UK Politics Thread

[TheFlyingGerbil]

to be fair picking the answer out of the thread is like picking sugar out of salt. I know the answer and find the thread confusing.

[deanb]

UKIP in a bunch of bother this week. From racist MEP hopefuls to racist poster boys, to poster boys about how EU immigrants are taking British jobs is played by an Irish actor.

 

I like in the Lenny Henry article BBC have asked Nick Griffin what he thinks. I had almost forgotten BNP was still a thing, it's like UKIP has taken thier place as the political punching bag party.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

Did you all vote in the elections on Thursday? What does everyone think of this UKIP phenomenon? bad things I hope.  looks like they'r going to be top in the European election. It doesn't help that they've been so overexposed in the media - 90% of coverage seems to be about them.

[Mister Jack]

I don't know much but I've heard that the UKIP is like the Tea Party in America.  Is that true?  Because if they're about to win you're EU elections you're in for a bad time.

[TheMightyEthan]

My understanding is that this is just UKIP winning some of the UK's seats in the European legislature. It would be like if the Tea Party won a bunch of Texas's seats in the House: it still doesn't give them control of the US.

[deanb]

Yeah the UKIP exposure has been pretty fucking terrible. Understandable with the EU front since in the end they did get a decent amount of seats. But for the local election coverage Labour handily came out well ahead, UKIP dropped in votes, Lib Dems got decimated, Tories lost power in many councils, Greens doubled, and UKIP still doesn't hold a single council. Yet you'd think from the coverage they now had total control. It's even worse for UKIP since the EU vote will have had plenty of anti-EU (and others) lot out to vote for UKIP, and yet in Local Elections for the people actually doing stuff on their doorstep they still voted for Labour and what not.

 

It kind of feels like all the papers are getting different numbers from the rest of the nation, despite the front page of BBC having all the results posted live.

 

Did hear a great remark about how fun the BBC World Cup coverage will be if fourth place is a winning position.

[deanb]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27770266
 
Rik Mayall has died at 56.
 

Edmondson added: "There were times when Rik and I were writing together when we almost died laughing.
They were some of the most carefree stupid days I ever had, and I feel privileged to have shared them with him.
"And now he's died for real. Without me. Selfish bastard."

 

[Strangelove]

This might be the wrong place to ask or it just might be a wrong thing to ask in general, but as someone who has never traveled overseas, are there REALLY black people in Europe? Like, if you're walking down the street is there a good chance youll see one? Ive personally never met a black person that was from somewhere else besides the US. So ive always been a bit curious.

Second question, if there are black people where youre from in Europe, are they discriminated over there like they are over here in the US? Are they stereotyped the same way?

 

I know I cant form an opinion by a handful of people's accounts, and I dont intend to. Im just curious.

[deanb]

Well UK Census 2011 has 3.3% of the English and Welsh people as "Black/African/Caribbean/Black British". 86% are white, 7.5% are Asian, and 3.2% are mixed or other.

 

I'd say you see folks in pretty much that proportion. I can't speak for all but it's just "hey, there's a black guy". As for discrimination, there's definitely some, though most discrimination and racism these days is focused on Arabs. I'd say from what I'm aware of with American racism, it's not as strong over here against blacks, and maybe just a case of being sheltered in that regard, but you guys certainly have more stereotypes, like having a watermelon in one hand, fried chicken in the other while cycling a stolen bike down the street. I guess the one everyone knows over here is they have big dicks.

 

Oh yeah there was major issues with "golliwog", which Roberstons (make jam and marmalade) used to have a golliwog mascot which was phased out while I was younger.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

I grew up in a small village and consequently did not see much diversity until I moved to a large city for university (e.g. in my primary school class (4-11yo) there was one chinese girl and everyone else was white). The smallish town I work in I see minorities everyday, to the point that it is unremarkable but not nearly as much as my uni city, so I would say there is a strong correlation between a population size and its diversity. I would guess places like Uk and France (because of empires) would have more diversity than most and Scandinavian countries are generally considered less diverse. Immigration is often an issue in the scandi-noir shows that are popular recently.

