• 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.

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Cerebral Assassin said:
she used her power to crush any democratically elected opposition

Sorry for clipping the rest of your post, but I want to focus on this bit.

Don't forget that Thatcher was also democratically elected, and on a far more transparent system than that of (many of) the unions.

People knew what they were voting for. If not the first time. then certainly the second or third.

If you are going to claim democratic legitimacy in your support you need to recognise that Mrs Thatcher had that in abundance.
 
phisheep said:
Sorry for clipping the rest of your post, but I want to focus on this bit.

Don't forget that Thatcher was also democratically elected, and on a far more transparent system than that of (many of) the unions.

People knew what they were voting for. If not the first time. then certainly the second or third.

If you are going to claim democratic legitimacy in your support you need to recognise that Mrs Thatcher had that in abundance.

Councils were democratically elected too & she used the state to crush them, I'm not claiming she had no legitimacy(3 elections in a row says a lot) but she had little respect for democracy.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Cerebral Assassin said:
Councils were democratically elected too & she used the state to crush them, I'm not claiming she had no legitimacy(3 elections in a row says a lot) but she had little respect for democracy.

Well, we're getting into tricky waters here. Councils are democratically elected only to do the things that councils are allowed by statute to do. They are subject to whatever law central government passes, and that's the way it works here.

We might not like it, we might wish it were otherwise, but that's the way it is.

And if a council fails to set a budget (as I believe, at least at the time, it was obliged to do) then it is breaking the law. It is outside its scope. And the same for a bunch of other things.

So to claim that a central government is somehow wrong for overriding local councils is just plain off the radar, because it doesn't work that way. Central government has that power because it is supported by Parliament - or to put it more brutally - local councils only have the power they have because of what Parliament says thay can have, which can be changed.

Now I'm all in favour of more localised democracy, but that doesn't make it a fact now any more than it was then.
 

Biggzy

Member
phisheep said:
Well, we're getting into tricky waters here. Councils are democratically elected only to do the things that councils are allowed by statute to do. They are subject to whatever law central government passes, and that's the way it works here.

We might not like it, we might wish it were otherwise, but that's the way it is.

And if a council fails to set a budget (as I believe, at least at the time, it was obliged to do) then it is breaking the law. It is outside its scope. And the same for a bunch of other things.

So to claim that a central government is somehow wrong for overriding local councils is just plain off the radar, because it doesn't work that way. Central government has that power because it is supported by Parliament - or to put it more brutally - local councils only have the power they have because of what Parliament says thay can have, which can be changed.

Now I'm all in favour of more localised democracy, but that doesn't make it a fact now any more than it was then.

Which is ironic because the conservatives are about to give local governments more power through the Localism bill lol.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Biggzy said:
Which is ironic because the conservatives are about to give local governments more power through the Localism bill lol.

I don't think it is ironic at all. Just a natural progression from where we were. There's no law that says Conservatives are always the same, ditto Labour. ditto LibDems, ditto you and me.

We move with the times, all of us. But we move with the times as we see them, which varies from place to place and person to person.

I don't see the irony there.
 
phisheep said:
Well, we're getting into tricky waters here. Councils are democratically elected only to do the things that councils are allowed by statute to do. They are subject to whatever law central government passes, and that's the way it works here.

We might not like it, we might wish it were otherwise, but that's the way it is.

And if a council fails to set a budget (as I believe, at least at the time, it was obliged to do) then it is breaking the law. It is outside its scope. And the same for a bunch of other things.

So to claim that a central government is somehow wrong for overriding local councils is just plain off the radar, because it doesn't work that way. Central government has that power because it is supported by Parliament - or to put it more brutally - local councils only have the power they have because of what Parliament says thay can have, which can be changed.

Now I'm all in favour of more localised democracy, but that doesn't make it a fact now any more than it was then.

