British politics

[Brullnux]

Officially, yes, but in reality you elect a party and the leader of said party.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Officially, yes, but in reality you elect a party and the leader of said party.

No you don't. You vote for your MP. Parties obviously play on their leaders personality, and you are free to vote for a party MP because you favour that parties Leadership, manifesto etc. but we categorically do not elect a Prime Minister in the UK. This miscomprehension is massively frustrating as it is so easily dismissed.

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

Officially, yes, but in reality you elect a party and the leader of said party.

No you don't. You vote for your MP. Parties obviously play on their leaders personality, and you are free to vote for a party MP because you favour that parties Leadership, manifesto etc. but we categorically do not elect a Prime Minister in the UK. This miscomprehension is massively frustrating as it is so easily dismissed.

Officially and legally this is what happens, but I believe most people vote for the party and its leader. At last year's election, why did people not vote for Labour: because the MP standing wasn't very good or because they disliked Miliband/the party itself? Because they disliked Miliband.

If in a constituency there is a Tory who is more competent and appears more friendly than the Labour one, will a left winger vote for them? No, they will vote for the party they believe in. The idea that people vote solely for an MP is outdated. Nowadays people vote for the party, with an eye on who is the MP. If they are extremely unlikable (Jack Straw) then maybe you vote against the candidate. But very rarely for. I don't know what my MP stands for, never having been in the spotlight, or in any news

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Officially, yes, but in reality you elect a party and the leader of said party.

No you don't. You vote for your MP. Parties obviously play on their leaders personality, and you are free to vote for a party MP because you favour that parties Leadership, manifesto etc. but we categorically do not elect a Prime Minister in the UK. This miscomprehension is massively frustrating as it is so easily dismissed.

Officially and legally this is what happens, but I believe most people vote for the party and its leader. At last year's election, why did people not vote for Labour: because the MP standing wasn't very good or because they disliked Miliband/the party itself? Because they disliked Miliband.

If in a constituency there is a Tory who is more competent and appears more friendly than the Labour one, will a left winger vote for them? No, they will vote for the party they believe in. The idea that people vote solely for an MP is outdated. Nowadays people vote for the party, with an eye on who is the MP. If they are extremely unlikable (Jack Straw) then maybe you vote against the candidate. But very rarely for. I don't know what my MP stands for, never having been in the spotlight, or in any news

I don't disagree with any of that, as I said people can vote for whatever reason they want and I'm sure many will vote based on party politics rather than local candidates. A conversation about voting motivations etc. might be interesting.

The problem was your claim that May would be an unelected PM. That is completely wrong. What is happening is exactly what is supposed to happen in the UK when a PM resigns. All it does is muddy an argument as it is so easily dismissed.

 

[Brullnux]

Yeah you're right, although it's weird for me to see someone as a leader of a party despite not going through a leadership election. But you're right, I apologise for what I see in hindsight to be a rather thoughtless comment.

Talking about leadership elections, very happy to see Corbyn given an automatic place on the ballot as sitting leader. This election will hopefully force the PLP into a change in its dogmatic approach to actual democratic socialism, and support the leader as it can and should. Corbyn himself is not unelectable. Nor are his policies. If the whole party gets behind him with 100% energy then he can and IMO will win a general. A party so divided will never win an election, no matter who is the leader (like Kinnock in 1987).

 

[ferryman]

Re: Re:

Officially, yes, but in reality you elect a party and the leader of said party.

No you don't. You vote for your MP. Parties obviously play on their leaders personality, and you are free to vote for a party MP because you favour that parties Leadership, manifesto etc. but we categorically do not elect a Prime Minister in the UK. This miscomprehension is massively frustrating as it is so easily dismissed.

Officially and legally this is what happens, but I believe most people vote for the party and its leader. At last year's election, why did people not vote for Labour: because the MP standing wasn't very good or because they disliked Miliband/the party itself? Because they disliked Miliband.

If in a constituency there is a Tory who is more competent and appears more friendly than the Labour one, will a left winger vote for them? No, they will vote for the party they believe in. The idea that people vote solely for an MP is outdated. Nowadays people vote for the party, with an eye on who is the MP. If they are extremely unlikable (Jack Straw) then maybe you vote against the candidate. But very rarely for. I don't know what my MP stands for, never having been in the spotlight, or in any news

I don't disagree with any of that, as I said people can vote for whatever reason they want and I'm sure many will vote based on party politics rather than local candidates. A conversation about voting motivations etc. might be interesting.

