Culture Wars
#71
(06-30-2020, 08:40 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote:
(06-30-2020, 10:43 AM)Shabby Russian Wrote: Not sure i would put Atlee into this category. No doubt he was popular with a segment of the electorate - indeed i think i am right in saying that in losing the 1951 election, the votes gained by Labour still is the highest ever achieved by a political party in a UK election.

But he was very much supported by Labour supporters and was able to get the Labour vote out, i doubt he had appeal to Conservative voters. Blair i would say was a different kettle of fish. And though this may surprise some people, i also think Thatcher had the ability to reach into the other party's base and take their votes.

But generally in UK politics the winners are those who can get their own core supporters out. The importance of the floating voter is very much exaggerated in my opinion.

Wholeheartedly disagree with Thatcher. In '79 Labour's vote share didn't decrease that much and it seems more like Liberal voters switched based on the numbers, '83 and '87 she was bailed out by FPTP as the Liberal-SDP Alliance was ridiculously underrepresented (25% of the vote, 23 seats).

The only leaders in the "modern" political system we have that I'd attribute that to is Blair. He worked with Paddy Ashdown in 1997 and the Labour gains that election were from the Conservative voters switching, due to the LD-Lab agreement and the cooperation agreement the Labour government effectively had 460 odd votes they could garner support from with 420 being Labour MPs. Before that you're looking at Baldwin, Gladstone and Disreali realistically.

I think Thatcher did take Labour voters directly. Plenty of C2 voters who previously would have been Labour voters switched - perhaps in greater numbers in 1983 and 1987, that 1979

I agree on Blair, especially in 1997, but by 2001 and 2005 he was only winning because the Conservatives were still viewed with total contempt by the electorate. Always worth remembering that Labour in their worst election result since world war 2 (in terms of seats won) still got more voted than Blair did in winning a 60 seat majority in 2005.

And some people will try and tell you that differential turnout doesn't matter.
Reply
#72
(06-30-2020, 09:25 PM)Shabby Russian Wrote:
(06-30-2020, 08:40 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote:
(06-30-2020, 10:43 AM)Shabby Russian Wrote: Not sure i would put Atlee into this category. No doubt he was popular with a segment of the electorate - indeed i think i am right in saying that in losing the 1951 election, the votes gained by Labour still is the highest ever achieved by a political party in a UK election.

But he was very much supported by Labour supporters and was able to get the Labour vote out, i doubt he had appeal to Conservative voters. Blair i would say was a different kettle of fish. And though this may surprise some people, i also think Thatcher had the ability to reach into the other party's base and take their votes.

But generally in UK politics the winners are those who can get their own core supporters out. The importance of the floating voter is very much exaggerated in my opinion.

Wholeheartedly disagree with Thatcher. In '79 Labour's vote share didn't decrease that much and it seems more like Liberal voters switched based on the numbers, '83 and '87 she was bailed out by FPTP as the Liberal-SDP Alliance was ridiculously underrepresented (25% of the vote, 23 seats).

The only leaders in the "modern" political system we have that I'd attribute that to is Blair. He worked with Paddy Ashdown in 1997 and the Labour gains that election were from the Conservative voters switching, due to the LD-Lab agreement and the cooperation agreement the Labour government effectively had 460 odd votes they could garner support from with 420 being Labour MPs. Before that you're looking at Baldwin, Gladstone and Disreali realistically.

I think Thatcher did take Labour voters directly. Plenty of C2 voters who previously would have been Labour voters switched - perhaps in greater numbers in 1983 and 1987, that 1979

I agree on Blair, especially in 1997, but by 2001 and 2005 he was only winning because the Conservatives were still viewed with total contempt by the electorate. Always worth remembering that Labour in their worst election result since world war 2 (in terms of seats won) still got more voted than Blair did in winning a 60 seat majority in 2005.

And some people will try and tell you that differential turnout doesn't matter.

By 2001 Prescott had pissed off the Lib Dems to the point where Kennedy retracted from the pact. In the 2001 and 2005 elections Blair was bailed out like Thatcher was by the Labour vote swinging to the SNP and Lib Dems who were being shafted by FPTP, the Tory vote share didn't increase that much.
Reply
#73
(06-29-2020, 10:03 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote: The British "establishment" was split on the EU issue, as was the country.

Compare this with the AV referendum where the entire weight of the establishment genuinely was actually stacked on one side.

