DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived post-Murdoch era

"Living on an Island" is not only a number one jam but a pretty acute pisstake of UK2K13 tbh

hang on, some people really believe that a labour govt would have been worse than the coalition? and that all the recent cross-party arguments about austerity, taxation, etc was a big ruse to get them back so they can stamp *even* harder on the poor than the right? this kind of patter belongs on youtube comments, not here.

sure, labour aren't this knight in shining armour who'll completely save the country but they're the best option and if you really think folding your arms in a big sulk and not voting and letting the tories gallop all over us is the best option we have then pm me, ive got a one way ticket to toytown with your name on it

what was that quote i read the other day, re:'one no better than the other’ logic: "such false equivalencies are beloved by the lazy, the aloof, the cowardly."

oh, that's why these cunts keep moving further and further to the right

still, at least they're less aggressively racist/classist than the Tories

feel ashamed about sulking now

it's okay russell will cuddle you better

i was gonna post some Labour party policies so i cd be sarcastic about them but i can't find any

they invited me to Get Involved tho which was nice

oh and there was a bunch of stuff about setting up a British Investment Bank which shd do dynamite on the doorsteps

i think ilx needs to start a new party

so, what's on the list for an ideal government?
1 fair society
2 inclusive society
3 make lots of cash as a nation (is this important?)
4 do the above without fucking over other nations (yes? possible?)

3 seems to be the driving force of a lot of the negative stuff

5. Also don't fuck over future generations / penguins

BUILD SOME FUCKING HOUSES

Labour win Dunfermline from the SNP for Holyrood. http://www.scottishelections.org.uk/scotland/hby/dunfermline.php

From a by-election caused by the imprisonment of the former SNP candidate for being a serial wife beater, so I wouldn't read too much into it

Welllllll if a Tory got thrown into pris for something similar, it wouldn't change the electorate in that constit.

Think a few more might vote UKIP but you could be right. Also this story was all over the Scottish press for months on end, questions in Parliament, the lot - even if no-one in England has heard of it.

What is this 'Scotland' of which you speak?

Well it used to be part of something called the United Kingdom (I know, silly name) until they had a referendum sometime next year

Also, having relatives in the area, I understand the Labour candidate's major policy was to run a consultation of keeping three schools open and this is what most locals think won her the election.

The same three schools she voted to close when she was in the council back in May this year, separately voted against an SNP effort to have a public consultation on, and ridiculed parents petitioning for the decision to be reviewed as single issue local nutters in the press.

She sounds tailor made for politics.

Something we started that might interest some on this thread: https://www.facebook.com/spoilyourvoteuk

Looks like the government has lost its appeal over the Poundland/workfare thing, which makes this the second time in two days they've lost an appeal on some back-of-a-fag-packet policy that turned out to be totally illegal.

What was the other one?

Something we started that might interest some on this thread: https://www.facebook.com/spoilyourvoteuk

― Pingu Unchained (dog latin), Monday, 28 October 2013 11:56 (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Aw I was gonna put something like this into my novel :D

Good idea but I think it could go further. How, I don't know.

The other one was the failed Lewisham Hospital appeal.

Conflicted about spoilt ballot papers, on one hand you're protesting about the legitimacy of the system, on the other hand are there really no smaller parties that overlap with most of your views - Socialist/Green/whatever? Not voting for minority parties you broadly agree with further delegitimises the system by entrenching the power of the main parties.

I got involved with the Young Greens and was overwhelmed by how a) useless they were and b) interested in themselves as politically ambitious individuals they were

That's the same with the youth wing of any political party dude.

The system is already manifestly illegitimate and does not require saving, obv

I mean the real issue is that millions of people don't vote because they don't feel represented by the main parties. Not to suggest that they're an amorophous mass, but if the free market actually worked then something would have arisen to represent those voters - outside of UKIP/EDL right-wing populism.

Is it just my own hypersensitivity or am I right to be annoyed about government agencies in 'defiant' mode after, say, High Court or Supreme Court decisions against them? Way to set an example to law-abiding hardworking people, eh?

Wow look at the DWP Twitter feed right now.

@dwppressoffice 42m
We’re pleased that Supreme Court has unanimously upheld our right to require claimants to take part in programmes which help them into work

@dwppressoffice 42m
Esther McVey: we’ve always said it was ridiculous to say that our schemes amounted to forced labour - yet again we have won this argument
Expand

@dwppressoffice 41m
Supreme Court confirms DWP is able to require claimants to take part in employment programmes that will help them into jobs

even if you are in favour of this transparently vile scheme you still ought to be dismayed by the dwp actively propagandizing for policies rather than just implementing them

I think that's one of those do-I-agree-with-them? things. ISTR the Dept of Health losing some initial battles over setting up the NHS, and I'd be happy if they were defiant/propagandizing over that.

But I'm stretched to agree w/myself here, because they're being manifest cunts.

I mean, it's understandable for the government minister of the day to adhere to party line, but I object when what are supposed to be impartial civil servants post clearly partisan things on social media, or mouth off in statements.

