UK Politics Thread

[TheFlyingGerbil]

is unicorn a typo or is that what you fly over the UK on when GOH is in the business jet?

[TheMightyEthan]

Unicorn: amazing mythical beast that you would love to see but never actually do.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

ah, my unicorn would be not making an absolute tit of myself by exposing my ignorance quite so frequently.

[deanb]

So Labour are getting shaky cos Jeremy Corbyn is looking likely to become the new Labour leader.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33849534

 

Democratically elected leader of the labour party, oh no!. He's considered too left for a party that I guess is drifting towards the right. Which is probably what's kinda cost them the government this time around (Ed hasn't helped either, and David is great response to call them out on that), and led to Greens gaining a fair lead on votes (though still marginal).

 

I agree that he isn't long-term leadership material (and neither was Ed), and he's not someone I'd see as Prime Minister, but at this point they need someone to lead the Labour party before they start thinking about a leader for the UK. A radical could shake things up, maybe remind them who they're for, and what they're about rather than just being there as a counterweight for Tories.

[Hot Heart]

From what I understand, the Labour Party situation is a little more complex than that. Problem being that there is something of a split with both having valid points.

 

There are arguments that Corbyn is unelectable, which may well be true, but then I don't think any of the other candidates stand a chance anyway. The problem being that Labour's record is now tarnished and there is an uphill struggle.

 

There is the fear of alienating either working class people or businesses and the wealthier classes and then whether it is worth trying to sway people who might vote Tory or go after those who didn't vote before/have never voted. And it can be hard to measure the merits in such a fucked up voting system.

 

Essentially, though, the problem is the majority of the electorate. They are the fuckwits who seem to think the Tories do a better job of the economy when more public services have to be cut and yet again Osborne sells off publicly-owned assets at a stupid rate, lining the pockets of his mates at the taxpayer's expense. And it surprises me how Labour fail to argue the case that a) the Tories had previously said they would've matched Labour's spending levels while they were in power and b) the economy was actually showing signs of recovery under Brown before austerity killed it dead and sent everything backwards.

 

And there is a real problem with the media over here being largely right-wing, with so many misleading stories and slants. It makes me despair that it seems the public is so easily manipulated.

 

And, finally, I do not want this man to be PM in 2020.

[TheMightyEthan]

with the media over here being largely right-wing

Not "right-wing", "fair and balanced".

[Thursday Next]

I actually do rate the Tories fiscally over Labour. I think they are nasty enough to make choices that are for the benefit of the country but are wildly unpopular. We've recovered a lot better than others.

 

I think back to Clegg's pre election Wizzard of Oz statement that Lib Dems would give a heart to Tories and a brain to Labour and think he was spot on.

 

I wish we had a coalition again. It worked well last time and all the usual Tory bollocks like fox hunting wouldn't even come up cos they know it would get nixxed by Lib Dems for easy brownie points.

[deanb]

Oh I understand their worry that he's not going to be able to be PM, but they've 5 years to the next election which enough time to sort that side out and tbh I don't think apart from Tories opening up camps for people sanctioned on benefits with "Work will set you free" above the gate they'll likely get in the next election too since the other parties are either too small or in disarray.

 

However he is increasing interest in Labour which is what they need. Especially with likes of the Welfare Bill (I understand why they did what the did with the abstaining, but it wasn't really properly communicated). Labour are kinda becoming Tory-lite, just following along in many cases and not really being the "opposition". Heck there's been casual calls for SNP to be the official opposition since Labour is seen as so ineffective there. People are disillusioned in Labour party. The big reason Tories are able to so effectively live up to thier nickname of "nasty party" at the moment is cos, like with the coalition, there's not really anyone to stand up to them.

 

It can't really get any worse under Corbyn.

[deanb]

https://twitter.com/CorbynWarningsheheh

[Thursday Next]

Shocking, I am shocked. The face I am wearing now. My shocked face. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/right-to-buy-40-of-homes-sold-under-government-scheme-are-being-let-out-privately-10454796.html

 

40% of Right to Buy Council Houses are now being privately let, at up to 7 times the social rent rate.

 

"Council House" property owned by the government and rented to those on low/no income, also known as "social housing".

"Right to Buy" the government allows residents of Council Houses to purchase the property (often at a discounted rate).

 

Surprisingly, having bought their house at a discounted price, people then sell it on at a higher price, allowing them to move on to somewhere bigger/nicer. The people buying these houses then rent these places out at a high price so that nobody can afford to live anywhere unless they already own a house.

 

Brilliant work. Simply brilliant.

[danielpholt]

I'm a 27 year old retail employee. I've already accepted there's no way I'll ever own my house as well as run a car, save for a pension and keep the lights on at the same time. Oh well. 

[Hot Heart]

See, why can't Labour prove that they are this "pro-aspiration" themselves?

[Thursday Next]

I'm a 27 year old retail employee. I've already accepted there's no way I'll ever own my house as well as run a car, save for a pension and keep the lights on at the same time. Oh well. 

 

If it is any consolation, I'm a qualified solicitor and I also have pretty much accepted I'll never be able to buy a house.

[deanb]

And I'm an unqualified SEO consultant and I've also accepted that I'll never be able to buy a house, a flat a bungalow, an apartment, or a home. (I don't much care for owning a car though, at least one I drive)

[Thursday Next]

(Wasn't showing off my qualifications btw, just commenting that despite being in a profession that pays well, it's still not enough)

[deanb]

I wasn't remarking on that side, I was making an SEO joke (I am unqualified though, I did VFX at uni, I've no official training for my current role).

