Be Excellent To Each Other

I'll stop now.

The new A556 has to be helping right?

I used it at the weekend. Holy fuck what a difference.

I agree with Cras

I agree with Craster. The current government are a shambles. They were significantly less bad under Cameron and Osborne (Hammond seems okay in terms of competency, May and Davies less so).

I think a more centre-left Labour Party would be significantly more professional than Corbyn's lot, and could make a good go at running the country. Unfortunately the lunatics have taken over.

I also think conflating "Labour" as a whole, including past Labour governments, with Livingstone being a twat is a it silly.

I agree

Re May being impressive - nicked off of twitter:

Indeed. The 1997-2010 Labour Government did a lot of things wrong, but a lot of things right that they deserve respect for. Minimum wage, section 28 repeal, free nursery care, devolution, paternity leave, and a lot of other stuff.

The May government is keeping the FTSE and job market on some level of an even keel, but that doesn't come close to being a 'good' government - and they're sure as hell not trending up.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree Cras.

Labour's principal problem is their child-like idealism (despite the Livingstone debacle). Wouldn't it be fab to only deal with nice people and cuddly world leaders... fuck me, we'd have embassies in Norway and Sweden at a push.

It is, or should be, the first glimmerings of how the real world is, and the real-world need for compromise, when you reach 7 or 8 and realise that actually, it's not possible (or even desirable) to demand everything your own way.

"Cuddling up to Saudi Arabia"... you'd have our Prime Minister pissing off a key ally and market, in the same way as USA/Trump? Wow, that would feel *so* good, right up until absolutely no-one wanted anything to do with us, or trade with us, and your principles (which Trump or anyone else would care precisely fuck all about) would cost millions of Brits their livelihoods.

"Flip flopped"... the country democratically and fairly voted for Brexit and whether you, me or anyone else likes that, or questions why we had a referendum in the first place - it's done now and she, as PM of the country, has to deliver on said people's democratic will. (We are, still, a Democracy after all). (Yet again, Party Politics isn't having everything your own way because you know, if it was, there would be no Party at all, just 500-odd MPs all shouting their own individual agenda).

So yeah, it's like I said, Cras. Grown-ups.
Labour is (at best) akin to a really crap Sixth Form pressure group, not a government. Except even that's being generous in the light of the latest developments.

It's fine being a complete idealist when you're 18 or whatever but there comes a time in life, when one is older, wiser (and a fucktonne more cynical), that pragmatism has to enter into an equation where, in fact, there are far fewer black-and-white issues that you'd ever hitherto realised (or hoped). That's life....

Sure is, bud.

Idealism and compromise aren't binary opposites. It is entirely incumbent on those that choose to lead a nation to lead it with idealism, while acceding to compromise where necessary. Abandoning idealism for realpolitik is lazy and cowardly.


Millions of Brits? Key ally and market? The only decent sized export we have to Saudi Arabia is arms, and we do so in the full knowledge that they are used in campaigns like the bombing of Yemen, carried out in a way utterly contrary to any civilised rules of war. Selling weapons to a country that is not a Geneva signatory should be UTTERLY past the line. Saudi Arabia's human rights record is vile, worse than Iran. It's a nation that is a primary source of terrorist activity, recruitment, and funding. Oh but they have oil, and they let the US build airbases. Our responsibility as a nation of decent moral standing is to absolutely be there in Saudi Arabia - promoting religious freedom, equal rights for women and LGBT persons, and the growth of democracy. Anything else is utter moral cowardice. Also quite why holding a strong line with Saudi Arabia would cause nobody to want to have anything to do with us I have no idea.



Well, there's a few problems with that. Primarily we're a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The referendum was there to advise MPs on the desires of the electorate. "She has to deliver on said people's democratic will" is factually incorrect.

Even beyond that, the people want brexit, I can reasonably see how it makes sense to go ahead with Brexit. There is, however, no excuse for:
* Absolutely refusing to entertain retaining membership of the single market
* Refusing any form of parliamentary oversight over the plan, the deal, or the process
* Spending a fortune of taxpayer's money in the High Court/Supreme Court in a childish act of petty pride, and losing
* Even entertaining the idea of not having a deal and falling back on WTO trade rules. For an idea of how ridiculous this is, here's an article from Leave HQ (!!) that demonstrates just how catastrophic that would be:
http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128




I just don't buy this. Anyone in politics who isn't there to make the world a better place for its most downtrodden, poor, and victimised is someone who has no right to stand in that democratic chamber.

