BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 06:40 PM

"Buck House is mainly an administrative building for the head of state, with offices and function rooms."

Absolutely not the case. Do read the wiki article on Buckingham Palace. You'll be amazed at what goes on there on top of the "administrative" side of things (which could easily be executed in ordinary offices anywhere in the country, by the way). And we pay for it, including the hundreds of millions needed to renovate it. As for the Crown Estate, and those huge "duchies" that Charlie owns, they simply should not exist beyond full nationalised control, and the filthy-rich monarch should not be able to hive off tens or hundreds of millions per annum from them for purposes that are generally hidden from public view and which are dubious at best.

Finally, are you able to tell us what happens to the fifty million that the "royal residences"(gosh, don't they need so many of them! Still, I don't suppose there are too many grouse to shoot at round Buckingham Palace) earned last year?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 06:42 PM

That Charlie or his parasitic offspring owns, I should have said...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 07:36 PM

Steve: hardly any of the "royal assets" ever make the top twenty tourist attractions in this country.

This site gives:
#9 The Tower of London
#11 Buckingham Palace
#12 Windsor Castle

Would you care to let us know where you find your top 20?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 08:01 PM

So your best shot is Buck House at number 11! And we've had this thing about the Tower of London before, haven't we? Would you care to tell us when it was last occupied by any royal? And please don't regale me with the fact that it's the shameful home of the disgusting Crown Jewels...

As for the most popular, it's depends on which website you look things up. The Visit Britain site gives two top ten lists, free ones and paid ones. No royal attraction makes it to either list, not even the Tower if you really insist on having it as a royal attraction, which I heartily dispute. And that website does it by numbers of visitors, not by someone's subjective opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 08:12 PM

That is a bit of a daft presumption, isn't it?

Do you really believe that the draw to the Tower of London is the current members of the royal family? I would have thought that the attraction would be the associations with William the Conqueror, the tudors, imprisonments, tortures and executions, the ravens. In all, distant history - I don;t think the 1940s executions are much of a royal connection. I will concede that the crown jewels is an attraction, but I would dispute id this would a sole reason or even a main reason for visiting the attraction. I would argue that people visit Windsor castle because it is a castle that is accessible and just outside of London. I suppose I should concede regarding Buckingham Palace which would mean that the royal family co contributes to no more than 5% if hospitability and tourism. Also, if the monarchy was abolished, would Buckingham Palace be any less of interest? From my knowledge the Palace of Versailles doesn't suffer in visitor numbers through France being a republic.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 08:25 PM

Good post. Just to reiterate that the Visit Britain website includes neither Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle nor the Tower in either top ten. Though I must say, you did forget the Beefeaters... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:12 AM

In the British constitution (and we do have one, even if it's not set out in a single document) "the Crown" represents what in other countries might be referred to as the State. It includes not only the Sovereign but also the executive (the UK and devolved governments), the legislature (parliament) and the judiciary. Most of the powers of the Crown are exercised by these institutions.

You don't seem to recognise the distinction between Charles as an individual and the position he holds. As an individual is indeed very wealthy (although not exceptionally so - he is only 263 in the Sunday Times Rich List). However as Sovereign he also performs an official role on behalf of the State, and the cost of this should be paid for by the State. These costs don't come out of your or my taxes but from income from property owned by the State.

You call for the Crown Estate to be nationalised. The Crown Estate belongs to the Sovereign, but this means the role rather than the person holding it. In other words, it belongs to the State, and to all intents and purposes has done since the eighteenth century. It is not King Charles's personal property. It is managed by an independent board who are accountable to Parliament, and its profits all go to the Treasury. In what respect is this not nationalised?

The State has overheads, which include the costs of performing the Sovereign's official duties. To repeat myself, the Sovereign Grant is not a personal payment to the King, any more than the £22m or so it costs to run Downing Street are a personal payment to Rishi Sunak.

You may consider some of these costs to be unnecessary or wasteful. That's a perfectly respectable point of view. However in the context of total public spending the amount is trivial, and even if the Sovereign Grant were to be abolished entirely it would make no discernible different to the public finances.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:26 AM

"However in the context of total public spending the amount is trivial"

Perhaps you could arrange for me to have just 10% of the costs of running Downing Street, as you say £2.2 million is a trivial amount. I promise you will never hear me complain ever again.


