UK General Election

[funk de fino]

I don't have any fears of absolutist rule in the UK. There are too many checks and balances, and there are enough factions within each of the major parties that would resist any such tendencies.

Just as 18 years of Tory rule '79 was not good for the health of our democracy, neither was the 13 years of Labour rule which followed. I think of these things as a big pendulum. If it swings too far in one direction, then the swing back in the other direction tends to be too big too. In an ideal world, I would like to see power changing hands every second election. Two terms Tory, 2 terms Labour, or Labour's replacement........with an occasional coalition thrown in to the mix (as I've said here a number of times, I was quite a fan of the Con-Lib coalition).

I'm curious as someone who is not a Labour fan at all but someone who despises the Tories and all they stand for.

If you take out the Iraq war what exactly was bad about Labour rule in that time period that was not good for the health of a democracy?

 

[3point14]

I'm curious as someone who is not a Labour fan at all but someone who despises the Tories and all they stand for.

If you take out the Iraq war what exactly was bad about Labour rule in that time period that was not good for the health of a democracy?

Mike doesn't like anyone in power for more than two terms, I think he said.

I get his point, but this presents issues with major, long term projects for transport, power and infrastructure, which have lead times in the decades. no-one newly elected wants to polish off the last guy's work so long term projects can become more difficult with a constantly shifting government.

 

[Ian Osborne]

If you take out the Iraq war what exactly was bad about Labour rule in that time period that was not good for the health of a democracy?

Privatising the post office, Private Finance Initiatives, tuition fees and failure to do anything about the disastrous privatisation of the railways or the burgeoning housing crisis.

Bliar's government wasn't all failure, but there are significant black marks against his name, and not all of them are Iraq-shaped.

 

[MikeG]

I'm curious as someone who is not a Labour fan at all but someone who despises the Tories and all they stand for.

If you take out the Iraq war what exactly was bad about Labour rule in that time period that was not good for the health of a democracy?

This isn't about the things that governments do that one disagrees with. This is about the time they are in power, the seeds of their own destruction that are laid in that time, and the swing of the proverbial pendulum. If New Labour had won only two terms, would they be held in the opprobrium in which they find themselves these days? The longer you are in power, the more people you piss off, and the longer you are likely to be out of power. I don't think these excesses, in either direction, are healthy.

 

[MikeG]

Mike doesn't like anyone in power for more than two terms, I think he said.

I get his point, but this presents issues with major, long term projects for transport, power and infrastructure, which have lead times in the decades. no-one newly elected wants to polish off the last guy's work so long term projects can become more difficult with a constantly shifting government.

I think this only a minor point. Once legislation and contracts are signed & sealed, then it doesn't matter if the government who initiated the contract loses power, because their successor is bound. Where it can probably have an effect is in the last couple of years of a term, where a government (and major contractors) might be reluctant to enter into negotiations without the certainty of being able to get everything buttoned up contractually before an election.

 

[3point14]

I think this only a minor point. Once legislation and contracts are signed & sealed, then it doesn't matter if the government who initiated the contract loses power, because their successor is bound. Where it can probably have an effect is in the last couple of years of a term, where a government (and major contractors) might be reluctant to enter into negotiations without the certainty of being able to get everything buttoned up contractually before an election.

I think it probably most often effects military projects, which are most subject to change and the whims of whichever government is in power.

Less so with infrastructure these days as we seem to have given up doing it.

Oh but rail projects...

 

[The Don]

I think it probably most often effects military projects, which are most subject to change and the whims of whichever government is in power.

Less so with infrastructure these days as we seem to have given up doing it.

Oh but rail projects...

....and government IT projects especially if they relate to benefits or entitlements....

 

[MikeG]

I hope The Don noted these two commitments in the Conservative manifesto:

Remain signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights for the next parliament

Repeal or replace(ment) the Human Rights Act "while the process of Brexit is under way" ruled out, although consideration will be given to the UK's "human rights legal framework" when Brexit concludes​

 

[MikeG]

I hope the Scots Nats here have noted this, from the same source:

A referendum on Scottish independence cannot take place until the Brexit process has played out and it should not take place unless there is public consent for it to happen​

How might they test such public consent? Which public? Interesting.

 

[3point14]

I hope The Don noted these two commitments in the Conservative manifesto:

Remain signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights for the next parliament

Repeal or replace(ment) the Human Rights Act "while the process of Brexit is under way" ruled out, although consideration will be given to the UK's "human rights legal framework" when Brexit concludes​

I noticed that and was pleasantly surprised. I don't like the stated duration, but I did think "Bugger, MikeG was right" When I read it

 

[MikeG]

The duration is all that can be committed to, of course, as manifestos are only ever for one parliament.

 

[The Don]

I hope The Don noted these two commitments in the Conservative manifesto:

Remain signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights for the next parliament

Repeal or replace(ment) the Human Rights Act "while the process of Brexit is under way" ruled out, although consideration will be given to the UK's "human rights legal framework" when Brexit concludes​

I did not, thank you for bringing them to my attention. Assuming that:

a) The Conservatives will form the next government AND
b) They will largely keep their manifesto pledges

then that assuages one of my major (but by no means greatest) concerns for the next 5 years at least.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I did not, thank you for bringing them to my attention. Assuming that:

a) The Conservatives will form the next government AND
b) They will largely keep their manifesto pledges

then that assuages one of my major (but by no means greatest) concerns for the next 5 years at least.

Utterly meaningless. First of all they are proven liars and secondly they were unlikely to be able to do it in the next five years anyway while preoccupied with Brexit.

The fact they have to promise not to repeal it at all and that they can only commit to one term says it all about them.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Let's see how this ITV debate goes then. Absent Tories and Labour.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Think TM has played a smart card being out of this. Comes across as a bunch of political lightweights talking crap. Nuttall probably will benefit the most.

 

[The Don]

One tiny snippet from Plaid...

Ms Wood warned of manufacturing job losses after Brexit and said Wales had been "pretty much ignored" since the EU referendum.

"Gibraltar has had more attention than Wales has had," she said.

Whilst that's true, if another EU country started to say that it wanted joint, or even sole, sovereignty over Wales then I think Wales would start to get a lot more attention - in a hurry

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39968929

 

[The Don]

Utterly meaningless. First of all they are proven liars and secondly they were unlikely to be able to do it in the next five years anyway while preoccupied with Brexit.

That's as maybe, but I think that's covered in my post.

The fact they have to promise not to repeal it at all and that they can only commit to one term says it all about them.

They can only commit to one term because that's all they're going to be in government for following the election

Making promises after that term is presumptuous IMO.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's as maybe, but I think that's covered in my post.



They can only commit to one term because that's all they're going to be in government for following the election

Making promises after that term is presumptuous IMO.

Are any other parties having to promise it? Which other promises are caveated with 'not yet anyway but we will look into it'?

 

[The Don]

Are any other parties having to promise it?

If they haven't, how do we know that they won't ?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If they haven't, how do we know that they won't ?

The Tory Party haven't definitely promised not to round up all the poor and have them shot. That'll probably be in the 2022 manifesto. "We definitely won't put in place extermination of the poor for the next few years, though we will look at ways in which we can eliminate a few of them for now"