The Political Thread

[Jim_Campbell]

The Mail's owner, Viscount Rothermere, is a tax dodger whose money goes out of the country to accrue interest in other territories rather than re-entering the UK economy, so those who buy the Daily Mail are helping him to literally destroy Britain.

Rothermere's main company, DMGT, also owns Northcliffe Newspapers. I have never been treated as badly by an employer as I was when I worked for Northcliffe, and I saw numerous employees treated far worse than I was. I was flat-out lied to by a manager at director level about employment rights; saw employees sacked in breach of employment law...

Their entire corporate ethos is predicated on hiring staff young,* breaking jobs down into the simplest possible tasks to minimise training expenses, belittling and abusing the staff to ensure that they never feel valued, grinding the maximum amount of work out of them for the smallest amount of pay until they break and quit.

They are, in short, scum.

Cheers

Jim

*I wasn't young, and I didn't want to work for them. They took over a publication I worked for and made it very clear from the outset that they didn't approve of my hands-on management style, ongoing training programmes, or belief that instilling in my staff a sense of self-worth and pride in a job well done was beneficial to the company.

[The Legendary Shark]

People are agreeing with me.
.
That doesn't feel right, stop it at once! :-)

[Professor Bear]

If you want them to disagree with you again, tell them to go out and murder MPs, as they don't seem very responsive to the idea (not this side of the election, anyway).

I am shocked by Jim's revelations that the people who produce the Daily Mail are provably scum.  SHOCKED.  I expected better of the people who deliberately attract pedophiles to their website to drive up their advertising rates.

[Theblazeuk]

Favourite daily mail pun?

Mine has always been the Daily Fail due to their gross (wilful) incompetency. But my friend leans towards the Daily Heil.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

I keep reading stories about whom the various parties are willing to make deals. Doesn't give me a great deal of faith in democracy. It's like it doesn't matter who we vote for, the government we will get shall be hashed out in backroom deals. The notion of a minority party being kingmakers is bunk. The libdems proved that.

[The Legendary Shark]

Yep, you're absolutely right, KP. None of them seem to think that making a deal with the electorate is the way to go.
.
But then, it was ever thus. The only deal they ever make with the people is that they won't steal our wealth or throw us in jail if we do as we're told.
.
Fuck 'em, I say. Fuck 'em with a bent spanner and govern yourself.

[IndigoPrime]

I keep reading stories about whom the various parties are willing to make deals. Doesn't give me a great deal of faith in democracy. [...]  The notion of a minority party being kingmakers is bunk. The libdems proved that.

Well, we have one of two options: we can hope the small parties vanish into the ether and lurch between Con and Lab every election or two, despite Con and Lab both shifting right; or we can recognise the fact politics has finally shifted in the UK towards the kinds of systems enjoyed elsewhere. Germany's a country of coalition, and seems to do fine. Scandinavian/Nordic countries also.

But judging by recent events, it looks like Labour's position is to rather dangerously call the SNP's bluff while simultaneously hoping the Lib-Dems will back it and that the numbers won't be there for Con/LD/DUP.

It's like it doesn't matter who we vote for, the government we will get shall be hashed out in backroom deals.

In terms of voting this time round, the bigger problem is that it's a lottery. FPTP is too unpredictable in the current climate, meaning whatever happens, we're going to end up with huge discrepancies between vote share and MP numbers—even more so than last time round, where if seats had been allocated on a broadly proportional manner, British politics would be very different.

We're almost certainly going to see two parties—the Greens and the SNP—have roughly the same national vote share, but the former will be fortunate to retain a single MP while the latter will likely have between 30 and 59. UKIP will probably get between zero and a half-dozen seats, despite securing 15% of the vote. The Lib-Dems may cling on to about half of their seats, having 30 with about 8%. Con and Lab will approach half the seats in the Commons with a third of the vote. It's a mess and it needs fixing, along with replacing the Lords.

[Jim_Campbell]

But judging by recent events, it looks like Labour's position is to rather dangerously call the SNP's bluff while simultaneously hoping the Lib-Dems will back it and that the numbers won't be there for Con/LD/DUP.

