UK Politics General Discussion

[rob666]

The last 30 years weren't in the centre either, as Thatcher lurched us hard right, that has been pretty much it for politics since, those political divisions have remained.

 

[shakey]

The last 30 years weren't in the centre either, as Thatcher lurched us hard right, that has been pretty much it for politics since, those political divisions have remained.

Depends what your definition of 'right' is.
All mainstream UK politics is further left than the democrats in the USA.

 

[shakey]

DOUBLE POST

Forget politics. The non rider pass is back at Blackpool Pleasure Beach!!!!

 

[Matt N]

Depends what your definition of 'right' is.
All mainstream UK politics is further left than the democrats in the USA.

I’m not sure I necessarily agree with that. “Right” in the USA is certainly different to what it is in this country, but the Democrats are still ultimately a left or centre-left party. They stand for many of the same sorts of social and economic principles as Labour.

They certainly aren’t nearly as far right as, say, Reform are in this country.

 

[shakey]

They certainly aren’t nearly as far right as, say, Reform are in this country.

I think they probably are.

 

[Matt N]

I think they probably are.

What makes you say that? To my knowledge, the Democrats are supportive of a bigger state, as well as social liberalism, like the left-wing parties in this country are. They’re also not as focused on immigration, similarly to the left-wing parties here. That may admittedly manifest differently in the USA to in Britain, but the principle is the same.

Reform, on the other hand, are somewhat socially conservative and building their whole brand on being “anti-woke”. They are also quite staunchly anti-immigration, more akin to the US Republican Party.

Admittedly, I think the Republican Party are probably further right than anything in mainstream British politics, particularly where social conservatism is concerned, but I don’t think the US Democratic Party are as far right as you suggest.

 

[Matt.GC]

I’m not sure I necessarily agree with that. “Right” in the USA is certainly different to what it is in this country, but the Democrats are still ultimately a left or centre-left party. They stand for many of the same sorts of social and economic principles as Labour.

They certainly aren’t nearly as far right as, say, Reform are in this country.

American politics is far more right wing than it is in the UK I'm afraid Matt. @shakey is right on this one.

Even if you overlook the fact that the Republicans are more to the right than the loons at Reform UK Ltd on absurd issues like affordable healthcare and abortion, in walks fascist Trump. He's something else entirely. What he's saying the moment would make Marine LePenn and Giorga Maloni blush.

I don't use facist lightly and resisted joining in the chorus between 2016 and 2020. But then when he instigated violence, and enlisted a group of thugs to intimdate people to try and frustrate the democratic process and remain in power, that's clearly authoritarianism.

He's since continued to threaten to use the legal system to get revenge on his political opponents, say distinctly racist things, shower praise on Hitler to his former Chief of Staff, and I could go on and on.

Even his mate Farage hasn't sunk that low.

 

[AT86]

Even his mate Farage hasn't sunk that low.

It’s only a matter of time.

 

[shakey]

Bernie Sanders was about as left as the democrats ever got but he proved to be too left for them so didnt get the democratic nomination. And even he would struggle to be considered left leaning in uk politics.

 

[Matt.GC]

Bernie Sanders was about as left as the democrats ever got but he proved to be too left for them so didnt get the democratic nomination. And even he would struggle to be considered left leaning in uk politics.

If Sanders was a UK politician, he'd pretty much be your bog standard Ed Milliband or Gordon Brown kind of guy. More centre than left.

Yet in America, he's seen as a "commie", what with his highly controversial Hammer and Sickle style views such as universal healthcare free at the point of use, and employers not being able to sack people just for laughs. That's pretty much Stalinist stuff to the Yanks.

But in Sanders defence, his fried chicken seems to be quite popular, even if the yanks have to pay through the nose for the health issues that it causes (if a bullet doesn't catch them first).

 

[Matt N]

To go back to the budget, I’ve seen a lot of criticism of Reeves raising taxes on employers. My question is; if Reeves wasn’t supposed to raise employers’ NI contributions, where else was the money supposed to come from given that she said she wouldn’t raise income tax, VAT or employee NI?

There’s a financial black hole that needs filling, and given the state the public services are now in, I don’t think the previous tactic of spending cuts is a particularly good option. The tactic has been spending cuts for the past 14 years, and while they may have been able to cope with this in 2010, the public services now are in too poor of a state with too little left to cut for this to be a particularly good option, in my view.

Unfortunately, the hard truth is that the country needed either tax rises or spending cuts to keep financially stable. And given that spending cuts has been the status quo of the last 14 years and has led us to where we are now, my view is that tax rises was the lesser of two evils in this case.

 

[rob666]

Stop bringing sense and reason into politics Matt...it will never catch on.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

To go back to the budget, I’ve seen a lot of criticism of Reeves raising taxes on employers. My question is; if Reeves wasn’t supposed to raise employers’ NI contributions, where else was the money supposed to come from given that she said she wouldn’t raise income tax, VAT or employee NI?

There’s a financial black hole that needs filling, and given the state the public services are now in, I don’t think the previous tactic of spending cuts is a particularly good option. The tactic has been spending cuts for the past 14 years, and while they may have been able to cope with this in 2010, the public services now are in too poor of a state with too little left to cut for this to be a particularly good option, in my view.

