"oh you don't get me I'm the end of the union": lol brexit is how we're all gonna die

I wasn't suggesting that btw, just pointing out how the UK is perceived by (some) foreigners.

That being said, I thought public support for the Iraq intervention was fairly high back in 2003?

xp

Nah there was a very high level of oppositions to the Iraq war, Blair just ignored it. The only one of your list that's actually unpopular is rampant privatisation, which seemingly everyone other than politicians and policy wonks hates.

I was thinking of this: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/06/03/remembering-iraq

And this: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/06/12/Security-Trumps-Privacy

scotland and wales like a tory too.

"natural party of government" can be read in a few ways: as statement of historical/electoral fact; as leftist defeatism masquerading as pragmatism; as a note of postcolonial caution in the face of reformist optimism esp wrt how labour govts build and manage institutions; as an aspirational part of tory self-image/entitlement; as a reminder of the ultimate fluidity of the principles underlying the tory party; as a statement abt the structural injustices of uk politics; as a boast abt privilege & perceived legitimacy; as a reminder of how deeply embedded lots of conservative views are in the populace/of how tories use the appeal of nationalism and security to play this up; as a simplistic statement abt the soul of the country - ok i'm bored but I don't see any reason to think ppl are on the same page here

and re: calzino's point I think ppl often fail to consider how the democratic parts of the uk political system are used by the ruling class esp wrt generating collective responsibility and a sense of national narrative for their terrible decisions

imo pointing out a party's success is not in any way calling them the natural party of government. it's not even pessimistic. it is just historical fact.

i mean the fact the tories are still in power and looking relatively capable of winning another election given what's gone on in the last few years should be enough to prove the strength of their base, it's ludicrous.

xp I mean, I consider that every time someone says "clear mandate" about a 52-48 result, so I consider that a lot.

xp thankfully long-term demographic changes mean they will die out in the not too distant future

They are absolutely incapable of winning the next election, provided there's a united Labour party - ah.

theres a bunch of reasons and most polling suggests that a significant chunk of voters tend to hold both left and right-wing views simultaneously. is absolutely correct but

'natural party of government' works because of the national character of deference. and for all the talk of 'sticking it to the elites' the elites aren't the mill owners, the elites are the managers that work at the mill. the owner is still deferred to, the municipal lord

also views and party allegiance can wildly differ - dont a majority or at least a signifcant number of republicans support medicare for all and no more wars?

even during the height of thatcherism, where I lived there would be rows of red posters in just about every window of every road. I feel like it's going back that way slightly. Even some ppl I speak to who think might be slightly cryptotory types who lie to YouGov are saying things like - don't like this Corbyn but still voting for the fucker.

where I live I mean.

the ref and the sublime mantra 'Brexit means Brexit' have brought our dubious, retrospective mandates to the fore but its p striking the extent to which, in our ~democracy~, the actions of our governments have never offered much insight into what the public thought abt issues at the time.

the conception of democracy as being rule by the ppl suggests a degree of control out of step with the reality that elections are more like vibes to be loosely interpreted and reinterpreted w/ little more rigour than a haruspex confidently speaking about entrails

voting for tories is what britain does.

It's always tempting to think this but as someone who has watched Warwick and Leamington Spa vote Labour four times I always think there's hope. Misguided probably.

Well I hope you're right, calzino. If I were a UK citizen, I'd be somewhat uncomfortable voting for him for personal reasons (because I think some of his stances on foreign policy are harmful to Eastern European countries – other than Russia, of course – and because I'm far more pro-EU than he is) but there's no question that he'd be a major step up at the domestic level, as well as in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

xps

Ned - aren't those constituencies stuffed to the gills with students though?

Meanwhile Barnier is now explicitly saying that if the UK changes its red lines the EU will be prepared to renegotiate.

so may's three or four red lines, based on a personal interpretation of a two percent margin in a one line referendum, are the problem here

it does look like the kind of thing that should be easy to make stick to her and the tories.....and yet

pom do you believe that the Russian periphery is safer with a nuclear Britain as an active part of nato?

xxxp-
I'm only talking locally, you only need to get on train to London to see vast swathes of the tory heartlands where Corbz would be considered a joke or dangerous terrorist, and ditto the northern gammonlands of Yorkshire.

Yes, very much so. Russia is a ruthless, colonialist, expansionist power that is an active threat to its neighbours. It has borne this out again and again over the centuries.

xp

I'm not questioning Russian imperialism, just the real diplomatic/game theory value of british nuclear submarines in the balance of power

It helps.

Xp - very true, about 5k in Leamington I think. I'm not sure they ALL vote Labour, this is Warwick University Inc. we're talking about. But yeah, as I day, my hope is probs misguided...

"As I say"

almost nonexistent social benefits

dude! we have the NHS! no one has ever heard of a "mutuelle" over here. ok some people have BUPA but it's not the default. your list is pretty much right-on but just sayin.

xp to pomenitul

I think at this point I've heard all the arguments and hypothetical scenarios and I remain unconvinced. even leaving aside the existence of the US nuclear arsenal I agree with enoch powell's assessment that there is never going to be a scenario in which we use them. I can't envisage a moment in which May decides to nuke Moscow and I bet Putin can't either, although it serves his interests to be cautious & coy about it, and indeed it even serves as a useful distraction when there are plenty of plausible scenarios involving Russian aggression which the uk & nato are not prepared for

I found this to be an interesting comparison:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarité_active

https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/what-youll-get

You also need to factor in the cost of living and access to social housing, which appears to be more difficult in the UK.

xp

ogmor, the symbolics of it matter too. The UK pulling out of NATO would be a sign of apathy, which only serves to strengthen Russian ambitions. It's an issue that feels a lot more pressing the further East you go.

Um, I can easily imagine plenty of scenarios where May nukes Moscow?

I've never heard the term "gammonland" or "gammon" before as a put-down, I think that's great! Trying to think of the US equivalent ...

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-01-17/HCWS1254/

"A new order has been made under section 56(1B) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable Reservists to be called into permanent service in support of the HMG contingency planning for a no deal EU exit scenario."

bubbas

xpost

labour policy as it stands is to support trident and remain in nato and I think the latter is not especially contentious (the apathy is real!). I don't think nuclear weapons are the most effective signalling tool or instrument of diplomatic messaging, and I think you can be very concerned abt Russia and still want to retire the trident subs, but I accept that out of the context of a new/evolving defence policy the act of nuclear disarmament wld be celebrated in Russia even if it didn't change the diplomatic arithmetic or facts on the ground

That's a perfectly reasonable position.

quite heartening to read the guardian’s vox pops on last nights’pantomime. most people seem to think may is at it and that JC is right to call her on her bullshit

weren't those selections from the guardian comments section?

xpost Bubbas? Maybe rednecks? Those are both class-based, is "gammon" related to class or just general ruddy-faced attitude?

i feel like bubba implies a certain toxic whiteness. you can have left-wing rednecks

and you can have middle-class bubbas

i guess the diff is that no one proudly self-IDs as "gammon"

gammon are sort of landed redneck gentry and can be found in pubs and masonic lodges.

Gammons initially were better off and probably owned a set of golf clubs, but the definition has widened to include any reactionary man with a regional accent and an apparent greed for pies.

*gulp*

How similar is it to 'white trash'?

LOOOOL while I’ve got you Calz, I can’t wait to tell my friend from Ossett that he’s posh...

Not at all, you can be a well off and middle class gammon.

So a Republican?

regional accents?

the way forward is definitely revelling in the mockery of those who disagree with us tho, for sure.