Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

Started by Josquius, February 20, 2016, 07:46:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

How would you vote on Britain remaining in the EU?

British- Remain
12 (11.9%)
British - Leave
7 (6.9%)
Other European - Remain
21 (20.8%)
Other European - Leave
6 (5.9%)
ROTW - Remain
35 (34.7%)
ROTW - Leave
20 (19.8%)

Total Members Voted: 99

Josquius

Not that I would have ever been remotely in with a shot.
But it does sort of annoy me that when I was 20 the idea of a 20 year old politician was utter madness but now it happens.
██████
██████
██████

Tamas

Not great pay, cutthroat competition, and public scrutiny that grows up to epic proportions as you advance. Only fools, criminals and lunatics go into politics nowadays.

Bauer

I can't imagine giving up steady income for my family to run in politics.  The very nature of it being unreliable income prevents a huge portion of society from ever considering it.

One day the entire system needs to be reimagined.  Maybe that day is now, with democracy under a lot of strain.

Sheilbh

Quote from: Josquius on July 05, 2025, 02:00:43 PMNot that I would have ever been remotely in with a shot.
But it does sort of annoy me that when I was 20 the idea of a 20 year old politician was utter madness but now it happens.
Maybe - I think there's always been some of it (or maybe it's just a bit of growing up in Scotland which was a smaller pond). Charles Kennedy was famously first elected when I think he was 23, I think Alex Salmond was a similar age. And to an extent I think both of them in different ways maybe show the cost of choosing a life in politics like that.

I'd note some of Labour's very young MPs already saying they don't want to sit for 40 years, they want to move on from the Commons at some point - which I can't help but read as it's a useful step on the career ladder for them.

QuoteNot great pay, cutthroat competition, and public scrutiny that grows up to epic proportions as you advance. Only fools, criminals and lunatics go into politics nowadays.
Yeah - although at local levels with the death of the local press I think there's very, very little scrutiny at any level. That only really happens if you become an MP.

With some exceptions - so my local paper, Southwark News, is really good which I think is important in a one party area like mine where we've got 63 councillors, 52 Labour and 11 Lib Dems :lol: They're currently reporting (and this may astound you) an incredibly bitter factional fight over who Labour will elect as council leader - complete with the usual allegations of data breaches, procedural irregularities and appeals (by the local - right of party - MP) to the NEC.

But on this more generally Isabel Hardman has written a really good called Why We Get The Wrong Politicians.
Let's bomb Russia!

Tamas

I think one unfortunate truth is that in part corruption and other kickbacks made politics a viable prime  career path for talented and ambitious people. It is right to fight this but it does shrink the talent pool.

Sheilbh

Quote from: Tamas on July 05, 2025, 02:53:01 PMI think one unfortunate truth is that in part corruption and other kickbacks made politics a viable prime  career path for talented and ambitious people. It is right to fight this but it does shrink the talent pool.
As I say I think in Britain the corruption more often comes afterwards. It's the contacts you make that set you up working for a lobbyist somewhere (and this is why I actually think the House of Lords can be useful for politicians leaving senior politics because they still have to declare income etc - it's why Tony Blair has not become a peer). But I agree - and I'd add that you also, in the age of social media, need to be relatively thick skinned because you're going to get a lot of abuse (and a huge increase in death threats) every day. That's always been there but it was more difficult/rare - I know someone whose dad was an MP and he would sometimes get verbally abused in his constituency/my friend's home town which is not nice. But that was relatively rare compared to an MP's Twitter account.

I also think in the UK context a big shift has been the professionalisation - which was the right thing to do but, again, narrows the pool. So until the 90s the Commons general working hours were 2.30 to 10pm plus Friday morning (to allow MPs to travel to their constituencies). It's still that on Monday (to allow MPs to return from their constituencies), Tuesday and Wednesday sit 11.30 to 7pm and 9.30 to 5pm on a Thursday (when many MPs actually leave for their constituencies). But the Commons also used to sit a lot later - so over 70% of sittings before 2001 went on beyond 10pm, about 10% went on past 2am. That's now very rare. I think it's fair to say that culture also tied into the unhealthy side of political life which Kennedy and Salmond loved - particularly the drinking culture.

But part of the reason for that system was that many MPs had second jobs, particularly professionals - so the lawyers, journalists and doctors who could have a practice in the day and then arrive at the commons early evening for the rest of the day. So John Smith the Labour leader before Tony Blair became leader in part because he kept his hands clean in Labour factional fights in the 1980s. That's because he spent a lot of his time as a defence barrister on some very serious murder trials :lol:

It's right to move to a more professionalised system, with hours that are more plausible for people with a family, to try and have some form of HR department within parliament etc. But it does narrow the pool and I think probably favours more people who come up from councils and party activism than, say, well-connected professionals like John Smith. There are fewer people with a background in manual labour or trade unionism than used to be the case, but there are also fewer professionals - more and more MPs now come from backgrounds of party activism, local councils, think tanks, NGOs (I think those types of backgrounds have accounted for about 75% of newly elected Labour MPs in recent elections - and over 50% of newly elected MPs for the Tories and Lib Dems too).
Let's bomb Russia!

Tamas

People on Reddit claimed London Pride was held up for an hour after pro-Palestine protestors threw stuff (paint, I think?) on the march. Odd I didn't see anything about it on the Guardian.

Josquius

Reddit for a few years now has been a cess pit of far right misinformation and misdirection.
Seems there was some incident.
Youth Demand halt London Pride as pro-Palestinian protesters hurl paint and block parade... - LBC https://share.google/YfpIi3xIGvkQ41QuC
██████
██████
██████

Richard Hakluyt


garbon

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 06, 2025, 04:30:08 AM29 "terrorists" were arrested in London https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gd3pkr9x1o  :mad:


It would be capricious if the government deciding not to arrest those supporting a group it had declared a terrorist organization.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Josquius

It does raise a question of how detached you can go though. Which level down is OK.

1: I am a member of group x
2: I support group x
3: I think we should unban group x
4: I think we should consider unbanning group x
5: can we talk about group x being banned?
6: group x are bad. I believe in this same thing they do.
██████
██████
██████

mongers

Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2025, 06:18:55 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 06, 2025, 04:30:08 AM29 "terrorists" were arrested in London https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gd3pkr9x1o  :mad:


It would be capricious if the government deciding not to arrest those supporting a group it had declared a terrorist organization.

Yeah, it's not like this is a move straight out of the trump playbook or anything.
"We have it in our power to begin the world over again"

Admiral Yi

Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2025, 06:18:55 AMIt would be capricious if the government deciding not to arrest those supporting a group it had declared a terrorist organization.

The red lines for me are material support and incitement to violence.  Everything besides that should be an issue for manners, not the criminal code.

garbon

Quote from: mongers on July 06, 2025, 07:25:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2025, 06:18:55 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 06, 2025, 04:30:08 AM29 "terrorists" were arrested in London https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gd3pkr9x1o  :mad:


It would be capricious if the government deciding not to arrest those supporting a group it had declared a terrorist organization.

Yeah, it's not like this is a move straight out of the trump playbook or anything.

Only 26 MPs voted against the legislation.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

garbon

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2025, 07:25:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2025, 06:18:55 AMIt would be capricious if the government deciding not to arrest those supporting a group it had declared a terrorist organization.

The red lines for me are material support and incitement to violence.  Everything besides that should be an issue for manners, not the criminal code.

The UK operates differently from the US.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.