Senate The UK Politics discussion

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ternet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html

Enjoy your free market and unfree internet!

 

As long as I can read your posts, that's all that matters to me.

 

Yes, you can read his posts one day behind a pay wall.

 

It will be worth every penny.

 

I am wondering where the Economist article is on the Tory Manifesto. I have two theories:

1) They're doing the costing for the Tory manifesto for them because the Tories didn't.

2) They're embarrassed by the Tory Manifesto.

 

Do Tories or conservatives do manifestos? That seems lefty. Wouldn't they do proclamations or statements of ancient principles?

 

Manifesto is what they call the "party platform" in the UK.

 

It is what we call One Nation Conservatism in the United Kingdom. Now known as Red Toryism. If he is unfamiliar with it, Vivec might be interested in reading up on it, too; Prime Minister Disraeli, who came up with the philosophy, was admired by 19th Century socialists in England.

 

I suspect they'd both deny it to the death and beyond, but it could be said Gladstone and Disraeli did keep the other on their toes and government was the beneficiary.

 

The Gladstone/Disraeli rivalry is one of the greatest periods of British politics.

 

I love this line attributed to Disraeli:

Well, if Gladstone fell into the Thames, that would be a misfortune; and if anybody pulled him out, that would be a calamity.

Perfect proof that you can be polite and massively insulting simultaneously.

re: Elective dictatorship

That Bagehot article is quite endearing in it assumes people actually want and expect there to be an effective opposition. The last 40 years say they do not. The people do want an elective dictatorship, so long as it doesn't go and do something breathtakingly stupid - Poll Tax being the example, but Well 'Ard Brexit might rival it.

Unfortunately, the people in power being extended this massive level of trust abuse it and then try to cover up that they did. I can imagine any of our current lot at school offering as an excuse that the contractor they engaged failed to deliver!

Which is why people become disillusioned with politics and its processes. For instance, seven years later, I'm still not convinced MPs understand the core principles of an expense system that stands up to audit scrutiny.

 

Britain is a very paternal state and I say that as a liberal; the vast majority of Britons are never going to embrace my idea of individual liberty. People are willing to limit themselves, at the request of the state, for a potential greater good. Even if we don't trust politicians and remain sceptical to authority, we will always do as we're told out of respect.

You're remark, Ben, about an elective dictatorship rings an air of truth.

 

Opps. I linked to a BBC article I was reading last night by mistake. Sorry! Here is the correct link below..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-nation_conservatism

 

It was one of those lightbulb moments after scanning the article Ender posted, but also probably owes something to Blunders of our Governments, (which I need to get around to finishing), which does make quite the case for just how dysfunctional our systems are, with one example of ministers being said to be but rarely are actually deemed accountable for anything. (Which explains the continuance of Jeremy Hunt's political career.)

I think Hailsham intended it as a criticism, but it hasn't exactly worked out that way. The bigger problem is the system wasn't made to work with +100 seat majorities. Hell, we don't really have a system, UK government is the ultimate bolt-on job on a timescale of centuries.

 

How are those red tears?

 

Actually, the system was never designed for the current model of political parties we have. During the "golden era" of Parliamentary democracy (experts define it as the 19th Century), our parties were just more or less associations. Tories and Whigs did not have mass memberships and, at any moment, a Member of Parliament could easily change sides with ease. Break away groups, new factions, independents could easily rise and fall - but Parliament would always function. It was able to hold the Executive to account.

Ordinary voters forget we do not elect a government in the United Kingdom because it is, constitutionally speaking, down to the Monarch. But the creation of mass membership of political parties has undermined that process as well. Leader of the largest party becomes Prime Minister. None of us, not even the Queen, has a say in that.

The House of Lords is pretty broken thanks to 20th Century politics, too. The creation of the Parliament Act means scrutiny is down to a bare minimal. Bills, which are mentioned in the Queens Speech, cannot be blocked by the Lords. Amendments can be put forward and the Commons can ignore them.

A majority of 50+ is all it takes for the Executive to do whatever it likes thanks to the Whips Office becoming way too powerful.

