Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[hoss]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

But our political system is part of the problem.
How many times has education and training policy changed over the last 20 years, short term policies designed to retain power at the next election. Labour and Tory
adversaries concerned with political point scoring and sound-bites rather than long term investment and planning.

Compare this with the more boring stable German system coalition government with consensus, long-term planning and investment.

They also have a much more constructive approach to industrial relations and profit sharing without such a divide between boardroom and the shopfloor (in attitude and wages)

Sorry, as a German I have to refuse these compliments. Our education policy is ruled by the federal states which means it can already cause problems if you move across a state border.
The policy of our government is as short-breathed as yours. The coalition partners continue to fight each other from within the coalition instead of solving the big problems.
As concerns the profit sharing, it was of all things a leftist government which reduced company taxes and pulled the bottom out of the labour market by introducing a low payment, temporary work sector. The members of the board of directors of Volkswagen get a bonus payment for creating the biggest loss in that company´s history. On the other hand Volkswagen was allowed to create a subsidiary company tasked with the recruitment and distribution amongst other VW subsidiaries of cheap temporary labourers.
In fact, a significant part of Germany`s relative prosperity within the last years was based on this kind of underpayment.
In my opinion this is the core of the problem: in almost all industrial states there is an increasing asymmetry of distribution of incomes amd wealth. In other words, the exploitation rate is rising. If that is not stopped, instability will increase.

[scoundrel]

I saw the silly-season photograph of our new Foreign Secretary, Mr Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, and I did wonder whether Mrs May is playing with a full deck of cards. But on reflection, she might be being rather clever, in a narrowly Machievellian sense. She herself was a Remainer, as is well established. She appears to be placing the Leave faction of her cabinet in the positions where they will have do most of the work. They can hardly complain. If Boris Johnson should happen to do well in the post (and no one thought he would do well as London Mayor, but on the whole he did) Mrs May will look terrific. If Boris Johnson spirals downwards in flames, reverting to the racist, zenophobic arrogant imbecile we fondly remember from back in the day, he will draw the fire and Mrs May will still look terrific as she denounces and sacks him, and points out he was only there to indicate her willingness to respect the verdict of the referendum.

I think I am starting to gain some feel for where this could be going. David Davies and a few others are floating the end of December 2016 as a point by which Britain should have officially declared herself under Section 50. That would suggest a leave date on or before December 2018, which is well inside the life of the present parliament. Meanwhile, by devious channels, the news has been aired that Britain and Canada are talking, and Canadian civil servants have been briefing British officials and politicians on the intricacies of their arrangements. They do not get passporting for financial services and they have not conceded freedom of entry for EU citizens. As the Canadians themslves have spelled out, its a trade deal. It's a rather good trade deal, but that's all it is.

David Davies has made some vague comments about how full membership of the single market is his objective, any deal will need to be sold to the people who voted Leave and it seems already quite clear what the terms are if Britain really must be a full member of the single market. They are the same terms which were unacceptable as the price of being a full EU partner, and we would be getting much less than what we were getting as a full EU member for much the same dime. I am sure that most of the MPs of all the major parties will want to agree to such terms, but they are still politicians and will have to contemplate a general election based on the outcome of the negotiations. It will be hard to campaign (except in Scotland) on the squeal-like-a-pig-boy ticket.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I saw the silly-season photograph of our new Foreign Secretary, Mr Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, and I did wonder whether Mrs May is playing with a full deck of cards. But on reflection, she might be being rather clever, in a narrowly Machievellian sense.

As LBJ said of J Edgar Hoover

“It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.

[seany65]

Was BoJo ever really in favour of 'Brexit'?

According to Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...=boris-johnson

He apparently wants 'Ever closer union' between Britain and France, the very opposite of what he was against, barely 5 minutes ago!

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by seany65

Was BoJo ever really in favour of 'Brexit'?

According to Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...=boris-johnson

He apparently wants 'Ever closer union' between Britain and France, the very opposite of what he was against, barely 5 minutes ago!

Ever closer union can mean different things to different people. At least he was making friendly noises and being good humoured about it when some members of his audience booed him. He (and Britain generally) is going to need a thick skin for quite a while, because it is going to take a while before people start feeling better towards us again.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Ever closer union can mean different things to different people. At least he was making friendly noises and being good humoured about it when some members of his audience booed him. He (and Britain generally) is going to need a thick skin for quite a while, because it is going to take a while before people start feeling better towards us again.

Ah, the world turns, and there are worse things afoot -- far worse-- than some Brits annoyed by some Belgians, and vice versa.

Like people who want to kill you and destroy your way of life, all of Europe's liberal values.

On display in Nice, as they celebrated their -- most secular -- Revolution, a medieval obscurantism that should remind all Europeans that what divides you is nothing compared to what unites you. Similarly on display in Brussels this, year, people who genuinely hate Europe and all it stands for . . . And Brits concerned about sovereignty weren't among them.

Brits and Danes, Swedes and Czechs, all share core values, painful experience with totalitarianisms both secular and religious, and liberal democratic traditions that are the product of centuries of evolution.