The problem was your claim that May would be an unelected PM. That is completely wrong. What is happening is exactly what is supposed to happen in the UK when a PM resigns. All it does is muddy an argument as it is so easily dismissed.

You speak sense KB. But regardless, after the exit vote, TM is a stay politician, not representing the majority of the UK. Given 2 countries out of the union voted pretty much in also, a general election is the best thing to do before things get stupid..there is still time to redeem the situation (because I don't even believe the english could be that stupid twice).

 

[kwikki]

Don't forget that the EU referendum, was just that...a referendum on a single issue. It wasn't a general election, and therefore the voting patterns in the referendum should not be used to determine who does or doesn't hold power (unless you want P.M Nigel Farage).

As to your final comment, sadly I think the English could be stupid enough to make the same mistake twice. The first time was of such monumentally stupid proportions that anything is possible.

Frankly, I hope Scotland breaks away and becomes some sort of independent socialist state. Then I could come and live there. Everything has gone very quiet from Sturgeon, but there is still hope.

 

[Brullnux]

Of course the English are stupid enough to make the same mistake twice. We voted Thatcher in 3 times, Major after that, Blair in 2005 despite the Iraq War, and Cameron twice.

While Scotland and Wales only messed up once (Blair 2005)

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re:

Don't forget that the EU referendum, was just that...a referendum on a single issue. It wasn't a general election, and therefore the voting patterns in the referendum should not be used to determine who does or doesn't hold power (unless you want P.M Nigel Farage).

As to your final comment, sadly I think the English could be stupid enough to make the same mistake twice. The first time was of such monumentally stupid proportions that anything is possible.

Frankly, I hope Scotland breaks away and becomes some sort of independent socialist state. Then I could come and live there. Everything has gone very quiet from Sturgeon, but there is still hope.

Sturgeon will call the referendum when she's positive she can win it.

 

[kwikki]

Plus when it is politically expedient.

 

[kwikki]

Have you seen this?

https://youtu.be/EfqSFQlDae8

 

[CheckMyPecs]

May Day is here.

 

[SeriousSam]

Following the Brexit, these are precarious times for the UK. To restore international trust and goodwill, a deft touch and great diplomatic skill is needed.

No wonder, then, that May saw it fit to appoint Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary.

 

[Brullnux]

Cabinet so far:

Chancellor: Hammond
Expected. Osborne sacked/resigned from the cabinet. As Foreign Secretary, he didn't do much frankly, and is a pretty boring character. Don't know too much about him; almost always follows leader's directive. Actually, has been known to be an extremely classic conservative, here arguing for cuts to welfare rather than troops. Goes against what May has been talking about over the past few days, probably confirming that the talk of 'social justice' was just talk. Kind of useless at times: during the steel crisis he pulled out his trump card and asked China to reduce steel production please.

Foreign Secretary: Johnson
At first a surprise, then the reasons behind it become clear. One possibility is the Obama-Hillary technique of just keeping him as far away as possible, but in an important job to keep him happy. Another is the fact he will please the Brexit right as it is a Brexiteer leading negotiations on the face of it - but in reality No.10 will control foreign policy and the negotiations like in all crises. Or perhaps: 'what high-profile job can someone *** up bad enough as to destroy their own career but not hurt the government's electablity? Foreign Secretary'. Also, the foreign office is being downsized, with brexit and International Trade becoming their own offices.

Home Secretary: Amber Rudd
Does not get along with Johnson at all, which may become a problem. Fierce remain campaigner. Expected.

Brexit Minister: David Davis
Consistently on the opposition frontbench during the Blair years, refused a place in the cabinet in 2010. Right wing.

International Trade Minister: Liam Fox
Known for being an absolute tw*t; dubbed 'the worst man in politics'. Inept in most cases.

Defence Secretary: Micheal Fallon
No change.

Only Amber Rudd from the moderate wing of the party so far. No promotion for Chris Grayling as yet, and Gove gets no promotion. So far, so right wing.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Can someone explain how a guy with so many skeletons in his closet as Liam Fox still gets to sit in the Cabinet?

 

[kwikki]

It's an absolute clusterf**k of talentless egos.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

Can someone explain how a guy with so many skeletons in his closet as Liam Fox still gets to sit in the Cabinet?

Nope. Nobody can explain this. He shouldn't be in politics, let alone in the cabinet.

