UK politics general discussion

[WillPS]

Devolution only leads to nationalism when it's arranged as 3 small blocks and a massive one. Divide the big one in to 4-8m sized blocks and the case for nationalism goes away as you do away with the notion that there is a massive one holding another back.

 

[JAperson]

What is being discussed is the lack of systems, checks and balances for ensuring the ongoing legitimacy and integrity of the government.

I never disagreed with you there, I made it clear changes are needed to make sure MPs stand by a code and to break.
You asked for similar coubtries

Devolution only leads to nationalism when it's arranged as 3 small blocks and a massive one. Divide the big one in to 4-8m sized blocks and the case for nationalism goes away as you do away with the notion that there is a massive one holding another back.

Sort of, I think if you created an English assembly you'd also have to reorder the local councils in England to fill that role. Having big area councils which control specific area's of the country should help with the idea the England gets more representation (even if it's actually untrue in most senses)

 

[shakey]

Of course it makes sense to have separate governments, the needs of Scotland are nothing like the same as the south east of England.

I couldn't disagree more. You may as well say the needs of Norfolk are not the same as the needs of Manchester, or the needs of Endinburgh and Glasgow are not the same as the needs of the highlands of Scotland. Edinburgh and Glasgow have far more in common with London than they do with the highlands and the rest of rural Scotland.

We could just split the UK up into ever more smaller countries and have dozens of separate governments with slightly different laws. But multiple governments are a waste of money and are not neccessary on an Island smalller than 15 individual states of the USA.

There should be no issue to have one Governent and the same laws on one small Island, wherever you live on it.

As I said in my last post, its easy for Sturgeon to come up smelling of roses because she doesn't (yet) have ultimate power to make all the decisions and can easily blame central government any time she wants, then just take the credit for the good stuff.

 

[Dave]

I couldn't disagree more. You may as well say the needs of Norfolk are not the same as the needs of Manchester, or the needs of Endinburgh and Glasgow are not the same as the needs of the highlands of Scotland. Edinburgh and Glasgow have far more in common with London than they do with the highlands and the rest of rural Scotland.

We could just split the UK up into ever more smaller countries and have dozens of separate governments with slightly different laws. But multiple governments are a waste of money and are not neccessary on an Island smalller than 15 individual states of the USA.

There should be no issue to have one Governent and the same laws on one small Island, wherever you live on it.

As I said in my last post, its easy for Sturgeon to come up smelling of roses because she doesn't (yet) have ultimate power to make all the decisions and can easily blame central government any time she wants, then just take the credit for the good stuff.

The needs of Norfolk are indeed different to the needs of Manchester and yes we should further devolve certain key decisions to regional assembly’s I live in Yorkshire and I would love there to be a Yorkshire assembly and reduce the size of the Westminster government.

There are times decisions need to be taken as a country (defence, foreign policy, national taxation etc) and there are times when decisions need to be taken closer to home (public transport, public health, planning strategy, local taxation). If you think this country isn’t London centric then why has London just completed another massive multi-billion pound rail project yet the entire northern leg of high speed rail has been cancelled and train investment across the north been culled? A lot of people north of the Watford gap would actually like to have decisions taken closer to home.

 

[geo4chg]

I am from Wales but have since lived in Essex, Yorkshire and now Greater Manchester. I am completely against devolution of the type we have seen in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is simply no need for that much added bureaucracy, and it has made a mess of our political make up and made nationalistic or regional agendas much more prominent. Going back to my point about the pandemic, the fact that England introduced a "rule of six" for meeting outdoors and Scotland decided it should be a "rule of eight" is nothing to do with local differences in rates of spread etc - the SNP openly hate the Tories and don't want to be "dictated" to by Westminster, so of course they aren't going to adopt anything that the Conservatives introduce.

There are of course things that should be decided locally, including planning, public transport etc, but that is why we have local councils, there is no need for regional assemblies. In Manchester, we have a mayor but his powers are simply the powers that local councils should have. Things like education, healthcare etc shouldn't be devolved - how is it fair that someone in Scotland doesn't have to pay for prescriptions or university but someone from 5 miles south of the border does? That is the single biggest example of the so-called "postcode lottery" going in this country.

