Sir_Crocodile
Member
I dunno, if Tony Blair had kicked out Brown early, he would probably still be prime minister
instead he left him in the treasury to spread like gangrene
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
I dunno, if Tony Blair had kicked out Brown early, he would probably still be prime minister
instead he left him in the treasury to spread like gangrene
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm half grateful - it was only Brown's general desire to undermine Blair (rather than legitimate economic concerns) that stopped us adopting the Euro.
PJV3
Member
Blair is slimy as they come, i think he's responsible for turning Brown into the paranoid rage monster he became. That's if the events around John Smith's death are true.
Did Blair kill him? Or do you mean the whole pact business, or what?
The commenters on Guido Fawkes are truly ghastly.
PJV3
Member
lol.
Sort of, Blair using the funeral period to lobby for the leadership, while Brown was concentrating on the funeral etc.
CyclopsRock
Member
Sounds like a bloody Mafia family. The show must go on, lads! Good on Blair.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
That's common practice in politics, isn't it? Even merited a Yes Prime Minister reference back in the day.
Oh man, I still remember Michael Howard's amazing speech after Gordon Brown's blatantly political euro statement (four pint briefing, five point plan, six year runaround + blair goes one way, brown goes the other way and bang goes the third way).
Greatest oratory I've ever seen that was made in my lifetime.
Guy was way too far to the right for my liking though, still surprises me that he ordained the far more left wing (comparatively) Cameron.
PJV3
Member
Even more when Mandy the prince of darkness was involved.
Ah, I see.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
CyclopsRock
Member
My Spanish colleague used to be utterly amazed about our expenses scandal. He was talking about how their defence minister gave his own company a contract worth 20m euros or something, and another guy that just straight up pocketed millions. He was amazed that we cared about a £500 duck house or a few thousand for a faux kitchen renovation. Whilst I agree with you, in the grand scheme of things, I don't think we have it too bad.
PJV3
Member
A lot of the expenses scandal was due to the culture of not asking for pay rises, stick it on your expenses instead. some MP's and mostly Labour it appears went completely overboard. so I'd agree that we had mostly decent politicians, who were working within a gutless culture.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
It does seem like it now.
kurtrussell
Banned
fizzelopeguss
Banned
I still think we should adopt some form of roman decimatio. Randomly batter to death every 10th politician as a way of keeping the whole lot honest.
I'm half serious.
I'm half serious.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Why go to the effort? They seem to be doing it quite successfully themselves.
EDIT: In other news, there's Scotland's proposals for independence by March 2016 if the referendum goes for a "Yes".
Interesting how the document seeks to appropriate all constitutional issues to the Scottish Parliament, and curious timing too. What, for example happens with all those Scottish Westminster MPs elected only a year earlier? What if they're part of the UK government? What the hell happens in 2015 about choosing a Prime Minister for the UK for 5 years if it is only going to be U for a year? Lot of water to go under the bridge on this one yet.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I'm in favour of the referendum, and think that it should definitely be up to the Scots to determine their own future. However, I am wary of the fact that if they do leave, the rest of the UK is more or less doomed to endless Tory governments (look at the 2010 election result map: all those red constituencies north of the border, and only one blue), and I don't really think that's a good thing.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Ah, but don't you think it should be up to the rest of the UK to determine its own future? If that's electing all Tories, then that's what it is.
Actually, it probably wouldn't work like that. Lopping off Scotland would give the Conservatives enough electoral space to fragment and ditch the extremists, and about time too. So no need for all the doom'n'gloom.
Incontinentia Buttocks
Banned
Yeah, that's a common misconception.
There's an interesting breakdown on it here: http://wingsland.podgamer.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/
QuicheFontaine
Member
Well, you're right of course. I just think we have a pretty decent balance as is: the progressives and liberals in Scotland moderate the conservatives of the Home Counties.
But as you say, maybe this will shake the parties up and provide a chance to shed fringe elements. Speaking of which, the gay marriage vote is in parliament today. Circa 120 Tory MPs are prolly going to vote against it but it should still pass fairly easily.
Edit: whoops, that was in response to Phi, Inc.
But as you say, maybe this will shake the parties up and provide a chance to shed fringe elements. Speaking of which, the gay marriage vote is in parliament today. Circa 120 Tory MPs are prolly going to vote against it but it should still pass fairly easily.
Edit: whoops, that was in response to Phi, Inc.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
That's classic salmond, all gumption with little reality behind it. It's served him well with the blue brogue 'n tartan gaelic fetishists so far.
CyclopsRock
Member
HOLY SHIT an English girl just served me in Pret.