As for academia, people reliant on the EU for funding and research collaboration don't want to risk losing that. No shit. As for the judiciary, they did their constitutional role as per Common Law, we don't have a German-style legal system and how the Judiciary acted was within precedent.

Regarding democracy, the fundamental of our democracy is being able to challenge stuff you disagree with so it seems pretty obvious that the people doing the criticising of people who didn't want to leave the EU for not putting up and shutting up were the people being anti-democratic, why should people not be allowed to exercise their belief that they think the country is doing something stupid?

Brexit has been a complete shitshow for 4 years, we're due to leave the EU safety net at the end of the year and we're an international laughing stock already. Can't wait to see how this bunch of incompetent morons can make things worse.

Yuor first point is utterly ridiculous. There was no substantive part of the Establishment in favour of leaving the Eu at all:

All Parliamentary Parties - Remain
Civil Service - Remain
Bank of England - Remain
City of London - Remain
BBC - Remain
Academia - Remain
Senior judiciary - Remain
CBI - Remain
FSB - Remain
TUC - Remain
All Charities - Remain
NFU - Remain

The comparison with the AV Referendum is spurious. Every man and his dog knows AV is a ridiculous system that can actually make the outcome of elections LESS proportional. Thank goodness it was strangled at birth.

There is no such thing as "EU Funding". If the UK government values science (it does) then it will fill that gap. There is no reason on Earth why the UK cannot continue to collaborate with EU countries.

And seeing the EU as a "safety net" as the ECB begins following the BOJ down the road of shadow nationalisation?  Big Grin
Reply
#74
(07-01-2020, 11:47 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(06-29-2020, 10:03 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote: The British "establishment" was split on the EU issue, as was the country.

Compare this with the AV referendum where the entire weight of the establishment genuinely was actually stacked on one side.

As for academia, people reliant on the EU for funding and research collaboration don't want to risk losing that. No shit. As for the judiciary, they did their constitutional role as per Common Law, we don't have a German-style legal system and how the Judiciary acted was within precedent.

Regarding democracy, the fundamental of our democracy is being able to challenge stuff you disagree with so it seems pretty obvious that the people doing the criticising of people who didn't want to leave the EU for not putting up and shutting up were the people being anti-democratic, why should people not be allowed to exercise their belief that they think the country is doing something stupid?

Brexit has been a complete shitshow for 4 years, we're due to leave the EU safety net at the end of the year and we're an international laughing stock already. Can't wait to see how this bunch of incompetent morons can make things worse.

Yuor first point is utterly ridiculous. There was no substantive part of the Establishment in favour of leaving the Eu at all:

All Parliamentary Parties - Remain
Civil Service - Remain
Bank of England - Remain
City of London - Remain
BBC - Remain
Academia - Remain
Senior judiciary - Remain
CBI - Remain
FSB - Remain
TUC - Remain
All Charities - Remain
NFU - Remain

The comparison with the AV Referendum is spurious. Every man and his dog knows AV is a ridiculous system that can actually make the outcome of elections LESS proportional. Thank goodness it was strangled at birth.

There is no such thing as "EU Funding". If the UK government values science (it does) then it will fill that gap. There is no reason on Earth why the UK cannot continue to collaborate with EU countries.

And seeing the EU as a "safety net" as the ECB begins following the BOJ down the road of shadow nationalisation?  Big Grin

It is really quite mischevious of you to put the BBC, senior judiciary, civil service and the bank f england in that list.
All these organisations were not allowed and did not take a view on which way the referendum should be decided.

Quite clearly a significant part of the Conservative Party was in favour of leaving the EU, and many of these people were key stalwarts of the establishment.
Reply
#75
(07-01-2020, 11:47 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(06-29-2020, 10:03 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote: The British "establishment" was split on the EU issue, as was the country.

Compare this with the AV referendum where the entire weight of the establishment genuinely was actually stacked on one side.

As for academia, people reliant on the EU for funding and research collaboration don't want to risk losing that. No shit. As for the judiciary, they did their constitutional role as per Common Law, we don't have a German-style legal system and how the Judiciary acted was within precedent.

Regarding democracy, the fundamental of our democracy is being able to challenge stuff you disagree with so it seems pretty obvious that the people doing the criticising of people who didn't want to leave the EU for not putting up and shutting up were the people being anti-democratic, why should people not be allowed to exercise their belief that they think the country is doing something stupid?