Of course this country is London centric, but London is by far our biggest city and is a net contributor to our economy - if you go down the road of devolution the end point is a country where the money made in each region stays in each region, and as a result regions like Wales, Yorkshire, the North-East etc will be far worse off than they are now. Politics around devolution is divisive and has lead rise to a growing divide between individual nations and between regions of England (talk of North/South divide seems to be ever growing for example), when having lived in the south (outside London) and the north there isn't as big a difference as some people like to make out. The big mistake was made in the 1980s with the closure of a lot of manufacturing etc, which hit northern communities harder, without the succession planning in place to ensure growth of new industries in the same regions - but the answer to sorting that out isn't by adding more layers of bureaucracy.

 

[Matt N]

Sorry if this isn’t the right thread, but as this is also called the “general UK politics discussion”, I had an interesting question. For those who were around during his reign, why is it that Sir Tony Blair is now seemingly such a hated politician?

I’ll admit it confuses me, as he won by an absolute landslide in all 3 of the elections he contested (although the majority admittedly grew smaller in every election after the initial 1997 win), and he was seen as a genuinely successful and popular politician at the time he was around from what I can tell, but nowadays, he’s truly despised by what feels like most of the country. I think the outcry surrounding his 2022 knighthood proves that he’s really not that well liked nowadays, and I’ll admit I’m slightly confused as to how public opinion about him changed so drastically.

Admittedly, I know he had an influential role in the Iraq War which didn’t go down too well, and much of the blame for the perceived failure of the Millennium Dome was pinned on Blair and his government, but he was a really popular politician when in power… come to think of it, I’m not entirely sure why he resigned.

Does anyone else know, or am I missing something plainly obvious there? Or was it just that Blair didn’t live up to his election promises or something?

—————————————————————————————————————

On a note more relevant to the initial topic that spawned the creation of this thread, it appears that Carrie Johnson and her role within Downing Street are now becoming the subject of a book being written by Lord Michael Ashcroft, a former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party.

Ashcroft believes that Mrs Johnson has too much influence within No 10, and that her behaviour is the cause of Boris Johnson’s downfall. She is said by Ashcroft and other critics to have been the cause of many of the antics in No 10, as well as the person who forced the removal of people such as Dominic Cummings. However, Mrs Johnson herself and other supporters argue that this is a misogynistic hate campaign that simply isn’t true.

What do you guys think? Personally, I do think that the targeting of the PM’s wife is a touch unfair; I’m not sure one person alone can have that much influence other than the PM himself in circumstances like these. I think that the general culture would have been created by a number of people as opposed to one person on their own, personally.

 

[JAperson]

Does anyone else know, or am I missing something plainly obvious there? Or was it just that Blair didn’t live up to his election promises or something?

I see no issue with Sir Tony Blair's domestic policies but it was just a few of his foreign policies that were troublesome. Particulary deciding to go to war in Iraq. The America's gave Blair the option it was not a NATO mission and most view it as a pointless war.
Blair and the US claimed that there was Weapons of Mass destruction (chemical and biological weapons and likely trying to get nuclear weapons). This turned out to me mostly untrue. Meaning we'd toppled a regime and left a country in a dire state with no government for no reason. It results in lots of lootings and Sevillian deaths and Iraq still hasn't recovered. Furthermore there was lots of soldier casualties.
Many see it as Blair just doing as George Bush (the US president at the time) wanted us to do.
In hindsight it was a stupid war with worthless loss of life.

 

[geo4chg]

Admittedly, I know he had an influential role in the Iraq War which didn’t go down too well, and much of the blame for the perceived failure of the Millennium Dome was pinned on Blair and his government, but he was a really popular politician when in power… come to think of it, I’m not entirely sure why he resigned.

Does anyone else know, or am I missing something plainly obvious there? Or was it just that Blair didn’t live up to his election promises or something?

It is all to do with Iraq - it was a hugely contentious issue at the time and Blair seemed intent to take us to war no matter what, many see the war as illegal and this has hugely damaged Blair's reputation since he left office. Millennium Dome is mere footnote on the Blair premiership and is largely forgotten. Blair stood down as Prime Minister as part of an agreement with Gordon Brown in the mid-90s - unfortunately for him, Brown had none of Blair's natural charisma as a leader and took over just as the financial crash happened after Labour had been in power for 10 years so he suffered hugely in the opinion polls soon after becoming Prime Minister.

General election wins don't have anything to do with the popularity of a Prime Minister once they have left office - if you look at Thatcher, Blair etc that had big election landslides (each 3 victories) and both are very much disliked now, likewise Boris Johnson led the Conservatives to a large majority in the last election, but I get the feeling history will not look kindly on him either.