.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:37 AM

Steve: Good post. Just to reiterate that the Visit Britain website includes neither Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle nor the Tower in either top ten. Though I must say, you did forget the Beefeaters... :-

Nice of you to iterate. But you haven't given a link to your source. Yes 'Visit Britain' can be searched, and their list of attractions is Here
Not only is it false to claim that The Tower doesn't appear, it is listed as No1 in the 'paid' attractions.

So your best shot is Buck House at number 11! And we've had this thing about the Tower of London before, haven't we? Would you care to tell us when it was last occupied by any royal? 1603 apparently

Shifting the goalposts?
hardly any of the "royal assets" ever make the top twenty tourist attractions in this country.

There is a difference between 'royal assets' and assets 'occupied' by royals.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:48 AM

Well I'm not going to argue with you over those technicalities but I'd like to come back at you with two points. First, so he's "only" no 263 on the Sunday Times rich list and you don't think that's exceptional. Well in a country of sixty-odd million people, I think that 263rd richest is exceptionally exceptional. By the way, he's as rich as that because he inherited his riches, not because he worked for them, and his ancestors amassed that wealth over centuries by nefarious means, including taking it from the people, exploiting the labour of the people and indulging in the slave trade. Nice.

Second, you say that the amount is trivial in the overall scheme of things. Apart from the fact that £125 million is hardly what I'd call trivial, it's the principle of the thing. Millions of people in this country, given the choice and the facts of the matter, would probably disapprove of this gift from the nation, but choice in the matter we have not. As for his necessary expenses, etc., which he has the money hundreds of times over to pay for out of his own pocket, he travels everywhere in the lap of luxury and is carted around, not in a J-reg Astra or on Ryanair but in a fleet limousines that has cost us millions and in private jets that are entirely at his disposal. A bit more comfy than my budget flight to Malaga in a few weeks' time, yet I'm giving HIM money and he gives me nothing.

Trivial? Well that bunch of bananas I'm thinking of stealing from Sainsbury's is trivial to Sainsbury's, almost representing a victimless crime. But you wouldn't defend it, would you?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:51 AM

Of course to you or me these are large sums. But in the context of total public spending of £1182 billion a year the £125m Sovereign Grant represents only 0.01%. As I said in a previous post, that's a rounding error.

If every penny of public expenditure were spent effectively then perhaps if the Sovereign Grant were abolished it might make a difference. The fact is that some waste and inefficiencies are inevitable even in the most rigorous organisation, and the public sector does not have a record of rigorous financial controls or efficiencies. The reality is that even if the Sovereign Grant could be entirely abolished it would not enable the government to cut taxes or improve public services. This is why I used the word "trivial".

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:54 AM

Oops, sorry, Nigel. I failed to spot that narrow white strip at the top of the table. That doesn't change my view that the Tower should in no way be regarded as a royal asset. As you point out, it has not be used by the royals for four hundred years except to house their disgusting collection of jewellery, which anyone with even a smidgeon of principle should boycott.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:56 AM

Nice bit of whataboutery there, Howard.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 09:13 AM

That's not really the point Howard. The bloke could easily afford the £125 million a year himself but the government choses to pay it out of taxes raised on everyones income. Including mine and yours. I object most strongly to my meagre income being used to subsidise the 263rd richest person in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 11:33 AM

People aren't normally expected to pay the running costs of doing their job. For example, if a minister travels on official business you'd expect their department to pay for their travel costs regardless of their personal wealth. Why should the King be different? We don't expect Rishi Sunak, who's very nearly as rich, to pay for the costs of Downing Street and its staff out of his own pocket. The Sovereign Grant is actually the budget for running a department of the state. It is not a payment into the King's own pocket for him to use for his own purposes. If the monarchy were to be replaced by an elected president would you expect them to pay for all the costs of official business themselves?