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't think that analysis is particularly useful. Firstly, whilst his suggestion that Scottish voting would rarely impact the composition of government might be true, the idea that the strength of a majority doesn't impact the type of government, or radicalism of policy is barmy too. A significantly stronger Labour majority (thanks to Scottish MPs) may well allow Labour to take a few rebels on the chin and get passed legislation that it otherwise wouldn't have. But on top of that, using historical data like that is basically useless on such a shifting landscape. It's prudent to note that the most recent of the two changes of government that would have resulted from Scottish MPs being absent was the most recent one. When one considers the following:
It seems a bit ludicrous to use examples from Clement Attlee's government to make a point about the effect of removing Scottish MP's from Westminster from 2016.
Classic Salmond is to lead a party that has managed to drive real improvements to the lives of its electorate.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Indeed.
For example, without Scottish MPs the Heath Government would probably have fallen in 1972 in the confidence motion over entry to the EEC. And things would be a whole lot different.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
I don't know the ins and outs of the proposed marriage bill, but I remember some peeps in the SA UK thread talking about how it could cause problems for Trans* couples if it passed. Anyone know what they were talking about?
PJV3
Member
Caroline Lucas.
Former leader of the green party, and MP for Brighton I think.
Which loon mentioned polygamy?, he seems to have pissed off a lot of MP's.
CyclopsRock
Member
But why? I mean, why even that? If you're getting rid of marriage - and I have no problem with that - why would you replace it with another form of legality surrounding ones relationships? It seems bizarre to me that it's even a legal thing. Why the government care if you're married or not? I think the government should see its citizens as individuals, not as a pairing or a group based on if they shag each other or not. Edit: Or, indeed, don't shag each other. Any arbitrary distinction you want. Just view people as individuals, whether they're "married" or not.
Marriage isn't religion's to play with.
I'd agree, but all I care about is equality.
So, while I support marriage for all, I'd also support redefinition of 'marriage' in law to be 'civil partnership/union', extended to all, and the word 'marriage' to simply be a colloquialism to be used by people and churches as they see fit.
It would, at the very least, completely destroy the "marriage is a religious institution" argument, as it'd no longer be about 'marriage'.
I don't give a shit about what term is used, so long as the term is equally applicable to heterosexual and homosexual relationships. You dig?
The legal ability of two people to say "we're a family" and operate in law as a singular unit is important.
To be honest, I'd want that to be extended past 2-person unions, but I don't think society is ready for 3+ person unions.
CyclopsRock
Member
Why?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
My gf and I don't believe in Marriage, but would still like to benefit from the benefits of it. If the government introduced civil partnerships for heterosexual couples we would make use of it, but I don't think we will ever get married.
CyclopsRock
Member
Sure, but whether or not you want the benefits the government offers are different to whether or not the government should offer them in the first place.
Because people working together as one is inherently a stronger position. You can afford better housing, you take up less resources, you can create a better environment to raise the next generation etc. etc.
It's in society's interest to promote family units, whatever form they take.
Clay Davis
Member
this made me laugh.
taking all bets. he did reply piss, slag or fuck off? or maybe he went with an outsider? cunt off? shit off? dick off?
this though,
what a cunt. :/
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I think making a commitment is important, but I don't believe in Marriage as a religious institution.
CyclopsRock
Member
But all those are in the individuals' involved's best interests, too. Do you think a) that anyone that wouldn't normally cohabit would because of tax breaks and b) do you think that it's healthy that they do for this reason?
QuicheFontaine
Member
Well, the referendum might result in a literal redefining "the country" that results in a political landscape in England that takes a lurch to the right. That outcome is dissatisfying for me personally, but as you point out I can't really argue against that outcome if the Tories are the popular party in England.
So, I support the Scots' right to self determination in the referendum, but I've got to square that with the fact that it may result in a negative outcome for me, and the fact that I don't get a say in said referendum. That's the quandary that I was trying to express.
No and no.
CyclopsRock
Member
So in what way does it encourage any of the behaviour you suggested was a social good?
In other news, my Facebook feed is alive with people saying "yay it passed but boo half the Tories voted against it, still the nasty party!" So why did it take until a Tory coalition government for it to get legislated? Where was Labour when it had an enormous majority for the last 12(-2) years? The reality that no liberal Labour party supporters seem to want to confront is that the most homophobic part of our society is not the aristocratic fox hunters - who frankly love nothing more than a bit of buggery in the barn - but the same working class Brits that they claim to represent.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
But they passed civil partnerships and basically would have passed gay marriage were it not for Blair wobbling. New Labour did shitloads for LGBT rights, more than any other at any point. What are you on about? It was one of their few generally positive social policies.