Senate The UK Politics discussion

I don't think we'll see civil unrest, just Westminster becoming so detached that the next government will have to introduce federalisation straight away.

 

Rogue has colourful ideas, but they're not usually grounded in reality so much as they are fond of hyperbole's dramatic edge.

I suspect you're right Daniel; federalism will be on the agenda, as will the EU - Britain's not doing terribly well out of the EU at the moment (the migrants at Calais, for example) so I expect both/all parties to make some changes there.

 

Labour would not dare entering coalition with the SNP without any major English devolution deal. Would be suicidal not to.

 

Now that really could lead to civil unrest! You do not **** with a man's cornish pasty.

 

im sorry you're right. i totally imagined the 2010 student movement and the august 2011 riots. what a wacky guy i am

im not sure what ender's particular version of the theory is, but westminister is increasingly seen by the rest of the UK, including England, as being detached from all but the immediate area (southeast england/the home counties). federalism for the other parts of england, particularly the (formerly) industrial north is not an uncommon suggestion

 

First past the post will protect the Big Two from most of the vote splitting, but I predict the Tory vote will be split by UKIP especially badly in the south-east of England and probably around the most ignorant areas of the north (everywhere the Daily Mail sells well; rich places like Cheshire, poor and racially diverse places like Bradford). The old BNP protest vote areas will most likely go for UKIP's BNP-lite. Labour's Scottish majority will likely be hit quite hard by the SNP but I doubt we'll see more than 2 Scottish seats turning blue... I think UKIP will hurt the Tories more than Labour, and I doubt the SNP will hurt Labour as much as UKIP hurts the Conservatives. Labour strongholds have the kind of majorities that prevent right wing racist lunatic parties from victory, but Tory strongholds are populated by right wing racists who are highly susceptible to the kind of crap Farrage and his delusional fair weather friends like to spread.

I'm out of touch with recent NI politics but I can't imagine the Tory/Unionist majority is going to change that much. I'm not sure if UKIP has much of a presence in NI anyway. I think they take their politics a bit too seriously to consider Farrage.

Welsh support for Labour has been wavering recently, but loving socialism and hating posh Tories is a fundamental prerequisite of being Welsh so I don't expect much change, even if P.Cymru win a surprise majority they wouldn't lend their support to a Conservative led coalition.

The Libdems are going to suffer losses, there's no doubt about that. It's a shame because they are probably the most left of centre party with any power, they actually have some sensible policies that have been formed by the consensus of their members (in contrast to the other two main parties who favour the rectal method). The Tories, being the party of manipulative psychopaths, have successfully transferred a lot of the public's resentment to their junior coalition partners. Perhaps if the Libdems still had a stronger, less compliant leader like Ashdown they wouldn't have put themselves in the patsy position.

I hope the Greens do well, but since the BBC and Sky have entirely forgotten that they exist (instead opting to heavily publicise Nigel's wacky racists) they could lose their seat. Hopefully the Tory vote will be split by UKIP letting the Greens through, but those Brighton trendies, Tories and chavs are an unpredictable bunch.

 

I will be voting for whoever*** will do the best* work in my constituency**

*in my opinion of course

**as long as they are not a Tory

***or UKIP

 

So you'll be voting for whoever UKIP will the best, in your opinion of course, work in your constituency as long as they are not Tory?

 

Sounds about right

 

You might be sent to a UKIP forced grammar re-education camp, which I'm pretty sure is in their manifesto.

 

If they had those, then they'd get my vote.

 

These were specific to the increase of the tuition fee cap to £9000/year and really didn't amount to much. They were no bigger or more remarkable than pre-credit crunch demonstrations about changes to higher education/student funding.

The riots were nothing to do with austerity measures. They were sparked off by the shooting of a black man by police in Tottenham, following several deaths in custody. Riots broke out throughout London and in other cities purely because the police were so clearly unprepared and incapable of tackling the original riot.

The union-organised austerity protests in the same year were peaceful and entirely unrelated. They consisted mostly of civil servants miffed at the loss of final salary pensions.

No, just horribly ill-informed.

 

well no actually many british sources concur with me that the august 2011 riots, while sparked by the duggan affair, were largely a reaction to austerity measures. here, i made you a google, mr informed guy

 

No one knew what they were rioting about. They just joined in.

 

thanks, rupert. but yes, this is what we call "social stability and the absence of unrest"

 

On page 1 I only get 2 relevant articles, both from left wing newspapers, only one of them British.

As halibut suggests, outside of the original riot in Tottenham (race/police related) the other riots had no political or moral cause. They were not protests about anything.

They took place simply because criminals saw that the police were incapable of dealing with the riot. People were looting shops. The guardian is alone in the British press and the one other relevant article is Greek.

 

I love this; "I don't care if you live there and have access to exponentially more media analysis and coverage than I do (or even know people involved); I am American and this is what happened! "

I agree with V2 that it's a shame the LibDems will suffer; did else anyone see Nick Clegg's rejection of a radio caller trying to justify the attack on Charlie Hebdo? Fairly eloquent piece, though I think the caller had a modest point to make that merits consideration.

 

so what's your point? you weren't aware of this analysis because it wasnt in the mail on sunday, so you just kind of assumed that i made it up?

here's the short version of david harvey's analysis. he's one of the top 20 most cited academics in the humanties, in case you dont recognize the name

 

I'm sure you do.

All the big guns are out; shortly, Wocky will be here to tell us what really happened. Cannot wait.

 

The point is that the coverage by ALL of the rest of the UK press reflected what actually went on. One article in one newspaper is pretty thin.

Here's the search for 2011 uk riots: https://www.google.com/search?q=2011 riots and austerity&cad=h#q=2011+uk+riots

The first Guardian article claims it was all about police racial brutality. I agree that the Tottenham riot was. After that, it was about nothing, just looting.

As for the article by David Harvey, uh, have you read it? Because it doesn't agree with your take on the riots.

He agrees that the riots were feral capitalism. They were. People went out to nick flat screen TVs and trainers. His point is that bankers and politicians had also been involved in feral capitalism (banking scandals, dodgy expenses claims). He doesn't argue that the riots were about austerity, simply that they were motivated by feral greed no different to that of bankers/politicians.