Neither does it come out of your or my taxes. It comes out of the income from property owned by the state. State spending runs at over £3 billion pounds a day, and abolishing the Sovereign Grant would pay for less than an hour of that. That's not going to bring down your or my taxes.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 12:33 PM

It's still money that doesn't rightfully belong to him whether you call it tax or not. I don't equate what he does with a "job", either. And comparing his "expenses" with those of the PM is simply laughable. The PM runs the country and, on the whole, does not indulge at frequent intervals in extravagant pageantry. When the PM resigns or loses an election, he's booted out of Downing Street in summary fashion. That can never be the fate of Charlie apropos of Buckingham Palace or any of his other ill-gotten residences.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 12:56 PM

Doing his job Howard? How does that equate to earning millions from the properties that he inherited from the people who 'acquired' them in various dodgy ways or being paid for doing sweet FA in the running of the country? I would never expect people to pay for doing an honest day's work but you are being very disingenuous suggesting that Charlie is doing either an honest day's work or making money for the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 04:01 PM

The Royal Family carried out around 3000 engagements last year. These included community visits, meeting visiting heads of state, investitures, garden parties etc. It doesn't include the weekly meetings with the PM, approving legislation or other constitutional duties. You may think these unnecessary or pointless pageantry, but successive governments have agreed that these are appropriate activities for the head of state. They are not of a nature which directly generates income for the country, but indirectly they contribute to international relations, and community visits and garden parties help to boost morale within the UK.

If you don't like that, campaign for change to elect a government which will get rid of it, as may happen soon in Australia. However I think you'll find that an elected president has a very similar workload. Take a look at the Irish president's engagements for example and you'll see they are of a very similar nature.

Steve is concerned that the money "doesn't rightfully belong to him", but it goes to him only in the same way as a government department's budget goes to the Secretary of State. The money is to cover the costs of the king's official duties. It doesn't go to the king personally. As far as I am aware he isn't paid a salary for performing these official duties, and his personal expenditure comes out of his private income.

You seem to have an inflated idea of his personal wealth. The Sunday Times Rich List estimates his personal wealth at £600m. That's a very tidy sum, but it's capital, not income. He could not "well afford" to pay £125m a year. Do the sums.

To repeat, these are the facts:

The Crown Estate belongs to the state, it is not the personal property of the monarch. 100% of its profits go to the Treasury, and its board is answerable to parliament. For those calling for it to be nationalised, that has effectively been the position since the eighteenth century.

The Sovereign Grant does not come out of general taxation but from the profits of the Crown Estate.

The Sovereign Grant is to cover the costs of the official duties of the monarch. It does not go to the king personally. It is overseen by trustees who are also answerable to parliament. Any surplus does not go into the king's pocket but to a reserve fund.

The Sovereign Grant amounts to around 0.01% of all public expenditure. Any changes to it either way don't materially affect the public finances. There are many respectable arguments for getting rid of the monarchy, but the cost savings to the public purse would not be noticeable.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 04:28 PM

It's not the cost saving to the public purse. It's the principle. Anyway, you're a dyed-in-the-wool royalist and I'm a republican (small r please). Sadly, the twain are unlikely to meet in this case. I'm sure you're a lovely, jovial fellow. That'll do me.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 05:48 PM

Michael D Higgins, the President of Ireland, earns 250,000 Euro for his role.

I make that 1 500th of the fee.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:04 PM

More facts about the Sovereign Grant that could have Howard shifting uncomfortably from one buttock to the other:

The money pays not just for Charlie's junkets but also for those of a good number of royal hangers-on, identities unspecified. The Queen's funeral and his subsequent coronation cost the taxpayer over £200 million. It's late but I'll keep digging...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 30 Jul 23 - 05:53 PM

Steve:
Imagine this.
We go back to everyone owning their own little plot of land, and using it to grow vegetables (and if they're very lucky to fatten livestock).
If they can't provide for their families just from this, and from trading food for services that they require (work on their habitations, etc.) They will probably end up using someone (further up the 'food chain') to arrange a 'fair' method of exchanging what they can produce for what they need to buy.
Allowing for this intermediary to make some sort of a living from this eventually you'll get a system where those who produce foodstuffs and are providing goods to those who can't, need a middle-man arranging the dealings, and taking a cut.
Eventually the middle-man will expand what he's doing and make a small profit from everyone who he is helping to deal 'what they have' for 'what they want' as people with a product to sell don't always want something that their prospective buyers want to exchange.

Just swap the 'government' or 'the royal family' for the 'middle man'.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Howard Jones
Date: 30 Jul 23 - 06:43 PM

€250,000 is the President of Ireland's salary. That does actually go into his own pocket, whereas as far as I am aware the King does not receive a salary. The cost of running the Office of the President is more than €4.8m. That is of course considerably less than the Sovereign Grant, but it covers the same sort of expenses - staff, office costs, travel etc.

