UK Politics Thread

[Montmorency]

When Scots can't live with Angloids and Russians can't live with Ukrainians, in this 21st century, it might do to revisit the general study of disintegrative social forces. Who were the old politologues and sociologists who observed that the presence of social order over chaos is an affirmative mystery?

Why should we believe that "English" or "Irish" wish to share a country with "themselves?" Polities are always provisional.

The Tories, or more correctly known as the Conservative and Unionist Party, have tended to be against jettisoning the peripheral scraps - with Sir Tony being the person who has really managed to turbocharge the whole thing with all three quickly developing parties that are extremely Nationalist and parochial. Whether that was his intention or not is somewhat moot now.

Surely what is odd is that we have a system where there are now separate parliaments in Northern Ireland (when the children stop squabbling), Wales and Scotland with the English sort of told that since Westminster is self evidently the best then this one is enough. The direction is clear - Scotland is solely here for the money, Wales is so stunted it isn't a viable entity and Northern Ireland is as always a mess with the South happier to claim to want it than actually have to deal with the mess.

If there is a new way for the four Nations to have some structure then I'm happy to hear about it. But surely the starting point is that all four want to be a part of it. As things stand, we seem to get along better with Canada, Australia and New Zealand - and that might well be due to distance and little interference. There is talk of CANZUK and perhaps such a looser grouping would be more suitable. Perhaps not since Scotland wants to get in with the EU and those sweet subsidies as soon as it gained independence and Northern Ireland would one way or another also do the same.

At least in the USA, even though there seem to be deep divisions and many of each camp think that the other are traitors / criminals / bastards etc - they all intrinsically think of themselves as American first and then loyalty to their state second. Here that just doesn't seem to hold true anymore.

As to whether this divestment would cement Tory rule, one thought would be for Labour to develop a set of plans that people actually agree with, as opposed to clinging to ideals that have never really managed to scrape over the line in about 50 years, with Sir Tony forcing the party to power by shredding most of the baggage.

Reminds me of the observation that the center right respects protest and organizing on their side so much more than the center left respects the same on theirs. It's hard for me to perceive in what way Starmer's Labour resembles 1970s Labour more than 1990s Labour.

I don't understand the concept of setting very low standards of governance for your country and complaining when it lives up to them.

What is the key to non-partisan enthusiasm? Voter disappointment with the alternative, or positive enchantment with a policy platform? Political demography and geography, or records of good government?

For half a year now Labour has led the Tories in the polls for almost-certainly the exact same reasons the Republicans have led on the generic ballot for the same amount of time, and why Biden's approval rating came up parallel with Trump's, that being the sting of global inflation that no national leaders can control (short of unpopular or theoretical state interventions).

The difference between the left and the right sometimes seems to be that the former will choose flight or freeze over fight.

So maybe inflation will be durable and Labour's proposal to tax oil and gas profits will push them over the 40% line they need to capture a majority, or maybe it won't and Conservatives can offer some new distraction to keep the 35% they absolutely need.

Being [both] representative [and] accountable results in legitimacy.

I have bad news for you...