 

Racism has always existed but here's a recent potted history of the UK. Obviously racists will happily hate everyone but  these are what you'd associate with/made the headlines in different recent time periods. During the 1950/60s UK encouraged immigration of black people from west indies and asian people (mostly from india an pakistan) to fill skilled job vacancies (Mainly in the fairly new/expanding national health service). there is an unfortunate amount of TV "comedy" based on racism towards these groups during the 1970s e.g. about how awful it was to have a black family move next door and shameful caricatures (including brown face make-up) of Indian people. These were the most prominent target until the 2000s when ALL MUSLIM PEOPLE BECAME TERRORISTS, radicalised against the decadent west. Since the economic downturn and the expansion of the EU to include poorer eastern european countries the most recent target is toward these EU migrants. Reasons given (freely and frequently) are 'coming to take our jobs', 'coming to live off our benefits', 'coming as organised criminal gangs'. This has actually led to a resurgence of right wing politics in Europe and has effected recent election results.

 

The last is the only sort of racism I actually personally hear on a regular basis and from a surprising number of people and people I wouldn't expect it from and I hazard to guess wouldn't think of themselves as racist - I'm guessing because they class it as politics? It's kind of scary.

Edited July 12, 2014 by TheFlyingGerbil

[deanb]

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2bf9fw/black_people_of_the_uk_what_are_your_views_on/

 

Here ya go of sorts.

[Mr. GOH!]

You've never met a person from Africa, Strangelove? Whoa.

[TheMightyEthan]

So I've heard people say things like "the duchy of such-and-such is worth £X per year." Where does that money actually come from? Who pays it?

[deanb]

Luxembourg? We only have Cornwall and it's a ceremonial title rather than an actual thing (Cornwall might get udeas above their station otherwise). As for how much particular areas are worth I'd guess basic maths? I have a feeling your question might not be what you're asking.

Royal estates maybe? Civil list?

[TheFlyingGerbil]

UK/Europe:

Dukes used to rule the land they owned a bit like a monarch-lite. Grand duchies (such as Luxembourg) are their own sovereign state. There used to be a lot of these before they were unified into the modern european countries.

 

UK only:

Current Dukes (of which there are many) don't have any powers, they would be Duke of [place], but do not have a Duchy but often own ancestral land, which generates income from farming/shoots and tourism on their estate (paying to tour the house, tea rooms, gift shop etc.) and rent from property in villages on their land.

 

There are two Duchies in the UK, being the Royal Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. They have only ceremonial powers (much like our Monarchy) but it is more than a ceremonial title. The Duchy of Cornwall provides income for the heir to the throne. The Duchy of Lancaster provides most of the Privy Purse which is what the Monarch uses to pay for the other Royals official expenses. They also generate most of their  money from land ownership. They are held in trust (so only revenue, not capital is accessible by the Royals). The Duchy of Lancaster is not part of the Crown so is privately inherited by the monarch and subject to tax. The Duchy of Cornwall is part of the Crown estate and as such is not subject to tax, an issue that has caused a certain amount of controversy in recent years.

Edited August 14, 2014 by TheFlyingGerbil

[TheMightyEthan]

So the land ownership generates money by rent? Or what?

[deanb]

Assuming we're talking about royal estates, the ones owned by the Windsor family, it's mainly rent, but certain places also generate income through tourism since they're stately manors or large gardens and such.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

Traditional income for Dukes would be from peasants farming their land and taxes from trade and merchants.

 

Now along with lower peers (dukes are the highest) income will be from the fact they still own a lot of land and a historic house.  rural land which they farm themselves, rent out some land for other people to farm. Moorland can be farmed and used for shoots - foreign business men pay big money to come over and act like a lord for the weekend.  Any villages on their land they will own most of the buildings, so rent from houses and businesses.

 

A lot of these families are barely holding on to their land. Debauched ancestors selling off land to pay for their lifestyles seems to be a common problem. Also, every time the owner dies and it passes to the heir they have to pay inheritance tax on the high capital value of the land and house, but  do not have a high revenue to pay it. (Size of land left does not generate enough income) This has meant the land has been parceled off over the years exacerbating the problem. It costs tens of thousands of pounds to run a house and its upkeep and they are often in significant state of disrepair. This lead to the setting up of the National Trust at the end of the 19th century to take over ownership and upkeep of houses and land the aristocracy could no longer afford to run.