All of this is true, but changing the way a city(London) was run solely because they embarrassed the Government of the day is hardly democratic. Also on a separate point her reign shows the need for a better voting system, as the Labour party were seen as unelectable by people who didn't agree with her policies( King Canute socialism vs incompetent capitalism is hardly a choice)
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Cerebral Assassin said:
All of this is true, but changing the way a city(London) was run solely because they embarrassed the Government of the day is hardly democratic. Also on a separate point her reign shows the need for a better voting system, as the Labour party were seen as unelectable by people who didn't agree with her policies( King Canute socialism vs incompetent capitalism is hardly a choice)

Well, arguably it is perfectly democratic if the government is democratically elected.

Which it was.

And I'm not convinced that a better voting system was the answer. Labour crashed and burned in the '80s, but I can't see that that is the fault of the voting system or of anybody else but the Labour Party. The votes were there and available if they wanted to grab them, particularly since the LibDems and their predecessors were nowhere at the time.

What do you want to claim - that if there had been a credible Labour party then people would have voted for it? That's a nothing claim, because it wouldn't have been anything like a Labour party - as we saw in 1997.
 

Biggzy

Member
phisheep said:
I don't think it is ironic at all. Just a natural progression from where we were. There's no law that says Conservatives are always the same, ditto Labour. ditto LibDems, ditto you and me.

We move with the times, all of us. But we move with the times as we see them, which varies from place to place and person to person.

I don't see the irony there.

The irony is when key members of the conservative party keep calling themselves the children of Thatcher. Mind you the localism bill is more in tune to the traditional principles of the conservative party i.e. a smaller state.
 
phisheep said:
Well, arguably it is perfectly democratic if the government is democratically elected.

Which it was.

And I'm not convinced that a better voting system was the answer. Labour crashed and burned in the '80s, but I can't see that that is the fault of the voting system or of anybody else but the Labour Party.

Perhaps anti-democratic is not the right phrase, hypocritical is probably better. As for the voting system if one of the 2 parties "crashes & burns" the other has free reign to do as they see fit regardless of how little people wish their manifesto( even though Thatchers manifestos bear little resemblance to her actual policies in Government) to be implemented, at least with a "fairer" system opposition could be noted(& then ignored).

What do you want to claim - that if there had been a credible Labour party then people would have voted for it? That's a nothing claim, because it wouldn't have been anything like a Labour party - as we saw in 1997

It could be argued (I think Heath may well have done) that the Tory party under Thatcher wasn't a traditional Tory party, & unless you are saying that a party with socialist ideals could never be credible I don't see your point.
 

Meadows

Banned
Does anyone know of a voting system where a voter is given a set amount of points which can be distributed, for example, the voter is given 10 points to distribute;

Labour - 1
Conservatives - 0
Lib Dems - 7
Plaid Cymru - 2
 
Deku said:
Politicking aside, I was under the impression the austerity measures were needed after the collapse of the financial sector and a national unity government was required as the Cons had only gained a minority.


There's more than one way to skin a cat.
 

JonnyBrad

Member
Meadows said:
Does anyone know of a voting system where a voter is given a set amount of points which can be distributed, for example, the voter is given 10 points to distribute;

Labour - 1
Conservatives - 0
Lib Dems - 7
Plaid Cymru - 2

You would get a lot of spoiled ballots from people failing at maths I'm afraid.
 
zomgbbqftw said:
So the IMF were called in for no reason then?

UK manunfacturing was wholly uncompetitive with EU and Japanese manufacturing in terms of quality, efficiency and price for no reason then?

Look beyond tribalist reasons and see that the UK was called the 'sick man of Europe' for a reason...
it wasn't thatcher that "temporarily" sorted out the economic mess of the 70s it was the oil money
 
Things needed to change and not all of Thatcher's change was bad but the fact of the matter is that she hung millions of people completely out to dry unnecessarily because of her dogmatic agenda. There were many, many ways of spreading the burden but - just like Cameron and Clegg - she had no intention of doing so, ever. She crushed a lot of people, a lot of communities because it was politically expedient to do so and that is why she is still Britain's most loathed political figure, even with Liar Liar and his Iraq 'issues'.
 

DECK'ARD

The Amiga Brotherhood
frankie_baby said:
its asking for trouble really, a security nightmare

Yeah, it would be incredibly divisive. She better hold on for a bit longer or it will cancel out the Royal Wedding effect ;)

It's probably just wishful thinking from the Daily Mail though.
 
phisheep said:
Don't forget that Thatcher was also democratically elected, and on a far more transparent system than that of (many of) the unions.