I can't find a figure for the number of engagements the President carries out, but it is probably in the hundreds rather than the 3000 or so carried out by the Royal Family, which as you point out includes those carried out by other working royals as well as the king, so of course the costs are less.

If you like to think of these engagements as "junkets" fair enough, although they seem to be popular with the public. You may wish to replace the monarchy with a republic. but I think you'll find that in many republics the president's role includes similar junkets. I also think you'll find that the state pays for them. Republics also have state funerals and investitures. However I quite understand if you feel there are too many of these junkets and that they're unnecessary.

You say "it's a matter of principle". To me, the principle is that the state should pay for activities carried out on its behalf. However I'll leave it there, as you've clearly made your mind up.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jul 23 - 10:09 AM

The British monarch can't be arrested or be the subject of civil and criminal proceedings, meaning he is effectively exempt from the law. King Charles enjoys sovereign immunity, meaning he can't be prosecuted under a civil or criminal investigation.

HOWEVER I could sue Steve Shaw for defamation or pay to have 4,000 of his internet posts removed but since I use a fictional avatar it complicates matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 23 - 10:24 AM

Everything you do seems fictional Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Jul 23 - 03:48 PM

It’s frictional too, Dave - it certainly rubs some people the wrong way! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 23 - 03:52 PM

BG :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 23 - 05:00 PM

Go ahead, Donuel! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jul 23 - 05:39 PM

As an internet ghost, you aren't worth a pense of legal fees.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Aug 23 - 03:51 AM

Ignoring American attempts to derail this thread, and back to UK Politics - Attila the Stockbroker on FarceBook this morning, finger right on the button as usual…

”The planet is burning and Sunak is issuing new oil and gas licences, ripping up commitments and sending a message to the world that the U.K. doesn’t give a monkey’s. He’s doing it because he thinks it will glean the Tories working class votes. And his excuse is that these new fields will use ‘carbon capture’ technology.

Now I may be wrong, but I seem to remember this phrase from the latter days of the miners’ campaign, when it was posited as a way of keeping pits open while minimising carbon emissions.

Back then of course it was dismissed out of hand, because closing pits and wrecking communities was a Tory ideological class war decision which had nothing to do with climate change concerns - the coal was simply imported from elsewhere.

If it had been implemented then there would have been less carbon in the atmosphere and fewer mining communities destroyed - but destroying mining communities was the Tories’ Thatcherite aim. Back then, they were ‘the enemy within’, and obliterating them was part of a strategy to cut off the head of the trade union movement and destroy organised labour once and for all.

But in this new era, when the right wing tabloids have, incredibly, managed to persuade some of those very same communities to switch sides by blaming ‘immigrants’ for the crimes committed by the Tories, feeding xenophobia and stoking division, re-opening oil and gas fields and granting new mining licences is seen as a strategy to win votes.

And, as before, the climate crisis doesn’t even enter the equation. It’s all just a cynical electioneering strategy.

Close down communities for ideological and electoral reasons, offer them false hope on the same basis. A cynical crime against the planet.”

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Stanron
Date: 01 Aug 23 - 04:58 AM

The planet isn't burning in Clayton Manchester UK. It's colder here than it has been for the last four weeks and five days. 14 degrees C as I write this. Perhaps it's a Guarniad typo and he meant to write " The Lefties are boring".

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 01 Aug 23 - 05:56 AM

Time was when people would complain of unduly cold weather, and I'd say "I blame global warming", meaning climate change shifting the weather patterns around. England's suffering a mild cold spell this week, while much of Europe, and the rest of the world, burns. Be careful what you wish for, Stanron.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Aug 23 - 06:36 AM

Backwoodsman:
If you're going to blockquote some external source could you at least give your opinions on the matter, not just state "finger right on the button"?

For example, do you agree with his comment "because closing pits and wrecking communities was a Tory ideological class war decision"? Are you aware, or is he aware, that more pits were closed under Wilson (Lab.) than under Thatcher (Con.) ?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 01 Aug 23 - 06:51 AM

My memory of the time was that the pits were closing anyway .... but that Maggie Hatchett chose that hill for Arthur Scargill to die on, and he obliged her.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Aug 23 - 06:59 AM

My opinion of the miners’ strike and its aftermath is that the miners were cannon-fodder in a war of opposing political ideologies conducted by two crackpots.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Aug 23 - 07:49 AM

And “Finger right on the button” was my opinion, Nigel. No need to write ‘War and Peace’, that’s the speciality of others on the forum.

