natural outcome of the LibDem commitment to constitutional reform and shared European values. 'Things would have been even worse without us' may not be the sexiest of campaign slogans, but it is a wholly reasonable extrapolation from the constitutional values of your core LibDem voter.

And what choice did we have? On Friday, it's likely that the only combination of parties that can form a majority in Parliament – whether via formal or informal arrangements – will be Lab/SNP/LibDem. Similarly, in the wake of the 2010 election, the only combination of parties that could offer a majority in Parliament was Con/LibDem. Even with Nationalist support, a Lab/LibDem coalition would have been four seats short of forming a majority. As much as I despise first past the post, a Con/LibDem coalition was the only viable coalition in the wake of the 2010 vote; faced with that election result, our primary task became making the best of a bad hand rather than implementing the entirety of the LibDem manifesto. Those of you who think the LibDems should never have entered coalition with the Tories need to outline what you think the alternatives were under the particular circumstances of 2010.

I wish some things had been otherwise, and most of all - impossible though I know it to have been - I wish we'd won the 2010 election in our own right. But we didn't.

And tomorrow?

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known

.

Two things.
First, you are mistaken when you say "Even with Nationalist support, a Lab/LibDem coalition would have been four seats short" What you mean to say is "even with Scottish nationalist support..." Lab/Libdem/SNP/PC/SDLP would have had 327 seats which is a majority. As was said in the previous thread; maybe a Lab/Lib/nat agreement would have been politically difficult (some might argue) but it was arithmetically possible. The Libdems chose a coalition with the Tories, they didn't have to do that. It can be argued it was the best choice but it was still a choice.

Also, what many people are angry about is, not just that the Libdems couldn't implement everything in their own manifesto, but that they enabled the Conservatives to implement the unpopular things in the Tory manifesto, and even some unpopular things not in the Tory manifesto.

"We had to" is no excuse. "We stopped the Tories from being as bad as they would have been" is no excuse. The Libdems deliberately allowed the Tories to do things people don't like. That is why your party deserves a bad election tomorrow.

[Pesda]

In a country with a sizable Russian minority, repealing the allowance for Russian to be used as a language officially is racist. Overthrowing a government for supporting 1 country over another (by force) is racist.

don't bullshit me you are a UKIP voter guess how they feel about minority languages

In the paper today there was a story about Nathan Gill, the leader of UKIP in Wales. He said that Welsh speakers shouldn't say they're more Welsh than the non-Wesh speakers*. Funny thing is I've not heard any Welsh speaker say something of the sort I guess he is just trying to create tension.

*To make it more clear what that means; the "Cymry Cymraeg" shouldn't say they're more "Cymreig" than they "Cymru di-Gymraeg." The English language is annoying when there's not three different words for a language, a people, and a culture.

[Ravenflight]

24 hours til we kick them!

[Alyakia]

don't bullshit me you are a UKIP voter guess how they feel about minority languages

In the paper today there was a story about Nathan Gill, the leader of UKIP in Wales. He said that Welsh speakers shouldn't say they're more Welsh than the non-Wesh speakers*. Funny thing is I've not heard any Welsh speaker say something of the sort I guess he is just trying to create tension.

*To make it more clear what that means; the "Cymry Cymraeg" shouldn't say they're more "Cymreig" than they "Cymru di-Gymraeg." The English language is annoying when there's not three different words for a language, a people, and a culture.

you could probably get away with anlgophone and... uh... welshophone? yeah that one does sound weird.