So while everyone seems to have gotten excited, and for the moment there's a lot of ill will, take a moment to reflect on who your friends are -- and who they aren't. UK in, UK out, doesn't change the basic alignment of the world, there are the liberal democracies then there's everyone else.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Ah, the world turns, and there are worse things afoot -- far worse-- than some Brits annoyed by some Belgians, and vice versa.

Like people who want to kill you and destroy your way of life, all of Europe's liberal values.

On display in Nice, as they celebrated their -- most secular -- Revolution, a medieval obscurantism that should remind all Europeans that what divides you is nothing compared to what unites you. Similarly on display in Brussels this, year, people who genuinely hate Europe and all it stands for . . . And Brits concerned about sovereignty weren't among them.

Brits and Danes, Swedes and Czechs, all share core values, painful experience with totalitarianisms both secular and religious, and liberal democratic traditions that are the product of centuries of evolution.

So while everyone seems to have gotten excited, and for the moment there's a lot of ill will, take a moment to reflect on who your friends are -- and who they aren't. UK in, UK out, doesn't change the basic alignment of the world, there are the liberal democracies then there's everyone else.

Russia is not a liberal democracy; but there is no way she would side with the perpetrator of the Nice atrocity and his claim to be affiliated to Islamist extremism. China is not run by namby pamby new age liberal democrats; but I'd bet money that she would make short work of any Chinese citizens who expressed pleasure in or support for anything such as Nice. After all, human organs for transplants are very saleable and an ISIL liver is still a liver.

My enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend, but might still be damn useful as an ally of convenience. The sooner the ISILs are crushed to powder [preferably on the El deguelllo basis], the sooner pondlife such as the Nice murderer will need to look elsewhere to attach their spurious allegiance.

[hoss]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

My enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend, but might still be damn useful as an ally of convenience.

It is exactly this kind of thinking which brought about a large number of problems we are fighting today.
Bin Laden and the muslim extremists were allies of convenience as long as they fought the Russians in Afghanistan. We called them freedom fighters back in the eighties. The Shah of Persia was an ally regardless of the brutal suppression of his people. When his regime was toppled, the new regime was understandably opposed to the former Shah allies. Instead of searching for a way of understanding we took Saddam Hussein as an ally of convenience and made him start a bloody war against Iran. When Saddam became megalomaniac we fought against him and destroyed Iraq without having a real plan what to do afterwards. As is known now, ISIS is the invention of former high ranking members of Saddam´s secret service.

What endangers us now is the result of our own hubris and short-sightedness in the interaction with nations perceived as being inferior.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Russia is not a liberal democracy; but there is no way she would side with the perpetrator of the Nice atrocity and his claim to be affiliated to Islamist extremism. China is not run by namby pamby new age liberal democrats; but I'd bet money that she would make short work of any Chinese citizens who expressed pleasure in or support for anything such as Nice. After all, human organs for transplants are very saleable and an ISIL liver is still a liver.

Yes, both Russia and China fight Islamic terror, brutally and quite effectively. They're allies of convenience, but you'd never say you share values with them

Originally Posted by scoundrel

My enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend, but might still be damn useful as an ally of convenience. The sooner the ISILs are crushed to powder the El deguelllo basis[/URL]], the sooner pondlife such as the Nice murderer will need to look elsewhere to attach their spurious allegiance.

IS, or rather the idea that IS implements -- can't be crushed to powder. If you think of Japan, and their kamikazes, what made them stop?

Well, they had a living god who told them "don't".

Islam has no such authority, and so many more people.

To me, the great battle is Islam in Europe. Europe doesn't have the brutal tools that Russia and China have; and that makes the defense harder. Of European powers, the UK appears to be the most aggressive and competent, with a much deeper knowledge base than say, the Dutch or the Swedes.

Whether in the EU or out, Britain has a key role to play in the defense of the continent.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

IS, or rather the idea that IS implements -- can't be crushed to powder.

The idea cannot be crushed but the actual people participating in this present attempt to create a Caliphate can and should be turned into an example for future generations to remember with a shudder of dread. I think the right to decide whether this happens belongs to the Iraqis, Kurds and Yazidis whom they have so miserably oppressed; they rather than we in the western nations are the true victims of this awful crime. Horrid though they are, the terrorist outrages the ISILs have committed or inspired in Europe and America are as nothing compared with the magnitude of the crimes they have committed in Syria and Iraq. But we for our part need to leave no stone unturned in hunting for the people who poured poison into the ears of our own Muslim communities and promoted this "Jihad". Any of these we find need to be locked up for the rest of forever.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

To me, the great battle is Islam in Europe. Europe doesn't have the brutal tools that Russia and China have; and that makes the defense harder. Of European powers, the UK appears to be the most aggressive and competent, with a much deeper knowledge base than say, the Dutch or the Swedes.

Whether in the EU or out, Britain has a key role to play in the defense of the continent.

Security cooperation will continue regardless of Britain's EU status. It is too important to be allowed to be affected by the petty back-biting which will occur in some other arenas.