I've been saying for some time that Ed Miliband, whilst I am certain that he is an intelligent man and a decent human being, is a terrible politician.

I agree entirely with the sentiments of our own Mr Clements over on Twitter: a Labour leader who would rather see the Tories in power than work with a left-of-centre party should be run out of office.

Cheers

Jim

[The Legendary Shark]

I think that, in principle, the House of Lords is a good idea. When it works as intended, as a collection of apolitical experts and "wise heads," it should stop any purely political bad legislation making it onto the statute books. However, it rarely seems to work that way and should ideally be abolished with the rest of our antiquated and self-serving government.

[Professor Bear]

I suggest we storm Westminister and kill everyone.  Failing that, a proportional voting system is long overdue.

[IndigoPrime]

I agree entirely with the sentiments of our own Mr Clements over on Twitter: a Labour leader who would rather see the Tories in power than work with a left-of-centre party should be run out of office.

I suspect, despite his claims to the contrary, that he's petrified of the press and (likely wrongly) thinks he'd lose a ton of seats if he suggested a Lab/SNP government, coalition or even confidence & supply arrangement. It's stupid, really, because plenty of Labour voters would be happy with a party that might nudge Labour leftwards again. And even Trident wouldn't be under threat, given that Lab and Con whips would ensure it got through the house.

It really does look like he's playing a dangerous game, in betting on the SNP 'supporting' Labour regardless, because otherwise they would also be complicit in enabling the Tories to rule again. It's a bad move, and after he'd been improving somewhat of late in many people's eyes.

I think that, in principle, the House of Lords is a good idea. When it works as intended, as a collection of apolitical experts and "wise heads," it should stop any purely political bad legislation making it onto the statute books. However, it rarely seems to work that way and should ideally be abolished with the rest of our antiquated and self-serving government.

If we're going to have a government, we need a second house as a sanity check, and the theory of unelected experts is fine; but the reality is too many of them have fingers in business pies, are out of touch and/or corrupt, and aren't accountable to anyone. The Lords is also rammed full of London-centric members, and there are currently a mammoth 783(!) seats, which is crazy.

The Greens, Labour and SNP have suggested the idea of a regional senate, and that seems more sensible. There's a danger of US-style gridlock, but we get that anyway now and again; at least rethinking the second chamber as a properly regional assembly would reduce the emphasis on London-focussed policy. (And STV for the Commons, too, please.)

[Professor Bear]

I assumed Ed doesn't want anyone who would be more popular than he was in a position where they could supplant him much as he did his brother - "most of all a thief fears he will be robbed" and all that, but then there's the fact he wouldn't be running the country if he teamed with Sturgeon.  Clegg, as we now know, is spineless and capitulates easily when confronted with a bully like Cameron, but Sturgeon is both Scotch and a woman, so Ed would never get a single concession for all his corporate commitments.

[IndigoPrime]

I assume you're just poking at the hive, because it's pretty clear the SNP's 'power' is being massively overplayed anyway. Yes, they would have influence in a Lab/SNP deal, but not to the degree the shrieking 'papers are making out. (And, frankly, why shouldn't 50+ democratically elected MPs supporting the government have influence of some kind?) It's hardly likely that the SNP would red-line to the point of bringing down the government and ushering in the Tories again—it would absolutely destroy their credibility and any hope they'd have of getting anywhere near the same vote levels again in subsequent elections.

This is of course what Miliband is relying on, but it seems spiteful and just plain dishonest to attempt to pretend the SNP doesn't exist and assume it will or should nod through Labour policy. Funny how 'better together' has turned into 'better together... but only if you elect the 'right' MPs'...

[The Legendary Shark]

Can't we just wing a few, Bear? Failing that, just turn the system upside down - top of the pile becomes your local or parish council, which tells your local county or district council what to do, which in turn tells Westminster what to do. This arrangement brings the power back where it properly belongs - to you.

[Professor Bear]

Wounding them would be unnecessarily cruel - this is extermination, not a fox hunt.