Thatcher never got more than 43% of the vote, yet this was translated into massive majorities by our wonderful FPTP system.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Dr Zhivago said:
Thatcher never got more than 43% of the vote, yet this was translated into massive majorities by our wonderful FPTP system.

Well, strictly speaking, 43.9 is bigger than 43.

And really, it was translated into a massive majority (indeed a majority at all) because the other 56.1% didn't all vote for the same party.
 

Mr. Sam

Member
phisheep said:
Well, strictly speaking, 43.9 is bigger than 43.

And really, it was translated into a massive majority (indeed a majority at all) because the other 56.1% didn't all vote for the same party.

Mathematically, if they won 50+% of the seats with that percentage, they would have held a majority even if everyone else had voted for, say, Labour, no? I know; I'm being pedantic.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Mr. Sam said:
Mathematically, if they won 50+% of the seats with that percentage, they would have held a majority even if everyone else had voted for, say, Labour, no? I know; I'm being pedantic.

No. You're forgetting that they'd have lost seats (owing to Lab/Lib etc ganging up) that they actually won.

Haven't done detailed calculations on this, but on a swift-gut-runthough of the figures I suspect there would not have been a majority - the Liberals got a hell of a lot of votes for nearly no seats.

Dr Zhivago said:
44% then :p
Point is she had no mandate for her divisive policies

Point is, she had more of a 'mandate' than anyone else.

On your logic no government would have done anything ever the last (guessing) 100 years or so because they didn't have 50% of something. It doesn't work that way, and nor should it.

EDIT: except 1931 where the Tories got 55% - only time ever there was an absolute majority of votes cast, but even then it didn't lead to a 'mandate' for Tory policy - National government/great depression and all that stuff.

EDIT 2: putting 'mandate' in quotes thoughout because it is a grossly misleading and misused term. We don't run elections on the basis of a 'mandate' for policies, we run 'em on the basis that whoever wins gets to do more or less whatever they want unless it is so stupid that the Lords intervene.
 

Walshicus

Member
phisheep said:
On your logic no government would have done anything ever the last (guessing) 100 years or so because they didn't have 50% of something. It doesn't work that way, and nor should it.
Of course it should. European consensus politics is far more healthy than our "winner" takes all approach.


And yes, with FPTP it is possible to have 100% of seats with 1/n+ of the popular vote where n is the number of parties standing.
 

Chinner

Banned
some interesting developments on the super junction thanks to private eye and twitter... probably be all over the front pages tomorrow.
 
Given that I was born in 88, i've often been surprised by the level of Thatcher Hate. She won three terms, was in with the Americans and did a lot of decent reforms. Sure, she fucked off/over a lot of unions and brought in the poll tax, but surely she felt she had the publics support given the number of votes she won.
 

Biggzy

Member
Galvanise_ said:
Given that I was born in 88, i've often been surprised by the level of Thatcher Hate. She won three terms, was in with the Americans and did a lot of decent reforms. Sure, she fucked off/over a lot of unions and brought in the poll tax, but surely she felt she had the publics support given the number of votes she won.

There are a number of reasons why she won three terms though, the main ones were, the Falklands war, most political commentators agree that without it the conservatives were heading for defeat and a labour party that were in disarray; unsure where on the left they should be. This culminated spectacularly in what was to be called the longest suicide note in history.
 
Galvanise_ said:
Given that I was born in 88, i've often been surprised by the level of Thatcher Hate. She won three terms, was in with the Americans and did a lot of decent reforms. Sure, she fucked off/over a lot of unions and brought in the poll tax, but surely she felt she had the publics support given the number of votes she won.

A lot of people voted for her, yes. A lot of the people who DIDN'T (e.g a higher number than that which voted for the Tories in 79/83/87 ) were fucked over horribly, hence the extent of the loathing directed towards her. A lot of families, industries and communities were hung out to dry, and that's exactly why the flame has kept burning. She was remarkably successful, an incredible political machine and an utterly destructive force to the many who will never forgive her.
 
Aye, politically speaking, I'm a Labour man.

I disagree with many things she did, but the one point I can admire her for was her conviction and her determination to carry out her plans. These days (the age in which I have become more politically aware, if you will), I see nothing like that. I see flip flopping, 180's and the media corrupting political conviction.

I am by no means a Thatcher fan, in fact, I'd put myself on the other side, but at least she had some balls.
 
Biggzy said:
There are a number of reasons why she won three terms though, the main ones were, the Falklands war, most political commentators agree that without it the conservatives were heading for defeat and a labour party that were in disarray; unsure where on the left they should be. This culminated spectacularly in what was to be called the longest suicide note in history.

I don't think you can forget the split in the Labour ranks circa 1981, although it does fit into the 'Labour in disarray' box. Certainly, the Liberals received 13.9% in 1979 and The Alliance 25% in 1983.

Although most of their gains came at the expense of Labour, Thatcher's relative unpopularity for such a successful leader would have been much more apparent if the opposition hadn't melted down into a horribly fractious wreckage of a political party.

The Tories actually lost vote share in '83, but the lack of a united, credible Labour party really meant that the majority of swing voters were going to stay exactly where they were by default.
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
Galvanise_ said:
Aye, politically speaking, I'm a Labour man.

I disagree with many things she did, but the one point I can admire her for was her conviction and her determination to carry out her plans. These days (the age in which I have become more politically aware, if you will), I see nothing like that. I see flip flopping, 180's and the media corrupting political conviction.

I am by no means a Thatcher fan, in fact, I'd put myself on the other side, but at least she had some balls.

Having conviction is all well and good but stubbornly sticking to things which don't/aren't working is stupidity and not praiseworthy. Just looking at the raw stats show that she failed to do what she set out to do - decrease government spending, unemployment etc. while inflation sky-rocketed, assets were sold off too cheaply, her reversal on train-privatisation went awry.. Obviously not all that went wrong was her fault but nor was everything that went right. Major is the praiseworthy Tory PM (Or Salisbury but that isn't really comparable), if you ask me.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Galvanise_ said:
Given that I was born in 88, i've often been surprised by the level of Thatcher Hate. She won three terms, was in with the Americans and did a lot of decent reforms. Sure, she fucked off/over a lot of unions and brought in the poll tax, but surely she felt she had the publics support given the number of votes she won.

It's kind of hard to explain how it felt. But try reading your post over again - but before you read it over, imagine yourself in the position of a local miner in, say, South Wales or South Yorkshire. So local that you don't need - and probably can't afford - a car. Your pit closes as a result of what you see - and are told - as Conservative policies.

Now, usually you'd go to another pit - but this time they have all closed. All of them. EVerything withinh even stupid cycling distance.

Nearest pit you can get work is possibly in Durham. 200 miles. Plus you can't afford to move, plus everyone else is thinking the same thing so competition will be huge. You can't even afford to get there for interview if they have one. There's no other work around, not in your valley, not in the next one. Valley next over there's a steel mill, but they have the same trouble. They're pulling people from their other plant at the coast to avoid redundancies rather than sacking them 15 miles south and recruiting you. There's a commitment to regeneration funds for your valley, but that won't produce results for 10 years.

Multiply that by a lot across multiple industries and you get some sort of feel what it was like. Complete hopelessness in many areas.

Now generally I'm a supporter of what Mrs Thatcher did. But that's not ignorant support - I lived in South Wales and South Yorkshire at the time, I saw what it did, listened to people affected. I still think it was right - and so do some of the people who lived there, lost their jobs and had to deal with it the best they could. It was largely an accident of industry like the Cornish tin mines, when they are no longer economical - they close and leave some devastation.

But what should we do? Keep them open as tourist attractions (works maybe once, and besides needs far fewer less-skilled staff)? Run them at a loss (seems the preferred option of some Union barons)? Put up Tariff barriers (bang goes free trade).

On the whole, it needed sorting. It got sorted relatively quickly. Better that than dragging it out.

Hell of a hole for people to find themselves in, but also a horrible hole for politicians to find themselves in. Something had to be done, something got done. It might not have been the same something or the best something, but it got done. And that was important.
 

Biggzy

Member
TheDrowningMan said:
I don't think you can forget the split in the Labour ranks circa 1981, although it does fit into the 'Labour in disarray' box. Certainly, the Liberals received 13.9% in 1979 and The Alliance 25% in 1983.

Although most of their gains came at the expense of Labour, Thatcher's relative unpopularity for such a successful leader would have been much more apparent if the opposition hadn't melted down into a horribly fractious wreckage of a political party.

The Tories actually lost vote share in '83, but the lack of a united, credible Labour party really meant that the majority of swing voters were going to stay exactly where they were by default.

Thanks for further expanding my point :).
 
phisheep said:
But what should we do? Keep them open as tourist attractions (works maybe once, and besides needs far fewer less-skilled staff)? Run them at a loss (seems the preferred option of some Union barons)? Put up Tariff barriers (bang goes free trade).

Didn't Germany subsidise their coal industry during the same period?
And why is the dogma of free trade so important that you must destroy your own country's industrial base? I don't think any other country did this.
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
Dr Zhivago said:
Didn't Germany subsidise their coal industry during the same period?
And why is the dogma of free trade so important that you must destroy your own country's industrial base? I don't think any other country did this.

It would surprise me if Tories ever seriously attempt tariffs.
 

kitch9

Banned
Cerebral Assassin said:
Perhaps anti-democratic is not the right phrase, hypocritical is probably better. As for the voting system if one of the 2 parties "crashes & burns" the other has free reign to do as they see fit regardless of how little people wish their manifesto( even though Thatchers manifestos bear little resemblance to her actual policies in Government) to be implemented, at least with a "fairer" system opposition could be noted(& then ignored).



It could be argued (I think Heath may well have done) that the Tory party under Thatcher wasn't a traditional Tory party, & unless you are saying that a party with socialist ideals could never be credible I don't see your point.

No they don't, otherwise they'd be voted out....
 

JonnyBrad

Member
Gowans007 said:
What's the leaking twitter account?

Edit: finally found it
https://twitter.com/#!/injunctionsuper

Some of the stuff is wrong (you can tell which as the papers mention the names of the wrong ones) ie Clarkson. The stuff that is right you can tell because they don't mention it when reporting the issue (or skirt around the names)
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Dr Zhivago said:
Didn't Germany subsidise their coal industry during the same period?

Don't know. But coal and steel production were regulated across the EEC countries. That might have had something to do with it.

And why is the dogma of free trade so important that you must destroy your own country's industrial base? I don't think any other country did this.

Oh, I wasn't thinking of it as a dogma - more as just the way the world was turning as trade opened up after the War
 

Wes

venison crêpe
Richest students to pay for extra places at Britain's best universities

Teenagers from the wealthiest families would be able to pay for extra places at the most competitive universities under government proposals that could allow institutions to charge some British students the same high fees as overseas undergraduates.

Candidates who take up the extra places would not be eligible for publicly funded loans to pay tuition fees or living costs, limiting this option to all but the most privileged households who could pay fees up front.

Guardian
 
Wes said:

OK I just saw this and will have to think about it more later but one thing I am sure of is the pace at which the current government is offering up changes is mind boggling.

Richer students get into their university of choice, cool but does this not mean that another student who got there on merit is bumped down to their second choice. Obviously this will only happen at top schools. So poorer (not necessarily poor) students go to shittier schools than richer ones and this is supposed to boost social mobility? On the other hand they are supposed to be subsidising the cost of University for the other students.
 
Meadows said:
Just about the worst news possible for Wales. Ugh.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-13346303

I fucking hate minority governments. Oh well, at least Plaid can re-group in opposition.

Not the worst possible, that would be Labour Majority who would then go and overspend/bankrupt the nation just as they did when in power at Westminster.

Even so, Labour have almost got a majority so all opposition MPs would have to band together to stop Labour which is unlikely given the deep seated hatred many of the parties have for each other.
 

Empty

Member
what happens if voting on a piece of legislation is split 30-30 anyway. does someone get to make a casting vote like in the american senate or is it just considered that the bill isn't passed if it doesn't get a majority.
 
Top Bottom