Unfortunately, the hard truth is that the country needed either tax rises or spending cuts to keep financially stable. And given that spending cuts has been the status quo of the last 14 years and has led us to where we are now, my view is that tax rises was the lesser of two evils in this case.

There are lots of levers she could have pulled, but the ones she has will have the least impact on most working people and employees. The tax burden is higher, but not for the majority of people in the country, it's starting to shift, which is something that hasn't happened for a very long time.

Quite simply put, if we want public services we have to pay for them. Shocking revelation, I know.

As someone wearing a blue rosette once said, there's no magic money tree.

 

[BarryZola]

I was surprised she didn't go further with various taxes to be honest. Probably left theirselves room for further money-raising schemes in the future. I was certainly expecting some more severe measures. Hopefully it works out alright but if not, I think there's room for further measures at some point.

 

[rob666]

Can't frighten the markets Mr Zola...
A bit at a time, when they aren't looking.
Private jets was a good one though...

 

[GaryH]

Well we gave £7.2 billion last year in foreign aid (£40million odd to China) and we spend £8.2 million A DAY on housing migrants in hotels - there’s a huge chunk of your black hole right

 

[Dave]

To go back to the budget, I’ve seen a lot of criticism of Reeves raising taxes on employers. My question is; if Reeves wasn’t supposed to raise employers’ NI contributions, where else was the money supposed to come from given that she said she wouldn’t raise income tax, VAT or employee NI?

There’s a financial black hole that needs filling, and given the state the public services are now in, I don’t think the previous tactic of spending cuts is a particularly good option. The tactic has been spending cuts for the past 14 years, and while they may have been able to cope with this in 2010, the public services now are in too poor of a state with too little left to cut for this to be a particularly good option, in my view.

Unfortunately, the hard truth is that the country needed either tax rises or spending cuts to keep financially stable. And given that spending cuts has been the status quo of the last 14 years and has led us to where we are now, my view is that tax rises was the lesser of two evils in this case.

The people criticising are people who have a lot of money and want more money.

This countries news media is mostly to the right, they ideally would like no state intervention bar army and police (to control the plebs), if you are poor then no healthcare or education is their ideal.

Honestly for such a huge tax increase I think they have got the balance about right, some are saying it may suppress wages but wages have always been based on supply and demand so it’s more likely to suppress profits which I’m fine with.

 

[Dave]

Well we gave £7.2 billion last year in foreign aid (£40million odd to China) and we spend £8.2 million A DAY on housing migrants in hotels - there’s a huge chunk of your black hole right

Foreign aid prevents migration so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

And as for housing migrants, the Tory government stopped processing applications, the current government have already started ramping up application processing to clear the backlog. Once someone is processed they are either removed or allowed to work and fund their own accommodation so again, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

we spend £8.2 million A DAY on housing migrants in hotels

We don't house migrants, we house asylum seekers. We house people who have made incredibly perilous and dangerous journeys, who are fleeing persecution or horrible environments, and want to have a better life.

Migration is the movement of people from one place to another, especially for those seeking better work or living conditions. Someone who moves from Blackpool to London is a migrant. Someone who moves from Worthing to Brighton is a migrant.

The word I believe you're looking for is immigrant. Someone who moves from one country, to another, to live there permanently.

Immigrants are people who have the privilege to seek safe and well trodden routes of movement. They have passports, they are lucky enough to be born in nations which have visa agreements with the UK, they are privileged enough to have the finances and ties required to seek residency.

Immigrants and migrants pay their own way. Asylum seekers need help and kindness.

So are you cross at councils having to house people who have moved from one area of the country, to another, and have now fallen on bad times? Or are you cross at the government having to house people who have moved from one country, to another, and have now fallen on bad times? If it's the latter, I would genuinely like to know what you feel the difference is between someone's birth nationality and their birth locality, and why it excludes them from needing help and assistance?

 

[QTXAdsy]

The last 30 years weren't in the centre either, as Thatcher lurched us hard right, that has been pretty much it for politics since, those political divisions have remained.

Incidentally and slightly off topic but I have realised that Thatcher would never have gotten into power if it weren't for the Scotland football team over a missed penalty kick from the World Cup in 1978 which may sound laughable but honestly the butterfly effect is plausible for what might have happened.

The game in question is Scotland vs Peru in that year's World Cup in Argentina in which Don Masson’s missed penalty in that game can be seen as one of the turning points in recent British political history. In an alternate universe, Masson scores, Scotland win the match, results from the other two matches remain the same seeing them qualify for the second round for the first time and go out of the competition honourably in the second stage. The feelgood factor carries over to the 1979 devolution referendum, which is won far greater than our own timeline; the SNP, concentrating on a newly devolved Scotland, does not vote down the Callaghan government in that year’s confidence vote at Westminster; it survives and Margaret Thatcher misses her chance to become prime minister. One hopes that Masson can sleep soundly in his bed over thus as it is crazy to think that we may never had gotten Thatcher and pretty much all of British political history as we know if it weren't for some damn missed penalty and an example how football and politics are close bed fellows.