UK General Election

[DuskEngine]

Soooooo...do you guys think Cameron will deliver on the "Leaving the EU" referendum?

Most of the articles I've seen discussing the post-election market results (great day for the FTSE and the pound sterling) also mention that traders are spooked by the possibility of a Brexit and don't seem to consider it a good idea.

Considering that London is one of the world's financial capitals, I'd imagine the opinion of the city's traders carries more than a little weight.

 

[Vitriol]

So which is it? Labour needs unity, or Labour needs to get rid of champagne socialists?

both. the two aren't mutually exclusive. Labour needs to unite, as either blairites or oldschool socialists and start on concrete pledges without the literal concrete platitudes,

Spoiler: no more of this shit

 

[CWCissey]

So what do you think will actually happen to the EdStone? I like the thought of Cameron putting it in Ed's garden at night to mock him, and he keeps putting it back the following night whenever Ed gets it moved off.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

both. the two aren't mutually exclusive. Labour needs to unite, as either blairites or oldschool socialists and start on concrete pledges without the literal concrete platitudes,

It needs to unite by dismissing half the party? This must be some new definition of "unite" I'm not familiar with. The only way for Labour to solidify around one identity or other would be a massive purge which, even if it were possible, would be massively divisive. Neither the Blairites nor the social democrats are going to just stop being Blairites or social democrats.

 

[JU 199]

oncrete pledges without the literal concrete platitudes,

Spoiler: no more of this shit

undefined

That publicity stunt was embarrassing.

both. the two aren't mutually exclusive. Labour needs to unite, as either blairites or oldschool socialists and start on concrete pledges without the literal concrete platitudes,

It needs to unite by dismissing half the party? This must be some new definition of "unite" I'm not familiar with. The only way for Labour to solidify around one identity or other would be a massive purge which, even if it were possible, would be massively divisive. Neither the Blairites nor the social democrats are going to just stop being Blairites or social democrats.

I agree with @Dudeofteenage. They are at their core ideological opponents. Couple that with the Iraq war disaster leads to a group who are only together to spite the conservatives or to please whatever paymaster is currently fronting.

Most of the articles I've seen discussing the post-election market results (great day for the FTSE and the pound sterling) also mention that traders are spooked by the possibility of a Brexit and don't seem to consider it a good idea.

Considering that London is one of the world's financial capitals, I'd imagine the opinion of the city's traders carries more than a little weight.

London's finical sector is so hard-tied into Europe that it's an expected link in it's bailout fund. Any disruption to it could be disastrous.

 

[Vitriol]

It needs to unite by dismissing half the party? This must be some new definition of "unite" I'm not familiar with. The only way for Labour to solidify around one identity or other would be a massive purge which, even if it were possible, would be massively divisive. Neither the Blairites nor the social democrats are going to just stop being Blairites or social democrats.

they were caught between the two throughout the 80's and 90's. So long as the party is promising both contradictory visions at the same time they come across as insincere and opportunistic. Labour never got in after the 70's until the last of the old guard had gone, if they wait for the same process to rid them of the Balls and Murphy's of the party then they will spend another 18 years out of power.

I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere but labour have only ever won an election convincingly when they could present a single idealogical front.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere but labour have only ever won an election convincingly when they could present a single idealogical front.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that what you're suggesting is not "unity".

 

[Vitriol]

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that what you're suggesting is not "unity".

apologies i misinterpreted your posts.


edit: 'they need to put on a united front' is probably closer to what i meant.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Ultimately I think there's a limit to the degree of ideological unity that Labour (or for that matter the Conservatives) can achieve. In a First Past the Post system, even one that's fraying at the edges as the British one seems to be, there is a tremendous incentive for people with diverse views to converge in large, ideologically loose parties. Political scientists often call these "disguised coalitions" and they often display the kind of ideological messiness that Labour (and the Conservatives) have displayed.

