My eyes will be watching Tory reactions to the goings on. There is a jittery atmosphere within the Tories atm. They know that the longer they put off an election, the more it will imped their chances of success at an individual level.
There are a lot of Labour bias opinions pushing the theory that Sunak doesn’t care about the next election results, and that he is only pushing for his own families gain with an Indian trade deal. Add in that Modi pushed Sunak aside by cancelled a planned meeting with Sunak at the last minute. Sunak was also very much in the spotlight for taking no part in the India trade route initiative.
A Cabinet level politician told i anonymously that both parties would love to scrap the triple lock but “no one wants to be the first to do it” for fear of older voters deserting them
I find this one a strange one to push from Inews. It is from one cabinet minister so it has obvious Tory bias. This goes against what Raynor was pushing at the TUC, who said they will increase state aid in an attempt to redress the balance. There is a difference between not promising something and not being able to cost it properly yet. Labour have the difficulty with costing and the way the government hides so many figures.
As a newcomer to UK politics who does want to be onboard, there seems to be a great deal of nuance and context, besides the usual lies and biased reporting to contend with. Are there reliable resources for one who wishes they could encompass the subject, or just muddle through as best I can?
Phil Moorhouse always gives a good rundown on PMQs. Just keep in mind he has a very much Labour bias, something he owns up to often in his videos. As for following the subject matter, that is best done by reading through different sources and remembering what bias that source has. Try News now for a variety of sources.
PMQs was intended for open discussions on the issues of the day. Unfortunately it is more points scoring than substance. A lot of this, imo, is down to the Tory insistence on answering questioning by pointing the finger at opposition rather than answering the question. Sunak actually started his term by answering questions in an almost good fashion, but quickly dwindled in the current format which reflects how Johnson spent his whole term.
I sincerely hope that the Tories are so broken in the next election that LD become a decent opposition. This would push PMQs back into a decent format to open up routes proper discussion on the more pressing matters. If the Tories earn enough votes to move to opposition, then all we are going to see is more of the same while Starmer reams off continuous instances of Tory failures.
Thanks! I can stomach quite a bit of left bias, it’s the corporatists and right wing stuff I’ve had enough of, coming into this scene from America.
It’s easy to pigeonhole Labs and Tories for their American counterparts (in some ways all too familiar). Given it’s a first past the post system, I’m sensing that the UK electoral ecosystem has a lot of the same systemic flaws that I’m used to.
I don’t yet have a good handle on LDs themselves though. There seems to be somewhat more room for parties in the election dynamic. What you’re saying does ring true. I’ll give Phil a go and try to keep up. Thanks
Ed Davey is the leader of the LD. He did a podcast on the rest is politics. It may be of interest to you. It shows you the opinion of the third party in English politics. Prior to 2015 LD have been the third party in UK politics since the 1930’s ish. I haven’t read up on the history, but I think it may be because of Lloyd George’s antics that they fell out of favour. He was selling peerages to anyone who would pay him basically. LD were actually in government 2010-2015 under the coalition with the Tories. The Tories threw them under the bus and they have not recovered since. Ed Davey mentions this in the podcast. After the next election there is a fair to good chance LD will be the third party again.
The SNP are the current third party of the whole UK. The rules of PMQs is that the main opposition can ask 5 questions, which is then followed by the next largest party. This is why you see the SNP member Chris Law ask his two questions after Starmer is done.
If you really take an interest then there is a tip regarding the skulduggery of the questions. Starmer can only ask 5 questions then he is done. The fourth question is always the killer blow. He leads with the first three in an attempt to get Sunak to say something he should not. The fifth question is useless as he knows Sunak has an answer that will never be questioned. You will find that Sunak will always answer the fifth question with a finger pointing long winded retort.
I am following some US politics now, or rather have been for about two weeks. Do you mind if I keep your name if I am not sure about something ?
What is your opinion on
https://www.youtube.com/@briantylercohen/videos
and
https://www.youtube.com/@MeidasTouch/videos
I have been following these two mainly to get a grip on the Trump cases.