FWIW, the difference between pit-closures during Wilson’s tenure and those of the Thatcher years is the matter of intent and purpose - in the case of the Wilson closures, the intent was to make the coal industry operate more efficiently and thereby ensure its continuation, whereas Thatcher’s intent - as Attila pointed out correctly in his piece - was to break the trade-unions, emasculate worker-power, and destroy the industry. It was a vicious, politically-driven, ideological enterprise, and a major part of the Tory Class-war of that period.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Aug 23 - 07:52 AM

Apologies, pressed the ‘Go’ button before I added the disclaimer -

“As always, the standard disclaimer applies - IMHO, and YMMV.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 23 - 07:52 PM

Anyone wanna buy a third-hand defunct barge, seats 500, or possibly none...? And has anyone seen Suella recently?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Aug 23 - 03:19 AM

They should tow it up the Thames and moor it by the Palace of Westminster. Then it could be used to house MPs, and save the taxpayer a fortune by removing the opportunity for those ‘second-home’ flip-flop scams they seem to love so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Rain Dog
Date: 14 Aug 23 - 08:01 AM

"Anyone wanna buy a third-hand defunct barge, seats 500, or possibly none...?"

I was not aware that the owners were looking to sell.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Aug 23 - 08:53 AM

If they find anything else wrong with it, it'll be scrap value only. By the way, even if it fills right up it will hold just 1% of asylum seekers. Anyone got another 99 going spare?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Rain Dog
Date: 14 Aug 23 - 09:14 AM

Scrap value only? Your best joke yet.

Once they have cleared up the Legionella bacteria problem I am sure that there will still be a use for it somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Aug 23 - 09:51 AM

I think Cruella is looking to buy it and make a quick profit. Probably sell it to Rwanda...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 14 Aug 23 - 10:01 AM

Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.
                                 -- H. L. Mencken

The purpose of the barge is not to house asylum seekers: it's to provide headline fodder about a moral panic they stirred up in the first place.

.... Hm: It's been reported that the political "silly season" went away. *bzzt* Wrong: it's silly season the year round.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Sep 23 - 11:03 AM

Well still no planes full of refugees to Rwanda and still no asylum seekers on the barge. So Cruella goes to the US, gives a speech to a right-wing think-tank in which she disses the 70-year-old UN refugee convention and does a nice bit of dog-whistling to her disreputable fellow-travellers about women and gay people seeking refuge too lightly. Cruella for PM! (which is clearly what she's after).

Now Fishi Rishi has sanctioned drilling for oil in Rosebank, the biggest undeveloped oilfield in the North Sea - and stodgy Starmer has said he won't revoke the licence when he gets in. A disastrous Sunak decision, coming on top of his rowing back of other environmental policies last week, and one which Starmer could have stopped in its tracks. In the words of Corporal Fraser, we're all doomed...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 30 Sep 23 - 08:30 AM

Short quote from this week's New European, from Tanit Koch's "Germanspaining" column:

With the far-right AfD polling well above 20%, the public discourse has changed drastically. So former Bundenpräsident Joachim Gauck took the lead. He doesn't want to leave it to the extremists, who never solve problems because they live off them.

.... I've never heard the problem with extremists stated so concisely before.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 02:24 AM

So how do we translate that to UK politics? The far right groups we had here never had serious high poll ratings but they frightened the mainstream parties enough to move them further right than they have been in my voting lifetime. We now have a Labour Party that are vaguely pink, Liberals that align themselves with Tories and Tories that want to implement NF policies. How can we hope to recentre things?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 06:42 AM

Populism is alive and well at the Tory conference, judging by Coutinho’s and Harper’s speeches - in particular, lots of Labour-slagging and Harper declaring the Conservative Party to be ‘The pro-car Party’.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 07:25 AM

DtG the problem has been that for the last 13 years there has been a movement of the centre ground of politics increasingly to the right. We would all love to have radical socialist policies in place, but what was eft of centre 13 years ago are far left to where the political centre is now.

Labour cannot regain power until it has reclaimed the centre-ground, and then, and only then, it can start to move the pendulum back towards the left.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Oct 23 - 07:40 AM

100!