Ironically, though, this arcane system is the reason the constitution is quite stable in the United Kingdom. The chaotic nature of it allows the entire system to bend into any shape, under whatever stress, and snap back into place. Prime example is the aftermath of the EU Referendum. It is a complete mess, but one that works.

Unlike the United States....

 

In what way does it "work" better? Neither leads to mass social collapse. Neither prevents the emergence of fringe policy options that aren't really workable. You have Brexit and we have Trump. You'll excuse me for not seeing your point.

 

We don't have "government shutdowns" in the UK, the system is able to pass proper reform (even when stressed) and, unlike the US, our constitution (from the Glorious Revolution) has not brought about a civil war.

Plus, US domestic politics, from what is covered in the UK, is poisonous compared to ours. Politicians here do work together for the greater good. Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't Congress still failed to pass any major infrastructure repair program - which the US desperately needs in the last decade? Congress has grind to a halt.

MP's cannot hold the UK budget process hostage either, btw. Oh, and we were able to pass gun control laws after massacres without bowing our heads to lobbyists.

 

Why would I be crying that the UK wants to screw itself?

 

Ender Sai: "This is proof that Corbyn isn't fit to be leader of the country"

 

Vivec I'm sorry your woke politics happen to be unworkable and find no traction with a liberal audience, given that you and Mr Corbyn are both inherently illiberal.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/brita...r-and-energy-industries-would-be-dwarfed-cost

Ministers as managers
Nationalisation’s high short-term price and higher long-term cost
The bill for buying back the mail, rail, water and energy industries would be dwarfed by the cost of state inefficiency

print-edition icon Print edition | Britain

May 18th 2017
facebook icon
linkedin icon
mail icon
print icon
LABOUR’S manifesto is as long as it is ambitious. Over 123 pages of sometimes dense prose, the party promises to “upgrade” the economy and “transform our energy systems”. This would involve the nationalisation of the water system, the energy-supply network, Royal Mail and the railways. Britain’s infrastructure is indeed due for an upgrade. But Labour’s plans would be costly—both in the short and long term.

The first challenge would be to move privately held firms back into public ownership. The government might ultimately need to fork out over £60bn ($78bn) for the water industry, a similar amount for National Grid (which runs electricity- and gas-transmission networks) and £5bn or so for Royal Mail. Borrowing such large amounts would put upward pressure on government-bond yields, which would ripple through the economy into mortgages and corporate-borrowing costs.

Nationalising the railways, by contrast, might not be especially costly. Network Rail, which manages the track, is already in public hands. The train companies have time-limited franchises. Once these have expired, the government could take back control at little cost. However, many of the franchises do not expire until the 2020s. And if the operating companies knew that they had no chance of holding on to them, they would surely curtail investment.

More costly than the initial price of buying back these industries would be the long-term damage done to them by placing them back under public management. National ownership in the past was characterised by chronic underinvestment and inefficiency. A paper from the World Bank pointed out that investment flooded into Britain’s water industry after it was privatised in 1989. Even on the railways, which passengers readily complain about, satisfaction is higher than in most of Europe.


Yet Britain’s utilities are far from perfect. On international rankings of infrastructure quality the country has slipped in recent years. Energy firms take advantage of consumers’ unwillingness to switch supplier, by charging steep prices to their most loyal customers. Water bills have risen sharply in real terms since privatisation, in part to pay for higher investment.

A number of factors make Britain’s utilities work less well than they could. The current system, where a “super-regulator” (the Competition and Markets Authority) shares competences with sectoral regulators (such as Ofgem and Ofwat), creates confusion. Regulations are complex; utility firms hire senior staff less for their ability to think creatively and more because they can navigate the rules.

There is a need for fresh thinking on how to solve these problems. But Labour has simply exhumed policies that were buried decades ago for the good reason that they did not work. The party’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is often described as a radical. In fact his programme is in many ways a conservative manifesto.

But, guys, the theatre won't produce as many toff actors, so... go Jezza?

 

Couldn't someone find him a better boom box?

 

You can't see Ione Skye's reaction to Corbyn but I'm sure she loved In Your Eyes just the same.

 

I know it's not politics, but I'm watching CNN and there's apparently an incident at the Manchester Arena and apparently there were fatalities. There was an Ariana Grande concert going on at that arena.