Westminster Politics

jeff_goldblum said:
The coalition only happened though because an established party with huge name recognition benefitted from a very specific set of political circumstances.

The reason the Lib Dems did incredibly well in that election was partially because the traditional left-centre-right alignment of modern British political parties had gone out of whack and partially because the Tories weren't particularly convincing. Lots of young, lefty voters were turned off by Labour's shift to the right, Iraq, tuition fees etc. saw the Lib Dems as their best option and switched, which partially mitigated the impact of a smaller than expected number of floating voters switching to the Tories. Consequently, whilst Labour's vote collapsed to 29%, the Tories still only managed about 36% and they weren't able to gobble up the Lib Dem-Tory marginals/three-horse race seats they needed to build a majority.

Third parties holding the balance of power in our political system is fantastically rare and it took a very odd set of circumstances for it to happen in 2010. Given that they utterly trashed their reputation in coalition, it seems very unlikely that the Lib Dems will return to anything approaching the level of popularity they did in 2005-2010 anytime soon, barring some sort of electoral pact with Labour. In terms of a new party making enough of a splash in parliamentary democracy to become a major player/power-broker on a regular basis - the last time a party did that was Labour in 1918, and that only happened because new voting laws more than doubled the electorate by giving non-property owning men the vote. The prospects of it happening now are incredibly remote.
Click to expand...
There are always a set of unique circumstances that could be cited for any election. Hindsight is 20:20.
 
Jippy said:
Teesside's local politics seems rotten to the core from the Tory mayor down.

https://news.sky.com/story/tory-cri...opponents-during-local-elections-bid-12879194
Click to expand...

As a resident it’s all a fecking mess!

Houchen, Clarke et al using hundreds of millions of public money to get Teesworks ready for the FWEEPORT!

And then they sell the land to donors for £97 when, because of the public investment, it should have been sold at market value which was roughly £100 MILLION!

Then whenever any journalist asks them about it, they’re called liars and Houchen / Clarke harp on about the investment it’ll bring, ignoring the fact they sold what’s going to be a massive money maker for one millionth of its market value!
 
Jericholyte2 said:
As a resident it’s all a fecking mess!

Houchen, Clarke et al using hundreds of millions of public money to get Teesworks ready for the FWEEPORT!

And then they sell the land to donors for £97 when, because of the public investment, it should have been sold at market value which was roughly £100 MILLION!

Then whenever any journalist asks them about it, they’re called liars and Houchen / Clarke harp on about the investment it’ll bring, ignoring the fact they sold what’s going to be a massive money maker for one millionth of its market value!
Click to expand...
Seems weird no-one has really followed up the Private Eye story because on the face of it the whole thing sounds brazen and scandalous.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
There are always a set of unique circumstances that could be cited for any election. Hindsight is 20:20.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, but the point is that this is the only set of circumstances in recent history which has handed a third party enough clout to choose who becomes Prime Minister. In every other election in recent history, even those like 1983 and 2005, where the Lib Dems or precursor groups have had a similarly strong showing in terms of vote share and/or seats, it's been irrelevant because FPTP has delivered an outright majority.

Which is sort of the point - whilst it's unrealistic that a party in government is going to change the system that got them there, it's equally unlikely that a system designed to deliver majority governments is suddenly going to start presenting third parties, particularly third parties who aren't the Liberal Democrats, regular opportunities to be the "kingmaker" - something that's happened only three times in the last 100 years (1929, 1974, 2010).
 
Pexbo said:
Dan Wootton is pond scum.
Click to expand...

"No Spin, No Bias, No Censorship. I'm Dan Wootton Tonight.
Fury as the government U-turns on a promised bonfire of EU laws in a blatant betrayal of Brexit."

That's verbatim.

Awful human being and deserves his place in hell.
 
Frosty said:
Suella Braverman to rebuff cabinet calls for easing of visa rules

Home secretary will tell National Conservatism conference that Britons should train as HGV drivers, butchers and fruit pickers

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rebuff-cabinet-calls-for-easing-of-visa-rules

Get to work, plebs!
Click to expand...

“There is no good reason why we can’t train up enough HGV drivers, butchers or fruit pickers. Brexit enables us to build a high-skilled, high-wage economy that is less dependent on low-skilled foreign labour.”

How much is she planning to pay HGV drivers, butchers or fruit pickerss in this high-wage ecomony?
 
Bert_ said:
“There is no good reason why we can’t train up enough HGV drivers, butchers or fruit pickers. Brexit enables us to build a high-skilled, high-wage economy that is less dependent on low-skilled foreign labour.”

How much is she planning to pay HGV drivers, butchers or fruit pickerss in this high-wage ecomony?
Click to expand...

Perhaps she's planning to replace herself with someone who has actually got the skills for the job.
 
To be fair conservatives have loads of experience in picking fruits. Just look at the cabinet.
 
Bert_ said:
“There is no good reason why we can’t train up enough HGV drivers, butchers or fruit pickers. Brexit enables us to build a high-skilled, high-wage economy that is less dependent on low-skilled foreign labour.”

How much is she planning to pay HGV drivers, butchers or fruit pickerss in this high-wage ecomony?
Click to expand...

But I thought we weren't allowed to have a high-wage economy any more because it would increase inflation?
 
How will we be able to suppress voter turnout in the future if labor allows more people to vote? :lol:

Also, direct reference to voter ID as being a political strategy for suppressing turnout. These people are fecking turds.

 
That'sHernandez said:
AI is going to make UBI a necessity in the next 20-30 years. Not that we will adopt it, though.
Click to expand...

I’m actually more worried that right wing governments and press will recognise that they no longer need service industry staff and having a large population contributing to climate change and living off the state is in direct opposition to their libertarian values.

There is a potential utopia but it won’t work if there is 10+ billion people.
 
Pexbo said:
I’m actually more worried that right wing governments and press will recognise that they no longer need service industry staff and having a large population contributing to climate change and living off the state is in direct opposition to their libertarian values.

There is a potential utopia but it won’t work if there is 10+ billion people.
Click to expand...

I'm confused; are you saying right wing governments will decide we need to kill all the poor?
 
That'sHernandez said:
I'm confused; are you saying right wing governments will decide we need to kill all the poor?
Click to expand...
Kill seems extreme but history says it’s not impossible.

Making it virtually impossible to have children unless you are of a certain wealth/class seems quite likely though.
 
Pexbo said:
Kill seems extreme but history says it’s not impossible.

Making it virtually impossible to have children unless you are of a certain wealth/class seems quite likely though.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I think restricting access to have children at all is a sure-fire way to get a revolution. It's a way more basic need than freedom of speech or political rights.
 
nimic said:
Maybe, but I think restricting access to have children at all is a sure-fire way to get a revolution. It's a way more basic need than freedom of speech or political rights.
Click to expand...
They don't need to restrict it outright, just develop economic conditions where having a baby is less desirable..
 
Pexbo said:
Kill seems extreme but history says it’s not impossible.

Making it virtually impossible to have children unless you are of a certain wealth/class seems quite likely though.
Click to expand...

Starship Troopers is supposed to be satire, not prescient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.