Thanks, keep my name if you like. Sorry to reply so late, the new school term has been keeping the whole house busy.
These two channels are unknown to me. They come off a little sensational but generally credible given their openly lefty leanings. They seem to be more specific in what they choose to be covering, which is always a good sign.
Listening to Davey’s podcast episode now, thanks!
Edit: Wow. Halfway through, I have a lot more in common with Davey’s vision of lib dem ideology than I expected to. This is brilliant. When I hear “liberal” it puts me on guard, but the way he comes at it is way more anti-establishment (or in any case critical of power) than the liberalism I’m used to. This is good stuff.
Edit 2: I like that he recognizes the issues with this voting system. It’s something I’ve been ranting about for over a decade so I instinctively want to trust anyone who also grumbles about it. Didn’t really care for the bit at the end where they kibbutz about the man after he’s gone, but I get that it’s a format thing. Is is really a mainstream opinion that Corbin was a “maniac” as one of the interviewers remarked?
My two have grown up and left the nest. I understand how busy things can get. I am following most of what has been said so far. I am finding the legal system a bit convoluted, but then we don’t have to deal with federalism in the UK.
LD want PR voting because they recognised FPTP was stopping any third party making an appearance. I want to say they adopted that stance in the 80’s, but I have nothing to back that up.
The podcast channel has a huge following in the political circuit across Europe mainly because it is so open and honest. I would guess the reasoning behind the breakdown at the end is to give the invited person a credibility rating. The only time I have disliked this was when they interviewed George Osborne. There was some things said by Osborne that were not 100% right. You could hear how uncomfortable it made Alistair Campbell. I would much rather he called him out, but he didn’t. Rory Stewart probably didn’t even spot anything wrong as it was the government line at the time, and Rory Stewart was part of the Cameron and Osborne government. These are the two that enabled the BREXIT vote, just for context.
I get the feeling Corbyn is genuine, while being ideologically stupid. To me he comes across as a black and white politician with no grey area being feasible. You cannot work in politics without a middle ground. He said if he was ever PM then he would never use nuclear weapons. He also indicated he would leave NATO. Labour ended up with their lowest ever recorded voting record since Labour first won an election. He wanted to tax the rich very aggressively. This led to Murdoch’s media doing a full hatchet job on him.
The Labour party is a broad church of many factions. Corbyn only ever wanted an echo chamber with the people he promoted into positions. This meant he never understood just how bad things were for Labour. He is consistent in that he never believed he did anything wrong. Starmer recognised the damage that Corbyn did to the Labour brand. He was very trigger happy in removing the whip from Corbyn (kick him out of the Labour party). Corbyn’s fan base got very upset by this. Diane Abbot is the last of the vocal Corbynites left in the party.
Corbyn has some very dubious history which tarnishes his credibility. He has been known to have discussions with some groups that were considered terrorists to the UK (PLO, IRA as well as some Russian links).
The Russian links / leaving NATO combo is noteworthy. Those are dots I could connect with a crayon after POTUS 45. I liked Corbyn from afar some years ago as an American lefty who tends to be a little black and white himself, but I see all too well the trouble with oversimplification.
PR voting is fine by me and would be a better fit for the UK than FPTP. The one I always stump for is approval voting, which also powers a lot of voter nuance.
Federalism is an area where we would benefit from more simplicity, not more nuance - a lot of it stems ultimately from the civil war and its knock-on effects unfortunately. A lot of baggage, like the 13th amendment, comes to us thanks to the failed reconstruction.
I wish Starmer well in the next election, at any rate. These Tories remind me too much of home, to put it mildly.
Huge alarm bells for anyone who knew the cold war first hand.
I really want to see PR voting in the UK. I would also like to see it in the US just as much. The US is very influential, lots of countries would follow suite. I am also not a fan of how the US workers right are right now.
It can’t be overstated. I don’t want another Blair Mountain, but we’d be incredibly lucky to have that many people with that much backbone around standing up for workers. Between the legalized prisoner slavery and the relaxed child labor laws in the US these days, it’s disappointing that we aren’t seeing a more firm resistance from the working class.