This kind of disunity isn't necessarily fatal - the Conservatives have had their share of internal arguments, and it obviously didn't prevent them from exceeding all but their most sunnily optimistic goals electorally. Even Blair's impressive marshalling of the Labour party behind a common banner was only briefly successful - cracks were already showing by 2002, and the Iraq War blew it wide open. I don't think disunity has actually been a problem for the Labour Party recently - I'm struggling to think of an instance where a significant Labour figure went "off message", although it's possible I missed it.

Of course there is a risk of a big internal fight in Labour in the near future, but if I was a Labour strategist I would recommend getting it out in the open right now - have the big messy fight soon after you've lost an election, when the public eye is elsewhere. Better to air your dirty laundry in late 2015 than early 2020.

 

[Picklechu]

Someone mentioned this earlier, I think, and it's curious to me -- why would someone swing from Labour to UKIP? Center-left to populist-right seems like more of a stretch than them voting, say, Greens or something. Is it just Labour's blue-collar base going single-issue on immigration?

The best American analogy is the 1992 presidential election, when Ross Perot--who, while being generally right-leaning, pulled a bit of white, working-class Democratic support from Bill Clinton. George Wallace in 1968 is another similar example (Wallace, a socially conservative Democrat, taking a decent chunk of union workers and traditionally liberal groups, especially in the midwest).

 

[Pickle Inspector]

I think the problem with Labour is ideologically they don't seem to know if they are being too left wing or not left wing enough, the Financial Times seems to think the move to the left lost them the election but on the other hand the popularity of the SNP seems to imply many in the country think they're not left wing enough, they're in a tricky position.

Soooooo...do you guys think Cameron will deliver on the "Leaving the EU" referendum?

I think so but I'm suspicious about what the wording will be and also if they'll let non British EU nationals living in the UK vote, apparently the Lib Dems were going to have that as a "Red line" in any coalition agreement but I'm not really sure how much impact that could have if they did let them vote in the referendum.

 

[AnOminous]

I think the problem with Labour is ideologically they don't seem to know if they are being too left wing or not left wing enough, the Financial Times seems to think the move to the left lost them the election but on the other hand the popularity of the SNP seems to imply many in the country think they're not left wing enough, they're in a tricky position.

It seems like they somehow manage to be both too left-wing and too right-wing at the same time. They're too left-wing on sucking radical Islamic cock and promising crazy SJW shit like making it a literal crime to criticize terrorism. Labour to Outlaw "Islamophobia". And that's an article promoting this as an awesome idea.

But then, when it comes to stuff like actually supporting the rights of workers, you know, that "Labour" shit, they're nowhere to be found. It's all "New Labour" bullshit, which sounds pretty much like Thatcherite bullshit.

I'm saying that from the burgerland side of the pond, but to me, they make all the wrong noises about all the wrong shit.

 

[JU 199]

I think the problem with Labour is ideologically they don't seem to know if they are being too left wing or not left wing enough, the Financial Times seems to think the move to the left lost them the election but on the other hand the popularity of the SNP seems to imply many in the country think they're not left wing enough, they're in a tricky position.

It's interesting. If you poll issue by issue labour's 'proposed' polices win more often than they loose, but the public doesn't vote issue by issue.

Winning elections Is about confidence and counter-narrative- something that party has no idea how to manage.

It seems like they somehow manage to be both too left-wing and too right-wing at the same time. They're too left-wing on sucking radical Islamic cock and promising crazy SJW shit like making it a literal crime to criticize terrorism. Labour to Outlaw "Islamophobia". And that's an article promoting this as an awesome idea.

btf that reflects more on my county's relationship with speech in general. Labour proposing that policy was more of a tactical concession to many different types of people who would approve of that thinking.

I'm saying that from the burgerland side of the pond, but to me, they make all the wrong noises about all the wrong shit.

That confusion is a key component of modem labour. "We want to appeal to workers in a way that wont piss off the city."

 

[DuskEngine]

They're too left-wing on sucking radical Islamic cock and promising crazy SJW shit like making it a literal crime to criticize terrorism. Labour to Outlaw "Islamophobia". And that's an article promoting this as an awesome idea.