Brexit has been a complete shitshow for 4 years, we're due to leave the EU safety net at the end of the year and we're an international laughing stock already. Can't wait to see how this bunch of incompetent morons can make things worse.

Yuor first point is utterly ridiculous. There was no substantive part of the Establishment in favour of leaving the Eu at all:

All Parliamentary Parties - Leadership was for remain, not all MPs. UKIP also had an MP. Who were the public faces of Vote Leave?
Civil Service - Not allowed to have an official position owing to their remit and their codes of conduct. I guarantee you there are/were senior civil servants that supported leaving
Bank of England - See above
City of London - Because barriers to the single market are stupid, that said there are individuals working in the city and private companies in the city that supported leave.
BBC - What?
Academia - Because leaving the ERC and losing access to EU research and researchers is very bad
Senior judiciary - Not allowed to have a position and have to follow the rules of the constitution when applying Common Law
CBI - Because it's not a sensible business decision, they endorsed the Lib Dems last election are you saying the fucking Lib Dems are the party of the establishment?
FSB - Small businesses are part of the establishment now?
TUC - The Trade Unions are part of the establishment now?
All Charities - What?
NFU - A farmers union is part of the establishment now?

The comparison with the AV Referendum is spurious. Every man and his dog knows AV is a ridiculous system that can actually make the outcome of elections LESS proportional. Thank goodness it was strangled at birth.

There is no such thing as "EU Funding". If the UK government values science (it does) then it will fill that gap. There is no reason on Earth why the UK cannot continue to collaborate with EU countries.

And seeing the EU as a "safety net" as the ECB begins following the BOJ down the road of shadow nationalisation?  Big Grin

The press is undoubtedly part of the establishment and the only part of it that is allowed to have biases, the written press, was predominantly anti-EU; the irony of the Barclay Brothers, Desmond and Murdoch crying about the establishment. The party of the establishment, from its foundation in the aftermath of the Civil War, the Tories had a significant stake in the whole Eurosceptic movement in this country including the ones linked to the traditional aristocracy. That's not to mention the elements within the other sections of what you listed that supported leave, both individuals and businesses. Have you seen who some of the biggest donors to the various Brexit campaigns were?

As for the AV referendum, spurious my arse. It was only put forward with an agreement that Cameron helped campaign for it as the Tories wouldn't entertain the idea of STV that the Lib Dems actually wanted, and it was assumed that Labour would support it given they had it in their recent manifesto. Despite that, the Tories and Labour put the full weights of their top brass behind the No2AV campaign, every facet of the media from the Grauniad and the Mirror through to the Sun and Telegraph opposed it and the Electoral Commission allowed completely bullshit advertisements about bulletproof vests and maternity wards. The establishment pushed for an unpalatable compromise then killed the compromise.

EU funding for science is a collaborative effort, the money gets put in a pool and universities often work with each other for research purposes and sharing funds. It isn't like the investment grants (which are only returned to this country to areas the government can't be bothered to invest in, like Wales which was completely ignored in Johnson's Dudley address yesterday). Leaving the ERC and organisations like Erasmus and the EMA make collaboration very difficult, especially for smaller or more specialist universities. The EU also removes a whole lot of red tape by making it easier for countries to collaborate on large projects.

And the EU safety net is referring to the Single Market and Customs Union. Seeing as we were never in the Eurozone I don't see the relevance of the ECB.

Get that chip off your shoulder.
Reply
#76
(07-01-2020, 12:12 PM)Shabby Russian Wrote:
(07-01-2020, 11:47 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(06-29-2020, 10:03 PM)Borin\ Baggie Wrote: The British "establishment" was split on the EU issue, as was the country.

Compare this with the AV referendum where the entire weight of the establishment genuinely was actually stacked on one side.

As for academia, people reliant on the EU for funding and research collaboration don't want to risk losing that. No shit. As for the judiciary, they did their constitutional role as per Common Law, we don't have a German-style legal system and how the Judiciary acted was within precedent.

Regarding democracy, the fundamental of our democracy is being able to challenge stuff you disagree with so it seems pretty obvious that the people doing the criticising of people who didn't want to leave the EU for not putting up and shutting up were the people being anti-democratic, why should people not be allowed to exercise their belief that they think the country is doing something stupid?

Brexit has been a complete shitshow for 4 years, we're due to leave the EU safety net at the end of the year and we're an international laughing stock already. Can't wait to see how this bunch of incompetent morons can make things worse.

