Merged Now What?

Status
Not open for further replies.
catsmate said:
Well scrapping Son of Trident would save UK£30-40 billion in capital costs, UK£2.5 billion annually in running costs and UK£15 billion in disposal costs.
That's a lot of UK£350 million weeks...
Click to expand...

Except it was Labour Party policy (only voted for in September last year) and he was not in a position to change it until the next conference.

If he did then manage to change it at the next conference, since the next election is likely 2020, all that money will have been at work for the best part of 4 years and scrapping it would have saved bugger all.

It was a fight that simply didn't need to be fought.
And at a time when he should have been making hay over Tory policies.
 
Darat said:
............the evidence we do have seems to show moving to the left alone is not an automatic election disaster and indeed could pick up additional voters.
Click to expand...

This is cloud cuckoo land thinking. Every time Labour has moved left since my arrival in the country in 1975 has seen a reduction in their electoral success, and every time they move towards the centre, they improve their electoral success. Why is this lesson of history so difficult for some people to accept? What other evidence can there be other than electoral success or otherwise?
 
MikeG said:
This is cloud cuckoo land thinking. Every time Labour has moved left since my arrival in the country in 1975 has seen a reduction in their electoral success, and every time they move towards the centre, they improve their electoral success. Why is this lesson of history so difficult for some people to accept? What other evidence can there be other than electoral success or otherwise?
Click to expand...
I am told that Labour lurched leftwards (they didn't, of course) before the last election, and that was why they did so badly, while in fact they got more votes than the previous election.
 
Rat said:
I am told that Labour lurched leftwards (they didn't, of course) before the last election, and that was why they did so badly, while in fact they got more votes than the previous election.
Click to expand...

In a world where Theresa *********** May is being painted as centre-left the whole idea of even discussing left/right/centre is now beyond a parody of itself. It's now a pretty useless categorisation.
 
MikeG said:
This is cloud cuckoo land thinking. Every time Labour has moved left since my arrival in the country in 1975 has seen a reduction in their electoral success, and every time they move towards the centre, they improve their electoral success. Why is this lesson of history so difficult for some people to accept? What other evidence can there be other than electoral success or otherwise?
Click to expand...
Obviously it depends where you put the centre but according to the graph below Labour has only once moved left, in 2008 but the chart is incomplete. They appear to have lost 4 and won 3 moving right and lost one moving left.

enPartiesTime.gif
 
ceptimus said:
If UKIP had only selected certain constituencies to stand in, they could have claimed a greater proportion of the votes in the seats where they stood.

But in terms of the total votes cast across the whole kingdom, UKIP beat the SNP hands down.

Maybe next time, the SNP should stand for seats at Westminster in every constituency that has a seat at Westminster. I suspect they may do rather well in a few seats in the north of England. Depending on the state of the Labour party, they might do well everywhere and lead the opposition. If the Tories make a real mess of things too, the SNP might even form the next government! :)
Click to expand...
Maybe soon we'll be independent, and not have to put up with nonsense like this any more.
 
Lothian said:
Obviously it depends where you put the centre but according to the graph below Labour has only once moved left, in 2008 but the chart is incomplete. They appear to have lost 4 and won 3 moving right and lost one moving left.
Click to expand...
I've seen that before. Hard to see it as very credible when it puts Labour and the Tories significantly on the right a lot of the time. (I know a lot of left wingers think that though).
 
Lothian said:
Obviously it depends where you put the centre but according to the graph below Labour has only once moved left, in 2008 but the chart is incomplete. They appear to have lost 4 and won 3 moving right and lost one moving left.

[qimg]https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enPartiesTime.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

How do they calculate that, anyway? I mean, when you're the one answering the questions, sure, they can plot your position on the graph, but other people? Can one really surmise all of their answers?
 
Francesca R said:
I've seen that before. Hard to see it as very credible when it puts Labour and the Tories significantly on the right a lot of the time. (I know a lot of left wingers think that though).
Click to expand...

Well define significantly I guess. It looks as if the 1980s Tories are about 80% of the max on the scale so presumably ultra-right groups would be off the charts.

Its pretty hard to argue that Labour has been a left wing party for sometime for any credible definition of left-wing.

Of course when the 'moderate' messages from the media are right of centre then that causes problems with calibration.
 
Lothian said:
Obviously it depends where you put the centre but according to the graph below Labour has only once moved left, in 2008 but the chart is incomplete. They appear to have lost 4 and won 3 moving right and lost one moving left.

[qimg]https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enPartiesTime.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That seems a bit strange. In 2008 all the three parties were about as left wing as each other but the Labour Party was significantly more fascist than the Tories.
 
angrysoba said:
That seems a bit strange. In 2008 all the three parties were about as left wing as each other but the Labour Party was significantly more fascist than the Tories.
Click to expand...
We have examined the expressions left and right wing. I think it is now time to look more closely at "fascist".
 
Craig B said:
We have examined the expressions left and right wing. I think it is now time to look more closely at "fascist".
Click to expand...

Well authoritarian is maybe the better word of the two shown. Labour for a while were certainly keen on legislating everything they could get their hands on. But yes you'd want to see what sits behind that chart as on first inspection that looks a bit suspicious.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
:rolleyes:

Uh, here's something I just pulled off Reuters; perhaps you've spoken of it today already:



Interested in other posters' opinions on this, UKians mostly. Me, as you already might know, it bugs to no end, and as far as current events are concerned, it reminds me most of China's response to the ICJ ruling on the Spratlys.

Perhaps you might care to assuage my concerns about surging self-interest.

ETA: Makes better sense in context: German leaders demand Brexit clarity from new British PM
Click to expand...

The UK government has to act in the UK's best interest. I do not see France or Germany acting in the UK's best interest. The EU (Germany & France) could have agreed to preliminary negotiations about negotiations but they vetoed this. So the only option for the UK is to define the shape of 'Brexit' before entering negotiations. The EU could have agreed to negotiate but the EU refused.
 
Craig B said:
The ravens are also circling over the UK finance sector, ready and willing to rend and consume it if and when Brexit goes ahead. Here's a croak from Brussels, a new arrival at the prospective feast.

Theresa May says she's going to make a "success" of Brexit. I wish the best of luck both to her and to the people of the UK.
Click to expand...

In their dreams! Dublin maybe. Edinburgh if Scotland remains in. Amsterdam, Frankfurt possibly. A key issue is an effective legal system. The common law system in England allows for rapid innovation, the Belgium legal system does not.
 
Planigale said:
......The EU (Germany & France) could have agreed to preliminary negotiations about negotiations but they vetoed this.......
Click to expand...

And how silly will this veto look in a few weeks time, after Theresa May has done a tour of European capitals ostensibly just saying hello, but actually doing the exact same thing that the EU think they've vetoed?
 
You can't make anyone who talks to the UK about exit sit at the back of the class and stay inside at lunch break.

The no negotiations policy will be as watertight as a sieve. Europe knows this.

More to the point I suspect May and Merkel might hit it off. They are the most important people now.
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
.......More to the point I suspect May and Merkel might hit it off. They are the most important people now.
Click to expand...

A lot of European and American commentators are saying how alike they are.

I wonder if they have actually met each other yet? Would a foreign head of government meet the Home Secretary on a visit to the UK?
 
MikeG said:
A lot of European and American commentators are saying how alike they are.
Click to expand...

A while back I was reading here about the verb 'to Merkel', which roughly translates as to sit back, do little, and just wait for others to succumb to one's vast power.

I'm not sure May is in that class, but I truly wish her luck :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom