The Political Thread

[IndigoPrime]

I fear PR is further away than ever

Which is ironic for Labour, because FPTP is likely if polling stays consistent to return anything up to 50 SNP MPs for a vote share of around 4.5%. But with STV in Scotland, Labour would have fared far better. Of course, at the time, they were largely anti-PR, because they thought it would hit their MP share. OOPS. (The Tories, on the other hand, are probably better off with FPTP, because otherwise they would definitely lose a ton of seats to UKIP.)

the LibDem experience of coalition has been a disaster for them, even if arguably it has benefited the country by keeping the Tories worst instincts in check.

It's their own fault. They capitulated at every turn, including even the agreement regarding the Cabinet. They held the cards. They could have forced Tory hands several times but didn't. You wouldn't do this often (tail wagging the dog), but extremely strategically; in this parliament, they should have got one major Cabinet job (Business Secretary isn't really it, and Deputy Prime Minister is an entirely pointless position without any actual power), and also blocked the Health Bill. That said, with the number of Orange Bookers in the Lib Dem ranks these days, quite a few wanted that bill to go through, including Clegg.

What worries me more is that British people consider coalition to be a disaster, rather than this coalition to have not fared well. Plenty of other countries have grown-up politics that include a measure of compromise. But we lurch from Labour to Tory and back, rather than taking a more measured approach that would actually be more suitable for the UK as a whole. This is a country that demands a certain amount of free business and tight fiscal policy but at the same time has a reasonably liberal bent on certain issues, and a deep despite for a social welfare net (including the NHS). An ideal party would in fact combine a lot of policies from the three main parties, but instead we get a small number of those things, and rampant rejection of opposition ideas, even if they are in the UK's best interests.

It'll be interesting if the predictions made on that recent YouGov article on uniform swing turn out to be in any way accurate though. That suggests Lab/Con almost neck and neck, with SNP as kingmakers. Electoral Calculus doesn't go quite so far, but still predicts a Labour minority having to choose between a much-reduced Liberal Democrat contingent to get the required majority, or a bigger number of SNP MPs, who will want all kinds of deals that are actually good for Scotland, rather than the crap they're currently being offered. Interesting times.

We've almost certainly got the EU exit one to look forward to (I'm voting to stay in) and I'm hoping to see something about English devolution or House of Lords reform appear before too many years have passed.

Lords reform is one of the very few things Labour's suggested of late that I really liked. Creating a British 'senate', with people pulled from regions makes much more sense than the extremely London-centric Lords as it stands. But the Lords shouldn't stand alone. Labour should put its money where its mouth is and pledge to reform the entire political system in the UK. It will be utterly preposterous if we continue to elect MPs via FPTP but end up electing a British Senate using STV or some other form of PR (which would be likely).

As for the EU, that's going to be a car-crash if we ever do get a referendum. Polling at least suggests the majority would sensibly stick with the status quo; the alternative is just too horrible to contemplate. (And you can bet Spain would gleefully boot out the million Brits living there, most of which have retired, given the chance. Of course, we could always cede Gibraltar to keep them sweet, which I'm sure UKIPers would 'love' the idea of...)

[Old Tankie]

Could you explain to me please why "Spain would gleefully boot out the million Brits living there, most of which have retired," if the UK left the European Union?

[Spikes]

Poundland is, and Enoch Powell was, very popular with the hoi polloi, so I wouldn't think Farage is bothered by that remark at all, probably lapped it up.

I was going to add something roughly along these lines to the end of my post.

But yes - rather unfortunately, Farage doesnt seem to become diminished in stature by anything thrown at him. Stuff like this, perversely, may work in his favour. Certainly his supporters may well find succour in it. Popular, he is.   

[The Legendary Shark]

To give the Spanish people the impression that their government is doing something to save money, presumably. Scapegoating, basically.

[Professor Bear]

But plus points for the 'poundland Enoch Powell' summing up of Farage.

Yup. Doesn't matter who is perceived the winner (for me they were as dull as each other) but this line is what people will remember.

I don't think anyone "wins" at Question Time, it's more just a platform for confirmation bias and those tuning in to watch their preferred candidate will always come away thinking they pasted the opposition.  Brand and Farage is a good example of this, as a lot of conservative media coverage claims Brand to have failed because he came off sexist, as if this was something the public weren't already aware of for years (if not arguably Brand's major claim to fame), or more saliently something that Brand himself apologised for at the time*.  The liberal media are over Farage for his dismissive tone, but again, this is not something we didn't already know about Farage.

Objectively, I don't think anyone came out ahead in QT.  Farage is always being mocked and called out on his racism, and Brand is always being mocked and called out on being a celebrity mouthpiece, this was just more of the same.




*Although one could just as easily point to panelists who were quick to tell Brand "women don't like being talked over" - even though he was talking over the male panelists just as much, and using gender-specific shorthand for men more often than he used gender-specific shorthand for women - and suggest that even before the debate was over, the conservative element was already preparing its - rather cheap - rebuttal narrative.

[IndigoPrime]

Could you explain to me please why "Spain would gleefully boot out the million Brits living there, most of which have retired," if the UK left the European Union?

Think about this in reverse: if we had a million people living in the UK, mostly a drain on the state, that suddenly had no right to reside, what do you think we would do? Of course, my point was extreme, but on leaving the EU, the two million or so Brits estimated to be living in EU countries have no legal right to stay there. They will either have to rely on treaties between countries being hammered out, or get visas. On the former of those things, treaties will only be simple if there's some kind of balance, but Brits in Spain massively outnumber Spanish in the UK. At the very least, the UK would have to heavily compromise or provide the Spanish an incentive to make a deal. If not, we could suddenly find ourselves with a load extra pissed-off pensioners. And on visas, you mostly only get those for permanent residency if you're employed somewhere, rich, or young enough for the receiving country to consider you being there advantageous.

Too many people forget that EU freedom of movement is a truly staggering thing. If you want, you can move to Italy tomorrow. Or France. Or Iceland (EFTA, but bound by the same regulations). Or Poland. Or Spain. Or Sweden. You can just go. You can't do that with, say, the USA, Canada, Australia, Brazil or Russia. People take this aspect of the EU for granted. UKIP seems to think that should the UK say "fuck you guys, then" to the EU, we'll then be able to rapidly hammer out massive trade and residency deals with specific countries. But why would they give a shit? What's in it for them? In a few cases, plenty, when you look at the economics and related circumstances; but only a few.

[Old Tankie]

Well, presumably, at the same time as threatening to throw out a million plus law-abiding Brits, they will be withdrawing from the European Court of Human Rights, as their chances of being able to carry out their threat, whilst a signatory to that Court, are somewhere between zero and nil.

[Jim_Campbell]

Well, presumably, at the same time as threatening to throw out a million plus law-abiding Brits, they will be withdrawing from the European Court of Human Rights, as their chances of being able to carry out their threat, whilst a signatory to that Court, are somewhere between zero and nil.

This fairly in-depth examination of the issue comes to the conclusion that the EU nations would be entitled to treat UK citizens in their country exactly the same way that the UK chooses to treat foreign nationals on its own soil.

Jim

[Old Tankie]

Interesting article, Jim.  Why would the UK throw out citizens of the European Union, if we were to leave the Union.  There are many immigrants here who don't come from a European Union country, we don't throw those out as a matter of course.  I don't expect the UK to throw out EU nationals, anymore than I expect the UK to throw out Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc., etc.  It defies logic that we would throw out all EU immigrants and neither would the EU countries throw us out.

Why would Spain, with 23% unemployment, youth unemployment at over 50%, and hundreds of thousands of empty properties, throw out a million Brits, who are spending money in their shops, factories, bars, taxis and creating a lot of employment.  It wouldn't make any sense.

[The Legendary Shark]

Since when did politics make sense?

[IndigoPrime]

we don't throw those out as a matter of course

The UK throws out people from non-EU countries all the time, some of which are gainfully employed, and some of which even have marriages and families to take into account. (The British position now is that keeping a family together alone isn't enough, as this news story of baffling idiocy on behalf of the UK government shows. If you're earning much under the national average wage—even though said average is hugely inflated by London—you're out. It's that simple.)

My point remains: why would EU countries continue treating British citizens in the same manner as they do today if those citizens were no longer members of the EU? And especially if right-wingers/anti-immigration people get their way and effectively block entry from all but a select few countries? At the very least, this a huge risk. And even if that weren't to happen, a British person's right to movement will nonetheless be sent back decades.

Fancy living in France for a bit? Tough shit. Like the look of Spain? Too bad. Fallen in love with a Danish person and want to live together? Get ready for the kind of paperwork that would make your eyes pop, and anything up to 18 months of administrative and bureaucratic hell.

[Old Tankie]

We don't throw out people who are obeying the immigration laws.  Sure, we throw out people who aren't, as other countries throw Brits out if they aren't obeying the laws of those countries.  I'm talking about law-abiding citizens.

And, I'll go back to my point about the European Court of Human Rights.  Do you really believe the European Court of Human Rights would allow Spain to throw out a million law-abiding Brits?

[The Legendary Shark]

Easy - Spain simply passes legislation and thus your "law abiding citizens" - if they wish to remain "law abiding" - obey the new "law" and accept deportation without question.

[Old Tankie]

The EU can pass what ever laws it likes, Sharkey, but if the European Court of Human Rights don't agree with it, it ain't happening!!

[The Legendary Shark]

The ECHU says that people are entitled to a home and uninterrupted enjoyment of their property (amongst other things).
.
Here I sit as living proof that governments - and even local councils - don't give a shit about the ECHR.