I am, of course, thinking of Labour's treatment of Livingstone in the light of what he's said and done, and apparently entirely unrepentant? Ergo, their moral fibre and fortitude if you like. The irony being, of course, this as against Corbyn's own laughable schoolboy politics bemoaning of May having anything to do with the freely elected President of the US etc. Man, the stench of abject hypocrisy.

Very well put, Craster.

Um, actually they are. By definition in fact.
Here's the dictionary definition of "idealism", I've added the relevant emphases but the words are unchanged:

1. the unrealistic belief in or pursuit of perfection.
"the idealism of youth"
synonyms: utopianism, wishful thinking, romanticism, fantasizing, quixotism, daydreaming, impracticability

Note unrealistic belief; compromise is all about the achievable and realistic (see also "utopianism", "wishful thinking" and "idealism of youth" - absolutely none of which has any place in grown up, real world management of anything at all, let alone an entire country of 65 million souls, in extremely turbulent and dangerous times)



Except it really isn't, see above.
Idealism - the unrealistic and child-like, utopian pursuit of perfection - has no place whatsoever in government, as stated. You appear to be entirely confusing idealism with having ideals.



It's really not; it's knowing what "idealism" even means.



Actually the most important player in the Middle East is important - politically, strategically and economically. And if you re-read my post, I was including the USA in that too (we shouldn't be dealing with Trump either etc.)
It would be great to live in a world without arms sales, people doing horrible stuff to other people (including gay or LGBT people, or whatever), but we don't. That's what politics is for.



More people voted for Brexit than Remain. That's really all there is to it.
The desires of the electorate were clearly expressed, and the elected government - and Parliament itself - is there to reflect, and act upon, said expressed will of the people. Otherwise why bother having a referendum.



Right, so anyone not buying into your (naive) idealism has no right to stand in a democratic chamber.
You'll forgive me if I think that's rather silly, soz mate.

Couldn't disagree more. Always aim for better than you think you can achieve. Britain should strive to be better, at all times, than is achievable.



Yes. It's for saying "You're better than that, we're better than that". It's for saying "Britain is a proud nation with an incredible, a massive global power, and it is standing here and telling you that your behaviour is utterly unacceptable". Mainly because someone's got to, and who better than the UK? The EU is our biggest market, and we're currently shitting all over them, so I don't buy your 'global reputation' concern at all.



Well no - again, we have a representative democracy. The job of Parliament is to reflect and act on what they think is right for the country. That's utterly fundamental to how the system works. The electorate has their say during a general election.



Of course I'll forgive you for that, and have no issue with the differing opinion. I think it's a shame though.

How about if they're making it worse in the short term but (potentially) better in the long term?

Is there an official parliamentary term for "fingers crossed"?

Brexit.

@Cras

Got to crack on now but I am not, of course, saying we (as a country) should not strive for better things or standards. I am merely pointing out to you that idealism and compromise are binary opposites (because they are, that's a simple matter of plain fact - see posted definition of the term "idealism"). As I've said, you are entirely misunderstanding what "idealism" means, on a most fundamental level, and, further, you are conflating "idealism" with "having [any] ideals".

I'm not normally one to nitpick but this stuff is important and completely fundamental to your misunderstandings here. I like you a great deal as you know, but it's pretty galling to be told, in effect, that I don't want stuff to get better, when I manifestly do (and relatively do quite a lot personally to make it so).

As for your other point about "who better than the UK" to stand up, alone, as against the USA, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and most of Africa whilst we're at it, well, we are NOT the moral policeman of the world. Where is everyone else standing up and being bloody counted..? Oh no, that's right, they're in max-ingratiate-mode and maximising their respective nations' jobs, wealth and prospects. Our politicians would be utterly crazy to now, of all bloody moments (Brexit where we stand alone and call on our friends like we never have done for 50 years minimum) to start kicking off with Trump, Saudi Royal Family and whoever else. It's people's bloody livelihoods at stake here, which will probably be badly affected enough as it is. Honestly, I think you need to get real. Speak in haste, repent at leisure.

Depends on a few things:

1) Will it actually get better in the long term, or is that just a rationale for whatever is being done in the short term?
2) Is there a way of achieving the long term improvement without the short term impact?
3) What's the severity of that short-term impact, and who does it affect?