Yuor first point is utterly ridiculous. There was no substantive part of the Establishment in favour of leaving the Eu at all:

All Parliamentary Parties - Remain
Civil Service - Remain
Bank of England - Remain
City of London - Remain
BBC - Remain
Academia - Remain
Senior judiciary - Remain
CBI - Remain
FSB - Remain
TUC - Remain
All Charities - Remain
NFU - Remain

The comparison with the AV Referendum is spurious. Every man and his dog knows AV is a ridiculous system that can actually make the outcome of elections LESS proportional. Thank goodness it was strangled at birth.

There is no such thing as "EU Funding". If the UK government values science (it does) then it will fill that gap. There is no reason on Earth why the UK cannot continue to collaborate with EU countries.

And seeing the EU as a "safety net" as the ECB begins following the BOJ down the road of shadow nationalisation?  Big Grin

It is really quite mischevious of you to put the BBC, senior judiciary, civil service and the bank f england in that list.
All these organisations were not allowed and did not take a view on which way the referendum should be decided.

Quite clearly a significant part of the Conservative Party was in favour of leaving the EU, and many of these people were key stalwarts of the establishment.

Not to mention press barons who don’t even live in the country ffs! The idea that many in the VoteLeave camp are outside of the elite, establishment is utter nonsense perpetuated by some to convince others they were ‘giving to the man’. The same bullshit tactics that has seen Trump elected frigging president (that’s going well).

I doubt the list of organisations wanting to leave was quite so impressive... Still they are all collectively wrong where as the VoteLeave cabal in government have shown themselves to well prepared, trustworthy, honest, direct, intelligent and competent so far.
Reply
#77
(07-01-2020, 12:12 PM)Shabby Russian Wrote: It is really quite mischevious of you to put the BBC, senior judiciary, civil service and the bank f england in that list.
All these organisations were not allowed and did not take a view on which way the referendum should be decided.

Quite clearly a significant part of the Conservative Party was in favour of leaving the EU, and many of these people were key stalwarts of the establishment.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

You can't have typed that with a straight face. The Civil Service and BoE was hugely poltiicised by the idiot Osborne to draw up all manner of apocalyptic visions of post Brexit Britain.

Radio 4 and BBC Newsnight in particular couldn't have made their bias more plain.

And several senior members of the judiciary & House of Lords made clear their contempt for even the concept of a referendum.

I have to say, if you truly believe that any of those 4 groups didn't do their utmost to sway the Referendum then it's pretty pointless us engaging in conversation about this topic ever again.
Reply
#78
(07-02-2020, 08:51 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(07-01-2020, 12:12 PM)Shabby Russian Wrote: It is really quite mischevious of you to put the BBC, senior judiciary, civil service and the bank f england in that list.
All these organisations were not allowed and did not take a view on which way the referendum should be decided.

Quite clearly a significant part of the Conservative Party was in favour of leaving the EU, and many of these people were key stalwarts of the establishment.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

You can't have typed that with a straight face. The Civil Service and BoE was hugely poltiicised by the idiot Osborne to draw up all manner of apocalyptic visions of post Brexit Britain.

Radio 4 and BBC Newsnight in particular couldn't have made their bias more plain.

And several senior members of the judiciary & House of Lords made clear their contempt for even the concept of a referendum.

I have to say, if you truly believe that any of those 4 groups didn't do their utmost to sway the Referendum then it's pretty pointless us engaging in conversation about this topic ever again.

You are quite right there is no point in continuing this debate.

For one the issue is settled.

And it is quite clear that as far as you are concerned unless an organisation/individual parrots your arguments they are biased against you.
Reply
#79
A running list of those the government has blamed for its failures...

Migrants
EU
Experts
Fire Service
Police
NHS workers
Scientists
Teachers
Unions
The General Public
Care Home Owners and Workers

It’s getting silly now.

Same old same old
Reply
#80
Not surprised Proth decided to give it neck; he was always very particular about the need for accountability. Particularly where 'the state' had any involvement (I'm assuming that includes the government of the day).

Update: Seems that the discharges into care homes were decided by 'medical professionals' based on advice from scientists. 

From 19 March the instruction to the NHS was that "Unless required to be in hospital, patients should vacate their NHS bed". At this point a negative Covid-19 test wasn't a condition of discharge (assuming a test had even taken place), a situation which remained unchanged until 15 April. By that date more than 28,000 elderly patients had been discharged directly to care homes.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)