 

[ferryman]

Soo, Scotland votes yes to Europe by a huge majority. Now, Scotland votes no thank you trident (by way of what the snp stood for at the last election). Independence is coming a lot quicker than I thought or hoped for.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Soo, Scotland votes yes to Europe by a huge majority. Now, Scotland votes no thank you trident (by way of what the snp stood for at the last election). Independence is coming a lot quicker than I thought or hoped for.

I think that's a massive stretch I'm afraid. I want rid of it, but you can't extrapolate an SNP government to meaning that Scotland as a whole agrees with all of their policies.

 

[Melo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36835470/wolf-whistling-can-now-be-reported-as-a-hate-crime

Hahahahaha, this is one of the most idiotic things ever. How the *** is wolf whistling misogynistic!? The feminists are *** braindead, seriously.

 

[Cannibal72]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36835470/wolf-whistling-can-now-be-reported-as-a-hate-crime

Hahahahaha, this is one of the most idiotic things ever. How the **** is wolf whistling misogynistic!? The feminists are **** braindead, seriously.

How is wolf whistling misogynstic? Because it is designed to intimidate women.
It is designed to objectify women.
It is designed to make women feel uncomfortable.
It is designed to express your power.
It is designed to express your power by treating other people as less than human.
It is rude.
It is threatening.
It is unacceptable.

Educate yourself.
http://everydaysexism.com

 

[wrinklyvet]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36835470/wolf-whistling-can-now-be-reported-as-a-hate-crime

Hahahahaha, this is one of the most idiotic things ever. How the **** is wolf whistling misogynistic!? The feminists are **** braindead, seriously.

How is wolf whistling misogynstic? Because it is designed to intimate women.
It is designed to objectify women.
It is designed to make women feel uncomfortable.
It is designed to express your power.
It is designed to express your power by treating other people as less than human.
It is rude.
It is threatening.
It is unacceptable.

Educate yourself.
http://everydaysexism.com

it is all of these things these days, though you mean "intimidate" in the first point you make.

It used not to be viewed like that at all. In the Fifties and Sixties it was generally a cheerful expression of appreciation by the ordinary man for a good looking woman and I don't think anyone thought much the worse of it. I don't believe it was threatening to anybody and it was favoured by builders looking down from their scaffolds into the street, from a range where they were incapable of threatening anyone. Changing social attitudes, women's emancipation, feminism, "political correctness" and all that saw off these old ways in the UK and it went out with the likes of Benny Hill. I don't say that's a bad thing, but many of these behaviours that are so frowned on nowadays had their acceptable place in the past.

 

[Cannibal72]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36835470/wolf-whistling-can-now-be-reported-as-a-hate-crime

Hahahahaha, this is one of the most idiotic things ever. How the **** is wolf whistling misogynistic!? The feminists are **** braindead, seriously.

How is wolf whistling misogynstic? Because it is designed to intimate women.
It is designed to objectify women.
It is designed to make women feel uncomfortable.
It is designed to express your power.
It is designed to express your power by treating other people as less than human.
It is rude.
It is threatening.
It is unacceptable.

Educate yourself.
http://everydaysexism.com

it is all of these things these days, though you mean "intimidate" in the first point you make.

It used not to be viewed like that at all. In the Fifties and Sixties it was generally a cheerful expression of appreciation by the ordinary man for a good looking woman and I don't think anyone thought much the worse of it. I don't believe it was threatening to anybody and it was favoured by builders looking down from their scaffolds into the street, from a range where they were incapable of threatening anyone. Changing social attitudes, women's emancipation, feminism, "political correctness" and all that saw off these old ways in the UK and it went out with the likes of Benny Hill. I don't say that's a bad thing, but many of these behaviours that are so frowned on nowadays had their acceptable place in the past.

Now edited .

 

[Melo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36835470/wolf-whistling-can-now-be-reported-as-a-hate-crime

Hahahahaha, this is one of the most idiotic things ever. How the **** is wolf whistling misogynistic!? The feminists are **** braindead, seriously.

It is rude.

The only thing I agree with you. You should educate yourself what misogynistic means. Wolf whistling is used by boors to express their appreciation to a woman, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Cannibal72]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36835470/wolf-whistling-can-now-be-reported-as-a-hate-crime

Hahahahaha, this is one of the most idiotic things ever. How the **** is wolf whistling misogynistic!? The feminists are **** braindead, seriously.

It is rude.

The only thing I agree with you. You should educate yourself what misogynistic means. Wolf whistling is used by boors to express their appreciation to a woman, nothing more, nothing less.

Appreciation in dehumanised & objectified terms. That's not 'appreciation'. That's intimidation.