That doesn't sound broadly out of line with most European countries' attitudes towards speech, though (remember that denying the Holocaust will get you arrested in a pretty big chunk of Europe).

Like, I'm not exactly a fan of it, but it doesn't as unusual for a leftist European party as you seem to imply.

 

[AnOminous]

That doesn't sound broadly out of line with most European countries' attitudes towards speech, though (remember that denying the Holocaust will get you arrested in a pretty big chunk of Europe).

Like, I'm not exactly a fan of it, but it doesn't as unusual for a leftist European party as you seem to imply.

This proposes jacking it through the roof.

“We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.”

Not actual crimes, mind you, but mere "Islamophobia." And whether or not this is a trend in European countries, it is in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights itself, particularly Article 10. Even with its carve-outs, it doesn't seem by any reasonable understanding to permit the criminalizing of mere difference of opinion.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

It seems like they somehow manage to be both too left-wing and too right-wing at the same time. They're too left-wing on sucking radical Islamic cock and promising crazy SJW shit like making it a literal crime to criticize terrorism. Labour to Outlaw "Islamophobia". And that's an article promoting this as an awesome idea.

Having read the piece with an eye to existing British law, I think you may be misreading it. Miliband talks about "attacks", which makes me think he wants to make anti-Islamic violence a crime. This is probably unnecessary given that bigotry is already an aggravating factor in sentencing, but he's not proposing anything as silly as outlawing holding an opinion (which would be impossible).

I think you're also exaggerating when you say Labour are "nowhere to be found" on economic issues. Do you remember the whole thing about ending non-dom status? Strikes me as a pretty solid bread-and-butter "Labour" policy.

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

So what do you think will actually happen to the EdStone? I like the thought of Cameron putting it in Ed's garden at night to mock him, and he keeps putting it back the following night whenever Ed gets it moved off.

He can have his epitaph carved on it. "Here lies Ed Milliband, unpopular, uncharismatic, unwanted and incompetant leader of the Labour Party. Died 2015 during a bout of post election sobbing when he choked on his own adams apple and his bulging eyes finally left their sockets. Missed by bloody nobody."

 

[AnOminous]

Having read the piece with an eye to existing British law, I think you may be misreading it. Miliband talks about "attacks", which makes me think he wants to make anti-Islamic violence a crime. This is probably unnecessary given that bigotry is already an aggravating factor in sentencing, but he's not proposing anything as silly as outlawing holding an opinion (which would be impossible).

This is a more harsh version of previous law, the so-called Racial and Religious Hatred Bill of 2006. Miliband also voted for that, as well as a previous version of that where the wording would have done what he proposed to do in this new (one would hope never to exist) law.

That law very clearly criminalized pure speech, and even the version that was passed was used to arrest one protester of Scientology literally for nothing more than saying it was a cult.

So this concern isn't just an overseas misunderstanding, though I'll cop to those if I make one. Previous laws supported by Miliband have been denounced by many British free speech activists including Rowan Atkinson, who has consistently criticized the 2006 law, both as proposed and as actually passed, and urged for its repeal since then.

Of course, I don't believe there is actually proposed legislative text connected to Miliband's proposal, since it appeared to be more in the nature of a campaign promise to a particular voting bloc (especially considering the outlet he gave the interview to), but considering his history, I assumed him to be intending a more sweeping version of legislation similar to that he has supported in the past, which has in fact had tremendously chilling effects on legitimate speech.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

This is a more harsh version of previous law, the so-called Racial and Religious Hatred Bill of 2006.

That Bill covered all religions, though, right, not just Islamophobia? I remember Atkinson's objection was in the context of people making fun of the Anglican Church.

I have to say, it's hard to perceive this so-called "chilling effect". The UK is full of people mouthing off about Islam, often in the pages of widely circulated newspapers, let alone in private.

 

[CWCissey]

So apparently people are pissed off because 63% of all voters didn't vote for the Tories and are now protesting in London.

Hey dipsticks! 69% didn't vote for Labour, 78% didn't vote for UKIP and 92% didn't vote for the Lib Dems! Fuck off to North Korea if you are that opposed to democracy!