We have to be the world's moral policemen, if for no other reason then exactly what you said. Where is everyone else?

We're making planes that are being sold so they can drop bombs on Yemeni families, and we're doing it knowingly. There's no possible justification for that, none at all. Fine if you don't want to be the world's policemen, but right now we're the world's drug dealers.

Heh. Mark Reckless rejoins the Tories I see.
What are the odds of Carswell following suit?

Not looking good for Nuttall

Carswell has already gone independent, hasn't he?

The problem is that UKIP want to exist, so they need Brexit to kind of fail and be blamed on the nasty Europeans, so they can storm to power and do it properly, preferably with rhyming slogans.

Yes he is Curio, but it seems conspicuous (to me at least) that he's not ruled out rejoining the Tories and taking the whip (and in fact, pretty much said that's what he's doing in practice now when I caught some of Robert Peston's interview of him and Anna Soubry - all very cosy, I must say).

UKIP are surely a busted flush now.
With Labour lurching ever further leftwards, and May gleefully retaking the entire middle ground, only a *total* Brexit disaster can do for the Tories now.

Man, Blair must be spitting feathers at all of this; the Tories look to be in it for the very long haul indeed here.

Middle ground?

May has made it very clear that her strategy is to take the Conservatives towards centre ground vacated by Labour, and I'd argue that this has been reflected in recent taxation policy, for instance. It's early days (and I doubt anyone here would agree, obv.), but it's definitely the smart move. Nowt to be won at the political extremes, as Labour are painfully discovering (as long predicted here, their leftwards shift has been an unmitigated - now existential - disaster).

They're clearly doing some things right in polling terms at least, seems to be working for the moment.

May said that's what she was going to do in the Party conference, but has then charged in the opposite direction ever since.

I wouldn't call tax/NI rises on the self employed, tax increases on dividends and chucking Osborne's austerity spending targets out of the window hard Right policies - but being honest, Cras, I seriously doubt you'd be happy about anything that she, or the Tories have done, or will do. That's a given.

Notwithstanding, though, my own thoughts/hopes are that the Conservatives (very sensibly) realise that they must reclaim and occupy the One Nation Conservative/patrician centre ground, and keep it.

You're harsh on my views there. I'm highly in favour of a centre-right Tory party. I didn't hate David Cameron. I think May, and more importantly the Tory right that currently has sway over the way May's government acts, are a blight on the party. I think they're headed well away from the direction you or I would both like.

Apologies, didn't want to sound harsh (or rude); in any event, left wing views/politics are just as valid a viewpoint as the right.
Still, good to hear we essentially want the same thing, even from the Tory party.

Bizarrely, the council are wanting to allow a waste incinerator to be built in the Aire Valley, despite objections about the gases it will release, but haven't allowed a biomass boiler for a church objecting to the gases it will release in the area.

Hmmm....wonder which party is in power up your way?

What about the Lib Dem areas? Do they get shat on by both sides?

The inner city is Labour (generally bloc votes), the outlying areas Tory. The council Labour.

Funny, that.

Cras, I always enjoy reading your responses, they seem very well researched and thought out.

It does cause a few raised eyebrows. Shipley MP and all round bogeyman of right thinking people everywhere P Davies, and Keighley MP Kris H want the outlying areas to be separated from the MDC, the view being is a lot of money flows into city centre by people who don't benefit from it as we all go to Leeds, anyway.

Good ol' Labour, pragmatic as ever.
Is there *anything* they're good at?

I sometimes think that the Lib Dems should have pushed for proportional representation in local government elections (as used in Scotland) rather than the AV-referendum back in those halcyon days of the coalition. It would have made local politics far more open than the FPTP system, even those areas with multi-member divisions.

Infighting.

Well to be fair, they are indeed excellent at providing lolz.

IMO, thank heavens they didn't, because if they did we'd be awash with UKIP Councillors.

Why thank you sir. They aren't, but I've made a career out of making it look that way

Not sure Tim Farron is making a smart move by coming out massively in favour of Trump bombing Syria right now. Time may prove me wrong.

I thought the Lib Dems were generally against bombing Middle Eastern countries without UN mandate?

Quite.

A UN mandate isn't a magical badge of moral correctness.

Neither is a petulant numpty starting a war to distract from his unprecedented lack of popularity.

No. But given the permanent security council members it's a helpful indication that your actions aren't about to start WW3.

Pfffft.

Ed Milliband on The Last Leg was brilliant last night.