Gove

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BX0AKVdIQAA4v1i.png

the conservative party in its current incarnation is less interested in adhering to constituional or informal convention and more concerned with rationalizing leadership structures, the trad civil service is sclerotic and requires streamlining via a biddable hierarchy who force things through institutional inertia, if the career functionaries don't agree with what their doing then get someone from the private sector who does

there's short odds on a single article or op-ed or even a shitty blog in the times telegraph etc objecting to the dwp street-teaming this

long odds obv

Your knowledge of probability qualifies you for a job in the Cabinet.

gonna draw a box on my ballot paper, write 'nakhchivan' next to it, then ✓

next thing we know britain is constitutionally subject to azerbaijan

there's a lot of uk interest in azerbaijan right now, friendly caspian autocracy with petrochem supply that isn't russian or arab

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/sep/19/bp-azerbaijan-100bn-dollars-gas-deal/print

hatcat marnell (suzy) wrote this on thread DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived post-Murdoch era on board I Love Everything on 30-Oct-2013

I mean, it's understandable for the government minister of the day to adhere to party line, but I object when what are supposed to be impartial civil servants post clearly partisan things on social media, or mouth off in statements.

aldi young dudes (suzy) wrote this on thread DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived post-Murdoch era on board I Love Everything on 25-Jul-2013

For those too lazy to click:
a friend complained about the #racistvan; her report is well worth a read:
"I just spoke to the Home Office via their text-callback service about the 'GO HOME OR FACE ARREST' billboards. Very interesting conversation with the woman working there: she recorded my complaint, warned me that notes of complaint via that route were being binned and quietly gave me the official Home Office complaints address: Home Office, Direct Communications Unit, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF.
"Then she told me she and her colleagues felt the message was counterproductive and would increase fear, making it less possible for destitute migrants or people who might want to claim asylum to approach the HO for help - and she said she'd raised this with the PCS and was hopeful that the union would respond. So, in summary, even the Home Office's own staff don't want to deal with the fallout of this campaign."

the latter of these, if one is to focus on what is or isn't a 'civil servant's job', is a far more egregious breach of what is expected/acceptable.

like stet said, i think- depends on whether or not you agree with the implementation/design issue at hand.

a public/civil servant who won't go to bat for their own department's policy has an admirable lack of concern for their prospects of continued service.

You don't really need the difference between those two instances explained to you, do you? And no, it has nothing to do with which of them you agree with.

Conflicted about spoilt ballot papers, on one hand you're protesting about the legitimacy of the system, on the other hand are there really no smaller parties that overlap with most of your views - Socialist/Green/whatever? Not voting for minority parties you broadly agree with further delegitimises the system by entrenching the power of the main parties.

― Matt DC, Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:14 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I got involved with the Young Greens and was overwhelmed by how a) useless they were and b) interested in themselves as politically ambitious individuals they were

― light will have borne the eternal thing (imago), Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:16 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

What we're most concerned with are people who don't go out and vote. When only 12% of 18-25 y/os voted in the last election it means they get the shortest shrift when it comes to government decisions. If (especially) younger voters are seen to be indifferent to policy, there's not really much in the way of defending against huge rises in tuition fees and other such rubbish. If all 6m who didn't vote (through apathy, disgust, indifference, insecurity or otherwise) either went out and picked a candidate or spoilt their ballot, at least it would be counted. Not sure what it would achieve, but it would be significant enough for people to take notice and question where things are right now.

AFAIK there aren't really a whole lot of left-wing or alternative parties in my area. It also feels (to me) that many of the ones that are out there come across as rather ineffective, too bogged down in lefty infighting, old-school "comradery" and CCCP-esque imagery to present a serious challenge to the mainstream parties. Asking for equality and fairness shouldn't be seen as a radical or dangerous idea, but the more pompous and doctrinaire the left becomes, the more it pushes people away.

Essentially what we're saying is - you don't have to choose a side if you don't want to, but you do have the option of spoiling your vote, which in a democratic system is better than not voting at all.

Darragh, you clearly have a reading and comprehension problem wrt my posts above:

I am not alone in being fed up with inappropriately snarky or 'defiant' outbursts by public servants who ignore an obligation to conduct themselves in a non-divisive, professional manner when dealing with members of the public they serve. Some of the worst examples take place on social media, where people are tweeting in an official capacity, for all to see.

The Home Office worker in your second grab was giving a caller the correct by-the-book information, rather than directing that caller in a disingenuous way so their complaint would disappear. She may have commiserated with the caller in so doing, but her actions and directions were correct and honest: whenever there is a media push around 'illegal migrants' it only creates fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst those of us who have migrated here to live. It can be measured in polls of those affected. There's also the small matter of the complainant's perspective in relating the conversation.

As to the voting thing, Labour need only look at its reduced majority post-Iraq if they really want to know where all the votes went.

Also only an idiot would fail to recognise the difference between one employee going privately off-message and the government effectively changing the remit of the institution so its job is to street-team partisan policies and spread deliberate face-saving misinformation. Obviously this happened under Labour as well but has arguably become worse as the importance of social media has grown.

I've never voted in a general election. Even way back in the day when I was a least a little interested in who was going to govern the country voting would have been pointless because of the constituency in which I live. Even in '97 when Blair was sweeping the nation the Conservatives won by more than 24% over the LibDems here. I probably would have voted under PR at some point in the last 20 years. Now, I'm not so sure.

I object when what are supposed to be impartial civil servants post clearly partisan things on social media, or mouth off in statements.

"Impartiality" in the civil service is not about not taking sides, but about supporting the government of the day regardless of their political persuasion or policies. Supporting policies you disagree with goes with the job.

This line does cloud things though

"You must not:
• act in a way that unjustifiably favours or discriminates against particular individuals or interests."

Dunno how you do that and impartially implement government policy when the policy favours and/or discriminates.