 

[WillPS]

Sorry if this isn’t the right thread, but as this is also called the “general UK politics discussion”, I had an interesting question. For those who were around during his reign, why is it that Sir Tony Blair is now seemingly such a hated politician?

I’ll admit it confuses me, as he won by an absolute landslide in all 3 of the elections he contested (although the majority admittedly grew smaller in every election after the initial 1997 win), and he was seen as a genuinely successful and popular politician at the time he was around from what I can tell, but nowadays, he’s truly despised by what feels like most of the country. I think the outcry surrounding his 2022 knighthood proves that he’s really not that well liked nowadays, and I’ll admit I’m slightly confused as to how public opinion about him changed so drastically.

Admittedly, I know he had an influential role in the Iraq War which didn’t go down too well, and much of the blame for the perceived failure of the Millennium Dome was pinned on Blair and his government, but he was a really popular politician when in power… come to think of it, I’m not entirely sure why he resigned.

Does anyone else know, or am I missing something plainly obvious there? Or was it just that Blair didn’t live up to his election promises or something?

You've answered your own question. The Iraq war was a huge factor - not least the way the goalposts were changed with regards to what would constitute a valid reason to go to war. It was a hugely unpopular and deeply questionable.

There are a handful of other promises Labour made but didn't deliver upon - a couple of example off the top of my head are electoral reform and reversing the privatisation of British Rail, but they're pretty low in terms of impact.

There's a decent BBC documentary on the New Labour era with interviews from all the key players (including Blair and Brown) I'd be happy to recommend: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p09wg9cm/blair-brown-the-new-labour-revolution

Do bear in mind also that with those on the left of the party (the sort you might think of as Momentum nowadays) Blair was always a deeply unpopular figure due to Clause IV. I recall in Nottingham during the 1997 election there was quite a lot of windows with posters informing "We vote Labour but we don't want Blair", so he was never a universally popular figure.

 

[rob666]

Bit tricky when Carrie is unelected, highly opinionated, yet has such powerful access to the leader, who is a bit dim and very easily led.
.
Blair.
It wasn't all about Iraq in my eyes.
As well as being a complete puppet of America, his brown nosing was sickening at times, Butcher Blair did little to bring back true Labour values after many years of right wing rule.
Blair was hated by many on the left because he failed to drag society back to the centre (or even the left!) when he came to power.
Thatchers "Greed is good" philosophy continued.
Thatcher and her followers had created a huge jolt to the right, Blair didn't increase taxes to foster equality economically, and socially, and many wanted to see a greater involvement of the state in industry (clause 4)..it didn't happen.
"Are you Thatcher in disguise?" became a common chant among the left.
New Labour...Old Tory.

 

[Plastic Person]

Blair undoubtedly corrupted his legacy with the Iraq war, a cause and effect decision that we are still feeling the repercussions of on a global scale. Nonetheless, the majority of the current centrist Labour government in Starmer's cabinet read from the gospel of Tony, just as many in Johnson's wing model themselves as more charismatic Thatcher types, so I'd disagree with @geo4chg that they're very much disliked now. Perhaps in public, but certainly not in parliament.

I would highly recommend the recent 'Blair & Brown' series on the BBC, whether you lived through those years or not.

 

[geo4chg]

There's a decent BBC documentary on the New Labour era with interviews from all the key players (including Blair and Brown) I'd be happy to recommend: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p09wg9cm/blair-brown-the-new-labour-revolution

Do bear in mind also that with those on the left of the party (the sort you might think of as Momentum nowadays) Blair was always a deeply unpopular figure due to Clause IV. I recall in Nottingham during the 1997 election there was quite a lot of windows with posters informing "We vote Labour but we don't want Blair", so he was never a universally popular figure.

Also recommend this documentary if anyone is interested in this era of British politics.

What Blair did however, even if he alienated some die-hard Labour supporters, is he made himself electable by moving the party into the centre - in 1997 there were many lifelong Conservative voters that would "never vote for Labour" but would happily vote for Tony Blair's "New Labour". It's is a similar thing to what we saw in 2019 with Labour voters moving to vote for Boris Johnson.

 

[WillPS]

Also recommend this documentary if anyone is interested in this era of British politics.

