British politics

Page 38 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re:

macbindle said:
That leaked report was almost certainly leaked by those in the driving seat of government. Theresa May is at the wheel. She has been told to drive down a given road, but she, and all of her sane colleagues sat beside her in the front, know that road leads to the top of a cliff.

In the back seat are a row of gargoyles screaming at her that she isn't driving fast enough and that the road leads to the land of milk and honey. The gargoyles only got to be in the car because they've convinced some of the electorate that all other roads lead to foreign interests especially those of light brown people who wear grubby cheap sportswear and drive Amazon vans.

Theresa May is, meanwhile, desperately looking for a slight left turn that will give the appearance of going straight on but will lead to only half-way down the cliff. The gargoyles are screaming for full-cliff. Each of the gargoyles has the intention of trying to climb over into the front seat once the car has plunged over the cliff and smashed into the beach below. They know that the car will be smashed into smithereens and Theresa will have exited via the windscreen, but the driving seat will be intact and maybe quite comfy....and that is all that counts.

That's all you need to know about British politics for the foreseeable future.
I believe I know that story

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/dark-money-trumpocalypse-now/
 
Yep. Trump is deregulating. The Brexit mantra is that we will be free of regulations imposed upon us by those Europeans. Never mind that we Brits have been at the forefront of the creation of those regulations (We are quite good at it) nor that anybody on the Brexit side has ever explained what it is about those EU regulations that are so bad.

You know the story.

Interestingly, today, the PM refused to deny the possibility of US companies bidding for UK healthcare contracts (You know the stuff that should be provided from within the state system).

Yesterday, the Health Secretary chided Trump for his comments on the NHS, despite running a programme that looks increasingly like a setup for privatisation.

Trumps foreign though, and foreign is bad.
 
It's not a non-sequitur, but I'll admit it is a bit abstruse.

What I am getting at is the hypocrisy of Jeremy Hunt in criticising Trumps view of nationalised healthcare, when Hunt is actively engaged in an ideologically driven destruction of our nationalised health care system.

Jeremy Hunt thought he could score a few popularity points by invoking nationalistic fervour against foreign Trump, despite tacitly agreeing with Trump's ideology.

Just thinking about Hunt's face has made me do a little sick in my mouth.
 
I really can't foresee, beyond continuation of political stasis nay utterly meaningless politics, hidebound and predated upon by populist opportunists such as Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg exploiting the indolent and politically illiterate Brit. At least until the *** really hits the fan next year when we go on our collective lemming run.

In so many ways we need to move beyond the culture of monarchy, the vestigial memories of imperial glory, the superiority/inferiority complex, but that isn't going go happen anytime soon when it's seared into us. Imagine living in a country whose vision of itself revolves around events of 73 years ago.

Long term? It's all going to be about demographics...

Not a very coherent answer, I'm afraid. More of a collection of frustrations.
 
Re:

aphronesis said:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/opinion/britain-transportation-privatization.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
Hmmm....yes. Deep irony in there.
It's the same story in large parts of the UK energy sector. Not so far away from me we have a huge white elephant nuclear power plant being constructed by French and Chinese state power companies. The British used to lead the world on nuclear power :rolleyes:
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
just finished listening to the corbyn brexit speeech (he's taking Qs now...). some immediate impressions:

1. he's a good, well-collected ideas wise speaker. dont know how effective it is.
2. as a european, i cant disagree with his ideas on staying in the customs union. it would imo be least upsetting to rest of europe. just hope he's realized that britain is losing then the right to vote and veto. and rightly so when one is seeking to exit !
3. completely agree with his take on the citizens of brirain being the citizens of the world and the unacceptability of engaging in regime changes. that was a dig at the united states foreign policy and their tory lap dogs.
4. i didn't quite understand his take on the refugees/immigrants....other than the general expected liberal motherhoods. that imo is one of the hardest drivers right that requires a very nuanced approach. and not just in britain.
 