 

The 1920s was pretty much the last hoorah for country estates and aristocracy living in their traditional manner. Family's that still own their estates now often rely more on money coming from the house itself not land, so paying to tour the house, tea rooms, gift shops, hiring parts of the house out for events (corporate retreats and wedding etc.).

 

A lot of the problems are down to hereditary ownership, so people who were not necessarily best suited to running what is essentially a fairly large business are left holding centuries of history in their hands.

[deanb]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29108010

 

They're making another royal baby. Always useful to have a back-up plan. 

[Mr. GOH!]

Heir and a spare. Classic.

[deanb]

http://www.businessinsider.com/scottish-independence-and-conservative-control-2014-9 - something that I'd suspected but not really looked in to the numbers. Interesting that a Labour government in 2015 could cause a constitutional crisis should Scotland leave (though no doubt something people have already thought ahead on...I hope).

 

The current 50:50 (well, high 40s:high 40s) split on the polls at the moment is going to fuck over Scotland. Whatever the result nearly half of the people wont have wanted it, rather than a more clear cut 70:30/80:20. Already the polls are starting to push down value of the pound as foreign investors get a bit shakey on the potential results.

 

I've a feeling it'll end up with them stating in the UK though, too much uncertainty if they were to leave, such as currency, EU status, travelling, economic status, so on so forth.

[SomTervo]

The current 50:50 (well, high 40s:high 40s) split on the polls at the moment is going to fuck over Scotland. Whatever the result nearly half of the people wont have wanted it

Yep, this is my worry too. As a Scot I'm sliiiightly worried about how much things are going to kick off post-independence if it's a really close result. Especially if No win. The Yes voters are gonna flip. They're insane.

 

Although it's worth bearing in mind that the "Yes vote doing better in polls" line was actually spin. The original headline was, "poll shows Yes campaign did better in a debate", which doesn't mean anything. Because No voters can still think Yes did better in last Tuesday's debate, even if they'll still vote No.

 

Anecdotally, having spoken to countless people between the ages of 17 and 60 or so in the last few months, I've noticed a few trends.

 

The most interesting thing is that I've met barely any young people who are in the No camp. Every young person I speak to, out of probably nearly a hundred (all from widely various parts of Scotland) bar one or two, believe entirely in independence. It seems most of their friends feel the same, they all have an attitude that it's the right thing to do. And the best bit? They're not loud about it. They never bring it up. Just ask em and they'll quietly say, 'I'm voting yes.'

 

This makes me wonder - polls are showing this and that the entire time. But, after my 6 years of working in Market Research, I can tell you categorically that 16-24 year olds are the absolute hardest people to reflect in polls and research. In almost every case you won't have enough of them, often by half or so of the next group. Could this be a possible hidden electorate who are going to make a massive, unprecedented Yes swing?

 

Observations, observations, observations.

[deanb]

Young people tend to vote less though.

[TheMightyEthan]

It's interesting to me that this is happening at the same time Puerto Rico is going through the process of petitioning to become a US state.  Wouldn't it be interesting if Scotland officially separated from the UK in the same year that Puerto Rico officially became the 51st state?

[SomTervo]

Young people tend to vote less though.

Very true. I've never seen so many young people mobilised about anything political like this, though. Even if they aren't showing their colours, they're still engaging with it. Commenting on Salmond/ Darling/ the debates. The fact that it's a binary choice with a really clear effect seems to be getting even young people on board. And the voting age is 16, so that'll increase numbers, even if not by much.

 

Also by young people I am including people in their early 20s, who from what I've seen are incredibly political.

 

I'm pretty sure turnout is going to be massive for the referendum. It's so easy to understand and relatively clear cut. Nothing like the unrepresentative clusterfuck nightmare that Westminster elections/ elections in general are.

 

@Ethan: I had no idea that was even happening. Wuuuut. Welp, off to the US politics thread I go.

Edited September 9, 2014 by kenshi_ryden