What Blair did however, even if he alienated some die-hard Labour supporters, is he made himself electable by moving the party into the centre - in 1997 there were many lifelong Conservative voters that would "never vote for Labour" but would happily vote for Tony Blair's "New Labour". It's is a similar thing to what we saw in 2019 with Labour voters moving to vote for Boris Johnson.

I'm not sure that it's proven particularly well that lifelong Tory voters did move to Labour in considerable numbers in 1997. The Lib Dems saw a huge boost in 1997 which is more likely to be that. Labour primarily captured areas with changing demographics as well as areas they'd win on a good election cycle in the pre-Thatcher years.

That's not to say that centrism is meritless or that it didn't play a part in that decisive win, but I don't think it was quite as pronounced as the Brexit effect was in 2019.

 

[Matt N]

Out of interest, if Blair was a more right-wing leader than many previous Labour leaders, could it be construed that Britain in general is somewhat of a right-wing country in terms of political beliefs?

If you exclude Blair, then the last time Labour in its traditional form was elected was in the 1970s, meaning that centrist and right of centre governments have been in charge for over 40 years in the UK; left of centre politicians haven’t governed since the 1970s.

And I seem to remember that when Jeremy Corbyn was Labour leader, people absolutely hated him because he was too left-wing in political beliefs, whereas similarly right-wing policies from other parties were really popular. Corbyn’s socialist policies (such as renationalisation of public services) were not liked at all by the British public, whereas the right-wing parties often gain a fair bit of traction in elections. I personally really liked a lot of Corbyn’s policies, and I thought he painted a vision of the country that really resonated with me, but I know that I’m in a vast minority there.

Would I be right in saying that Britain is generally a bit more right-wing than left-wing, or is it more nuanced than that?

 

[Plastic Person]

And I seem to remember that when Jeremy Corbyn was Labour leader, people absolutely hated him because he was too left-wing in political beliefs, whereas similarly right-wing policies from other parties were really popular. Corbyn’s socialist policies (such as renationalisation of public services) were not liked at all by the British public, whereas the right-wing parties often gain a fair bit of traction in elections. I personally really liked a lot of Corbyn’s policies, and I thought he painted a vision of the country that really resonated with me, but I know that I’m in a vast minority there.

Would I be right in saying that Britain is generally a bit more right-wing than left-wing, or is it more nuanced than that?

I don't think you're in a minority of any kind. From what I can tell, diehard Corbynites (of which I am not one) can't agree on the cause of his downfall in the last general election, but I'd chalk it up to a mix of his own undoing - the values that made him such an effective and popular local leader were arguably not suited for national and global politics, for better or worse - but also a lot of backlash and politicised manoeuvring in the media that basically made it impossible as long as he was being portrayed as an active terrorist threat or whatever. Many of Corbyn's policies scored well, especially during his initial victory run in 2016.

Despite what the current, largely manufactured 'snowflakes versus gammons' culture wars would suggest, Britain has undoubtedly become a broadly more progressive place in the last few decades, especially in spite of its sticky colonial past. But the "I'm alright, Jack/greed is good" attitude of greed that Thatcher planted so successfully always drags us to the right, especially compared to other European nations. I recognise that a government has a lot to balance, but I personally began to veer from the idea of centrism when it become apparent just how to the right the Tories have dragged the country through a decade or more of austerity. The current cost of living crisis in the shadow of the brazen attitude of the current Conservative government would sow the seeds for revolution in many other democracies.

 

[WillPS]

Left and Right are not internationally compatible in absolute terms.

Our entire system is fundamentally anchorred to the left, so when we refer to appealing to the centre-ground we mean something very different to when you might hear American politicians saying the same thing.

As an example in the UK public healthcare, minimum wage (since 1997...) and social security benefits are hotly debated subjects, but the question is one of degrees and not one of 'this should or should not be a thing'. Contrast that with a fundamentally right wing government like the United States.

Things change over time, and you can a pretty clear shift to the right under Thatcher/Major, a fairly major shift to the left under Blair/Brown and another, asmaller shift to the right under Cameron (but the dust is still settling on that). In my eyes, these have all been small movements within the category you might refer to on an international scale as 'centre-left'.

 

[geo4chg]

Left and Right are not internationally compatible in absolute terms.

Our entire system is fundamentally anchorred to the left, so when we refer to appealing to the centre-ground we mean something very different to when you might hear American politicians saying the same thing.

As an example in the UK public healthcare, minimum wage (since 1997...) and social security benefits are hotly debated subjects, but the question is one of degrees and not one of 'this should or should not be a thing'. Contrast that with a fundamentally right wing government like the United States.