Re:

python said:
just finished listening to the corbyn brexit speeech (he's taking Qs now...). some immediate impressions:

1. he's a good, well-collected ideas wise speaker. dont know how effective it is.
2. as a european, i cant disagree with his ideas on staying in the customs union. it would imo be least upsetting to rest of europe. just hope he's realized that britain is losing then the right to vote and veto. and rightly so when one is seeking to exit !
3. completely agree with his take on the citizens of brirain being the citizens of the world and the unacceptability of engaging in regime changes. that was a dig at the united states foreign policy and their tory lap dogs.
4. i didn't quite understand his take on the refugees/immigrants....other than the general expected liberal motherhoods. that imo is one of the hardest drivers right that requires a very nuanced approach. and not just in britain.
Full text for those who missed it:

https://labour.org.uk/press/jeremy-corbyn-full-speech-britain-brexit/
 
The issue right now for the UK is: either you have no tariffs etc and you stay in the single market/customs union, but have no control over immigration (which in all honesty is basically a non-issue in reality) and no ability to have fta with third parties, or you have tariffs and lose much of the city services etc. which are crucial to a uk economy which revolves around them, along with quite a few of the remaining manufacturing jobs. So basically stay in an objectively worse version of the eu, or a break which will probably have negative effects. The second is more palatable to the public.

But I still see no plus-side to this. A dependent (by nature, it's one vs 27) relationship formed over 45 years (and longer, since post-war really) is hard to undo in two. Perhaps in twenty years time we will have been able to make up for the inevitable loss in trade we'll have in regards to the eu with emerging countries and refocus our exports, but even then I doubt if many of the powerful countries are willing to let smaller countries catch up on them and overtake them - so the market in said countries will still be fairly small. And we can't export services to the USA, Japan, China or India (biggest four potential partners) because quite simply there is no demand for them in those areas, especially if they can find it cheaper elsewhere. Perhaps to further compound our issues, I think that with the approaching automation most developing countries will not head towards manufacturing from agriculture but straight to tertiary services, which will decapitate our whole approach to whatever it is liam fox is in charge of. Like I said, I doubt there are many positives to come away from this - I'd appreciate anyone to tell me I'm wrong and instil some optimism.

If I were in charge, I'd accept v. small tariffs in certain areas (the eu chooses, i'm not deluded, i know they hold the cards), for the ability to do free trade agreements elsewhere; whilst simultaneously accepting immigration from eu countries, with the benefit provision that was always there anyway, and abiding by eu regulations (which are mostly positive imo anyway).
 
Toys R Us & Maplins go under - 5,000 to lose work.

Meanwhile, Statistics body INSEE has just raised its forecast for French growth last year to 2%, up from 1.9%. That confirms that 2017 was the best year for France’s economy since 2011.

mmm....
 
Re:

Brullnux said:
The issue right now for the UK is: either you have no tariffs etc and you stay in the single market/customs union, but have no control over immigration (which in all honesty is basically a non-issue in reality) and no ability to have fta with third parties, or you have tariffs and lose much of the city services etc. which are crucial to a uk economy which revolves around them, along with quite a few of the remaining manufacturing jobs. So basically stay in an objectively worse version of the eu, or a break which will probably have negative effects. The second is more palatable to the public.

But I still see no plus-side to this. A dependent (by nature, it's one vs 27) relationship formed over 45 years (and longer, since post-war really) is hard to undo in two. Perhaps in twenty years time we will have been able to make up for the inevitable loss in trade we'll have in regards to the eu with emerging countries and refocus our exports, but even then I doubt if many of the powerful countries are willing to let smaller countries catch up on them and overtake them - so the market in said countries will still be fairly small. And we can't export services to the USA, Japan, China or India (biggest four potential partners) because quite simply there is no demand for them in those areas, especially if they can find it cheaper elsewhere. Perhaps to further compound our issues, I think that with the approaching automation most developing countries will not head towards manufacturing from agriculture but straight to tertiary services, which will decapitate our whole approach to whatever it is liam fox is in charge of. Like I said, I doubt there are many positives to come away from this - I'd appreciate anyone to tell me I'm wrong and instil some optimism.

If I were in charge, I'd accept v. small tariffs in certain areas (the eu chooses, i'm not deluded, i know they hold the cards), for the ability to do free trade agreements elsewhere; whilst simultaneously accepting immigration from eu countries, with the benefit provision that was always there anyway, and abiding by eu regulations (which are mostly positive imo anyway).
How would you deal with the hard border between Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland that this necessitate? We can't have FTAs elsewhere and a soft border which would allow free flow of these goods into the EU.
 
My contacts in the government tell me what I think we already knew. Brexit has paralysed government and civil service. Everyone is preoccupied with working on it. Other important issues are being ignored.

What a stupid stupid mess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY