UK Politics Thread

[Jimbuna]

Or this one perhaps...

[MGR1]

Fidel Castro: Jeremy Corbyn praises 'huge figure': LINK. Hardly news, that one. Nor altogether unsurprising for Corbyn and the "true believers" that run both Labour and the Unions.

Mike.

[Jimbuna]

Corbyn obviously doesn't know a great deal about human rights I suspect

[Oberon]

If at first you don't succeed, elect, elect, elect again.

Paul Nuttall takes charge of UKIP for this week.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38125432


Meanwhile, Farage complains about a pay rise for 'European autocrats' while taking a Brussels pay cheque last month for €8,000. He didn't speak once at European Parliament.

[Oberon]

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Corbyn obviously doesn't know a great deal about human rights I suspect

He most likely does. He just does not care. Ideology before humanity, you know.

[MGR1]

If they decide to then UKIP, assuming they get their act together, could slot into the space vacated by Labour in traditional working class areas in the Midlands and North of England. Just as the SNP have done in Scotland.

It all depends on what course they take from now on.

Mike.

[Oberon]

It's possible, Nuttall does seem to have the Farage seal of approval so he'll probably be able to get the party in line, and the debate over what kind of Brexit the country will take means that UKIP can find a niche to slip into, and then like you say, take the ground that Labour has abandoned under Corbyn.

[MGR1]

Indeed.

However, if Nuttal starts going "England Stronk" in the same way that Sturgeon and the SNP go "Scotland Stronk" then it could lead to further constitutional instability.

The UK was very finely balanced before Labour brought in devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's now seriously out of whack.

The lack of any real push by both major parties for a settlement for England can give UKIP another weapon in it's arsenal. Nuttal has already proposed that the non-English MP's be removed from the Commons, thus making it the English Parliament. How things develop from that point depends on what arrangements he thinks will work for a Pan-UK assembly. Financial arrangements in particular need to be clarified, for starters.

The SNP, Plaid Cymru, the DUP, UUP, SDLP and Sinn Fein will no doubt have differing opinions from UKIP on the matter.

Mike.

[Jimbuna]

UK-Polish ties to be 'stronger' after Brexit insists May

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38129171

I doubt that very much. Poland is a huge recipient of EU money and will toe the line when told to.

[MGR1]

Something of a gross simplification Jim. Remember what forms the current Polish government: LINK.

Just because Poland is a net receiver doesn't mean to say that this lot will kowtow to Brussels in all things. They'll look out for what they believe to be in Poland's interests first. If the EU aren't happy about that then I think the Law and Justice Party won't shed any tears for them.

Mike.

[Jimbuna]

That is a possibility Mike but at the end of the day I believe that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Poland must be feeling a lot more secure being a member of the EU as opposed to being a sole/individual entity so close to Russia (in geographical terms).

[MGR1]

Very true, but it all depends on how united the EU remains in future considering current trends. Populism isn't just restricted to the UK or the US as we both know.

It's in Brussel's interest to be harsh on the UK during any BrExit negotiations in order to discourage any further discontent. That also runs the risk of actually encouraging said discontent if they are too harsh. It's not as if the EU is universally beloved, but at the same time fear of the unknown can lead to people choosing the least worst option if forced into a binary choice.

The same applies within the UK as well. Regardless of all the noise Sturgeon's made in Dublin today, there's a limit as to what she and the Scottish Government can achieve due to the fact that they're a regional administration, not a national one. They do have a mandate to protect Scotland's interests, but the Tories have a mandate to look out for the UK's as whole. As can be seen, the two don't always coincide. The delicate part is managing things in a way that the losing party (which will be Scotland ultimately) doesn't have it's interests completely overriden as that would increase resentment against the central government. You can imagine how the SNP would run with that! But, they come up against the "what's the least worse option" issue in any future IndyRef. I'll be blunt here - looking at the last two referendum results I'd say we Scots are generally more risk averse than our English fellow UK citizens. That could be a cultural hangover from the days when the harsh presbyteriansim of the Church of Scotland was all dominant. That Scotland generally lags behind England when it comes to entrepreneurialism and general economic output could be a sympton of the the deadening effect of religous conformity, too.

Ultimately the best way to deal with the "Scottish Question" would be a greater degree of fiscal autonomy but, as I've alluded to before, it's isn't in the Unionist camp's interests for that to happen. As far as they're concerned, it's better for Scotland to be dependant on the rest of the UK rather than give Scotland the chance to fully pull it's weight as that runs the risk of giving the independence camp a major boost. The catch is that that causes resentment elsewhere in the UK and also within Scotland as well. The extra knotty problem would be how any extra devolution for Scotland would go down in the rest of the UK.

It's catch 22.

Mike.

[STEED]

Benefit sanctions leading to "hardship, hunger and depression" are being imposed on people despite "limited evidence" on how well they work, the National Audit Office says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38152401

Surly simple tests like turn up to the JC everyday at 9am would be a start in separating those who want to find work from those who just don't care. Those who don't care will never be on time but to be fair allow one excuse.

Another way to find out is to ask employers did they turn up for the interview did they dress right and did they show interest in the job and of course conduct themselves in the manor they should. Those who don't care never make any effort.

And get their side of the fence sorted out as well, when I was placed on the work programme back in 2011/12 I was told I would receive maximum one to one help and did I? Did I heck, the whole thing was a wast of time for me and many others and yet the company I was sent to clearly did well rolling in money.

Its a two way door that has faults and what makes me sick is on their side of the desk they are faultless, what a load of tosh.

[Jimbuna]

^ I tend to agree....all the power/decision making is on one side only.