Things change over time, and you can a pretty clear shift to the right under Thatcher/Major, a fairly major shift to the left under Blair/Brown and another, asmaller shift to the right under Cameron (but the dust is still settling on that). In my eyes, these have all been small movements within the category you might refer to on an international scale as 'centre-left'.

Yes, in American politics they go on about "leftist" policies by the Democrats but majority of these are still pretty far to the right compared to what we have here, and the majority of the US is a largely conservative country. In simple terms, in order to be electable you have to appeal to as broad a group of people as possible, which is why UK parties tend to fight over the centre. Too many of Corbyn's policies were too far to the left, and came across as idealist policies that would never work (or had been proven to fail) in the real world. We enjoy a great many things in this country that might be considered socialist (the NHS, the welfare state etc) but also there is a general feeling that things like home ownership is important (a conservative value) compared to other European countries.

I think there is a general narrative in this country that "the left" cannot be trusted with the country's finances compared to the Conservatives (whether this is true or not) and that, along with a few other things such as immigration policy etc mean that there is a sizeable demographic of people that will end up voting Conservatives when push comes to shove in the polling booth (the so-called "shy Tory") even if they may not admit to it on the run up to the election.

 

[Matt N]

I think there is a general narrative in this country that "the left" cannot be trusted with the country's finances compared to the Conservatives (whether this is true or not) and that, along with a few other things such as immigration policy etc mean that there is a sizeable demographic of people that will end up voting Conservatives when push comes to shove in the polling booth (the so-called "shy Tory") even if they may not admit to it on the run up to the election.

I think this is certainly true, from my experience.

I got a good telling off from my Nan in 2019 for saying that I was supporting Corbyn’s Labour Party, and she then went on to tell me that her power was cut off once a week under the last non-Blair Labour government because the government had no money… she told me off for “putting the country’s finances at risk by supporting Corbyn”, as “Labour spends money the country doesn’t have”. She said that “Boris and the Tories are far more trustworthy with money”.

 

[WillPS]

I think this is certainly true, from my experience.

I got a good telling off from my Nan in 2019 for saying that I was supporting Corbyn’s Labour Party, and she then went on to tell me that her power was cut off once a week under the last non-Blair Labour government because the government had no money… she told me off for “putting the country’s finances at risk by supporting Corbyn”, as “Labour spends money the country doesn’t have”. She said that “Boris and the Tories are far more trustworthy with money”.

I wouldn't take everything your Nan says as gospel. Have a read about the Three-Day Week and crosscheck that with which party was responsible for it.

That's not to say it didn't happen, the Winter of Discontent was definitely one of the last rites of Old Labour...

People choose their own narrative and selectively pick facts to match. That's why Brexit is a thing.

 

[Matt N]

I wouldn't take everything your Nan says as gospel. Have a read about the Three-Day Week and crosscheck that with which party was responsible for it.

That's not to say it didn't happen, the Winter of Discontent was definitely one of the last rites of Old Labour...

People choose their own narrative and selectively pick facts to match. That's why Brexit is a thing.

Oh, so the Three Day Week was a Conservative policy? Interesting… maybe it’s the Winter of Discontent that my Nan remembers?

Interestingly, the Tories apparently had a £3bn economic crisis of their own under John Major in the form of Black Wednesday. I’m not entirely sure what made it such a big crisis, but it had something to do with the pound’s exchange rate being poor.

Another interesting thing to note is that I’ve heard some argue that we’re currently in a second Winter of Discontent, what with the cost of living crisis and the ever-present COVID situation. I don’t see this wiping out the Conservatives like the 1978/79 one did Labour, though… it’s not nearly as severe as the late 1970s situation was, from what I can gather, and I also think that Boris Johnson and the Conservatives are too popular to fall to something like this; the events in Downing Street and the cost of living crisis seem to have had a very negligible impact on his overall popularity so far.

I also think that Boris’ government could have done enough good by 2024 to make people forget about the events of 2021/22, what with his ambitious levelling up agenda and all. As much as I will almost definitely be voting for Keir Starmer’s Labour Party at the next election (unless something drastic happens to change my mind), I think Boris does seem to be landing some blows against Starmer that are making him very popular and far more worthy of leadership than Starmer in the public’s eyes; he always gets far louder cheers in the Commons than Starmer does.