[deanb]

So DWP (Department of Work and Pensions) have had to take down a leaflet which had stock photos and made up quotes from non-existent people positively affected by sanctions.

Probably because they couldn't find any actual real people positively affected by sanctions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33974674

DWP have claimed that despite not marking it as such in the leaflet they were for "illustrative purposes".

 

https://twitter.com/hashtag/fakeDWPstories- now a hashtag for it.

 

They are pretty evil. I honestly can't seen any positive reason for cutting anyone's benefits for up to 6 months. "Hey, food and a roof costs money, but you probably don't need any of that". And folks wonder on the rise of food banks.

 

For Americans the JSA (job seekers allowance) is £58($90) for under 25yr (though government is wanting to scrap it completely), or £73($115) if you're above that. If you break their many little rules then boom you get sanctioned, no benefits for around 1-156 weeks. I fell afoul, thankfully not long before getting my current job, because I was volunteering at a YMCA youth centre as tech support. A role gained at a fair they sent me too (they send you to a bunch of job fairs, if you don't attend...sanction), and a role that I and the youth centre had to fill a bunch of forms out for. Thankfully savings helped buoy me for a bit, but I imagine many others don't have that chance. Not much left to save from £56. But did mean once I got a job I was pretty good at living on next to nothing (though it sorta went out the window when I was like "ooh, I can go the cinema and not have to give up 2 days of food!")

 

IDS would gain a couple notches of respect from me (he's still be in the region of no-respect mind) if he was to take a shot at being on JSA for a month or two.

[deanb]

 

I've a sneaking suspicion that the Daily Mail might not like Jeremy Corbyn.

[deanb]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34177107

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34150885

 

In about 4 hours Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Mother of Several, Second of Her Name, Queen of Australia, par la grâce de Dieu Reine du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth, Queen du le Angles, Défenseur de la Foi,  Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Matrem Draconum, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor will become the longest reigning Monarch of Britain, surpassing Her Majesty Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of India at 63 years and 215 days.

 

 

As a comparison for the Americans Joffrey was king for about 22 episodes. Or 11 Presidents.

 

Bonus: No one knows exactly how long she's been queen cos magical method of royal ascension means she became queen in her sleep. Bet a few people have had one of those days; go to bed a princess, wake up a queen.

[TheMightyEthan]

Matrem Draconum

You had me going until this part.

[deanb]

If you whack the right bits in Google Translate you'll see I've only changed a little bit. I've combined her titles and stylings from UK (twice, hence the Latin), Australia, and Canada. Victoria just got her UK name.

 

Indian colleague is very very confused about how come Prince Phillip isn't king, and why we have some Kings and some Queens. I've had to basically go "look, it's two thousand years old. Things get funny after that long". This was after attempting to use GoT as a basis of understanding monarchy and I realised they don't have the same succession laws we do, or at least no examples of Queens so far (except Queen Consorts).

[Mr. GOH!]

Isn't Philip not the King because he's not in the Hanoverian line (he's a Schleswig-Holsteiner, IIRC) and since "King" is always superior to "Queen" in British royalty, he has to be a Prince? In layman's terms: he's not the kid of the previous royal family and the title of non-reigning husbands of queens is "prince," not "king."

 

There were queens in Westeros, although the last female claimant fomented a civil war that essentially led to the extinction of dragons in Westeros. Generally, though, the non-Iron Throne titles are inherited by whoever wants them badly enough, though the default is that the title passes to the oldest male, then the next odlest male, and so on, and women only inherit if there are no males. In Dorne, however, women inherit equally with males (the eldest daughter inherits the title before her younger brother). This is very loose, though, and there appear to be houses that follow strictly female succession lines and others that essentially allow the reigning lord to appoint his or her heir.

 

The Iron Throne used to be succeeded by appointment by the reigning monarch (or the Small Council after his or her death), essentially, until the aforementioned civil war, in which the the Small Council passed over the eldest daughter and apparently-appointed heir Rhaenerys in favor of her younger half-brother Aegon II.  In 'modern' Westeros, the Iron Throne is presumed to pass to the eldest male, then to the next-eldest males, and only passes to a woman if no men are left to inherit. That's why Tommen is king and not his older sister.

 

Please feel free to move this to the Westeros Politics thread if it doesn't belong here. 

[deanb]

Oh I know why, but trying to explain why he's not King Phillip, but Charles will be King Phillip and that it's the Windsors in power.

This isn't my first rodeo with talking English history using GoT with same fellow. Good for covering war of roses, n then everyone British pupils favourite topics: The Tudors. Apart from being the older "males first" succession it is a monarchy, which he hasn't lived under to fully understand. GoT is quite rapid in it's succession and covers several topics on bastards, political marriages, mights is right, divine right of kings, etc n stuff like that while being much more engaging than David Starkey.

He's quite interested in British and recent news made him piqued again for another session. I just generally avoid anything tea company related though we've broached the topic now n then (cropped up today on who was king during their independence, which was George VI).

 

Anywho brief history to dedicate the day

(a lot less kings n queens than I'd have thought, especially given how short lived some of them are).

[Hot Heart]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34223157

 

*grabs popcorn*

[deanb]

Tom and Jeremy